Assessment of Alternatives
Purpose
Evaluate the ethical strengths and weaknesses of each proposed alternative using stakeholder perspectives and moral reasoning.
Key Concepts
Not all alternatives are equally ethical, even if they appear practical or profitable. This step helps you evaluate your options by applying multiple ethical perspectives, known as ethical lenses. These lenses help you uncover potential biases and think more critically about fairness, impact, and values.
Here are five key lenses to apply:
- Utilitarianism: What produces the greatest good for the most people?
- Justice: Are outcomes distributed fairly?
- Care Ethics: Are relationships and vulnerabilities respected?
- Virtue Ethics: What would a good person or company do in this situation?
- Categorical Imperative: What do the rules state should be done? What is the right thing to do?
In Practice
Example Scenario
At NexaTech, the leadership team is weighing four options:
- Full closure of the call centre: maximizes savings but harms employees and the community.
- Hybrid AI-human model: balances innovation with staff retention.
- Phased transition with retraining: delays savings, supports employees.
- Community job partnership: adds costs, boosts reputation, and long-term loyalty.
Applying the utilitarian lens, the hybrid model seems most beneficial to most stakeholders. Using the justice lens, the phased approach supports fairness for long-term employees. The common good lens favours the community partnership, while the virtue lens points to transparency and integrity in handling change.
Tips and Tools
- Use a comparison chart with columns for each ethical lens.
- Include a stakeholder impact column for each option.
- Ask: Which values are prioritized? Which stakeholders are protected or at risk?
Ethical Lens Decision Matrix
Different ethical lenses highlight different values. The table below shows how six ethical perspectives—Rights, Justice, Utilitarianism, Common Good, Virtue, and Care Ethics—can be used to evaluate four alternatives in the NexaTech scenario. Use this as a model for comparing options in your own ethical decision-making.
| Theory | 1. Full closure of the call center | 2. Hybrid AI-human model | 3. Phased transition with retraining | 4. Community job partnership |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilitarianism | Maximizes efficiency and profit, but harms a specific group. | Benefits most stakeholders by keeping jobs and cutting some costs. | Moderate benefits for all; longer path to efficiency. | Costs more but builds long-term goodwill. |
| Ethics of Caring | Ignores employee relationships and community ties. | Shows empathy for employees while adapting to market trends. | Builds trust and maintains relationships. | Prioritizes care and respect for vulnerable groups. |
| Justice | Unfair treatment of rural workers; no equitable alternatives offered. | Balances fairness with modernization. | Gives employees time and resources to adapt; fair process. | Distributes impact fairly by offering job creation support. |
| Virtue Ethics | Lacks compassion and accountability; prioritizes profit. | Demonstrates responsible innovation and care. | Shows commitment to ethical leadership and loyalty. | Exhibits virtues of stewardship and community focus. |
| Categorical Imperative (Kantian Ethics) | Violates the rights of long-term employees to job security. | Respects basic employment rights while integrating tech. | Supports rights through retraining and transition programs. | Strengthens community and employee rights to opportunity. |
Next Step
You’ve just completed an essential part of the ethical decision-making process. Taking the time to work through this thoughtfully ensures a stronger foundation for the choices that follow. Ethical decisions are rarely simple; they require careful attention to detail, values, and context.
When you’re ready, continue to the next part of the process.
Proceed to the next section: STAGE 4. TAKE ACTION →
