ABSTRACT
There is little doubt thal lhc usc of various deci sion-making models can considerabl y enhance ethi cal di scern men t. These approaches typicall y focus on step-by-step techniques, stages in decision-making, and/or sels of principlcsror example, Nash's (2010) twelve steps, Blanchard and Peale's ( 1988) three questions, and Josephson's ( 1992) three principles . [n so doi ng, the e thical dimensions of an issue can be ex plored and potential solutions identified. The seductiveness of such tools is ev ident as thei r usc is superior to r igid rules, self-interest, andlor sheer opportuni sm. Indeed, thi s study employs one of these Icc hniqucs to examine a casco
These same methods, however, have sign ificant lim itations as few have questioned the assumptions underlying them. Phil osoph ical ethics ex plains how rational people should act at the expe nse of how real human beings actually do behave. Implicit in the traditional approach i s that people will recognize e thi cal dilemmas and how they should then act. Yet if the goal of deci sion theory is to predict conduct, it is not always useful to ask people, or offer prescri ptions about, what they might do. Instead, behav ioral ethics, drawing from psychology, is less interested in prescriptions and more focused on descriptions of how indi vidual s really act. With that knowledge, researchers wi ll be better positioned to suggest ways to encourage eth ical conduct.
