Ethics Awareness Inventory the Individual Ethics Awareness

Ethics Awareness Inventory

The Individual Ethics Awareness Inventory examines which of four different components is the most critical in an individual's ethical position: character, obligation, results, and equity (CORE). When a person makes a decision or analyzes a scenario, their personal ethical perspective helps determine how they approach the issue. When character is the most important issue, the person's ethical perspective s based upon what it is good to be, rather than what it is good to do (Brody, 2007). People who emphasize character believe that moral excellence is the goal, and that judging morality involves looking beyond actions and examining character (Brody, 2007). When obligation is the most important issue, the person is focused upon the obligation to do what is morally correct (Brody, 2007). People who focus on obligation believe that a set of identifiable ethical principles, involving universality and a respect for human dignity, drive the decision-making process (Brody, 2007). When results are most important, the individual does not examine the motivations of the actors, but the results of the actions (Brody, 2007). Finally, when a person is based in equity, they are looking for stability (Brody, 2007). This stability refers to stability in results, rather than actions, because people with an equitable perspective believe that no set decision will be appropriate in all scenarios (Brody, 2007).

My ethical profile is most closely aligned with character, and least closely aligned with equity. This means that when I am in a position to make ethical decisions, I answer the ethical questions surrounding the issue based upon character considerations. I look at who the decision will effect, what the ramifications will be, whether the action is right or wrong, and the character of the person taking the actions. One of the pitfalls of examining character rather than results is that good people with good intentions can sometimes create horrible things. For example, Alfred Nobel, an undeniable genius who invented a very destructive tool that could be used as a weapon, developed the Nobel prize as a way of attempting to make-up for the destruction he unintentionally brought into the world. Likewise, Robert Oppenheimer came to regret his work on the atomic bomb, despite his feelings, at the time, that its creation would lead to a reduction in war-time casualties. As a person who examines character first, I would find both of these men to have acted ethically, even though there is no doubt that their actions led to horrific consequences.

The CORE component with which I identify the least is equity. I disagree with the idea that there is no set of consistent ethical beliefs and guidelines that should guide individuals. I believe in the idea of a consistent morality and that people can be divided into good people and bad people. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to embrace the flexibility that many people with an equity perspective embrace. To someone like me, the morally correct outcome may demand an inherent instability because it is a somewhat rigid approach to ethical problems.

Looking at my ethical approach, I do not believe that my formal education has actually had a significant impact on my ethical approach. Instead, I feel like my ethical approach is still largely guided by my feelings rather than my intellect. This is not to say that I feel like my ethical approach is somehow ineffective. I personally feel like people intellectualize ethical matters too much. That is not to say that outside factors such as laws, professional rules, and ethical guidelines should not help inform a person about what is or is not an ethical decision. There are many instances when a person does not have an innate internal reaction regarding the ethical appropriateness in an action; they must consult outside sources for a feeling. However, I also feel that a person has to use his or her own internal compass to determine whether something is ethical or unethical. History is full of examples of behavior that was illegal but deeply morally correct and behavior that was legal and deeply immoral. Examining the United States policies towards African-Americans, one sees a tremendous conflict between prevailing ethical norms and legal standards and the true morality of the scenario. Therefore, I feel like it is critical for people to be able to look inside at their own inner morality to be able to answer a question.