Describe about a time you were unable to live up to a value or values that are important to you. The purpose of this question is not to make people feel badly for something they did, but to reflect on how all of us have experienced challenges to behaving in ways that are always entirely consistent with what is important to us, and to think about how and why this happened. 1. Why do you consider this event to represent a time when you were unable live up to your values? Which value(s) was(were) compromised? 2. What pressures or opportunities pulled you off course? 3. How did you understand your actions at the time? Did you employ any mechanisms of moral disengagement to facilitate your actions? 4. In retrospect, what would you have done differently? And how could you bolster yourself against the inevitable pull to do something similar again? Note that I am not interested in judging your actions or response to them. I am trying to create an opportunity to initiate a continuous improvement orientation in each of us. These assignments are completely confidential. Your response does not need to be longabout 2 pages of single spaced 12 point Times New Roman text. The goal is reflection, not regurgitation. You should make sure that you draw on course concepts in your reflection. You will pass this assignment as long as there is evidence that you have reflected sincerely and used course concepts. We treat in-groups and out-groups differently, particularly when those differences are salient One's circle of moral regard (To whom does one owe dignity, respect, fairness, honesty, or whatever value is important to you?) Expanding your circle of moral regard Idealism oIdealists believe that moral actions should and do have positive consequences, and that it is always wrong to pursue a course of action that will harm others Relativism oRelativists believe that the morality of an action depends upon the particular circumstances involved and not on moral absolutes "Everybody has their own ethics" What does this mean? A claim based on evidence: oSocial norms differ depending on social contexts A claim based on principle: oWe cannot judge the moral content of anyone's actions [unless they come from our own context] Normative claim Social norms differ depending on social contexts (empirical claim) oSocial norms are often not reflective of social values Corruption at an individual level often stems from desperation oDifference in custom (social norms) does not necessarily mean difference in values (moralities) Prescriptive claim We cannot judge anyone's actions [unless they come from our own context] oAs an appeal for tolerance, this claim is attractive... "We ought to respect all moral judgments as equally valid" But self-refuting (it contains a universal prescription) oAs an appeal for the impossibility of judgment, we need to be careful what this implies... (moral nihilism) "One cannot make valid judgments about anyone else's actions" All cultural practices become immune from criticism, including extremes (i.e. genocide), and our own

Obstacles to good behaviour

Problem #1 Goals cause us to neglect all else, goals work but also cause problems They anchor us We will do anything to meet them Striving for quantity can affect quality We may focus on goals alone and neglect all else Solutions Typical approach; Get the incentive system right Alternative approach; All goals will pervert process and focus all attention on meeting them

Problem #2 What perspective are we taking on the problem? Solution Typical approach; Stating and reinforcing our "strongly held" values Alternative approach; Acknowledging our frequent failure to act in alignment with them

Problem #3 What is propelling us? Speed propels us Social pressure propels us Culture propels us Group pressure influence Culture influence The environment influences Professional identity condition: Solutions Typical approach; Professionals are objective and will follow their accepted standards Alternative approach; People will follow others of high power/status/unanimity