How Good People Make Tough Choices — Resolution Principles (Key Concepts from the Notes)
Page 5
Chapter Seven introduces Resolution Principles in journalism ethics. The daily news environment is fraught with ethical dilemmas because news deals with real people and real events. Small shifts in nuance can have large consequences (votes, confidences, livelihoods, revenge).
Journalism, when done right, builds bridges, shares knowledge, provokes new revelations, and spurs constructive change. When done poorly, it can be dangerous and destructive.
A worthwhile story left unpublished can carry social/economic costs (lost opportunity) and political costs (undetected chicanery). Democracy is closely tied to journalism.
A famous quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson: if forced to choose, he would prefer newspapers with government over government without newspapers (emphasizing the centrality of a free press).
Good journalism hinges on good sources. This is true not only for reporters gathering the news but also for editors deciding which issues to pursue and which stories to print. Editors rely on top-level sources (political, corporate, cultural, educational leadership) that shape opinion and agendas.
Central dilemma for editors: balancing deep community knowledge and engagement with the need for detached, impartial reporting. This tension frames the ethical questions editors face daily.
Page 6
The tension between belonging to the community and maintaining objectivity: editors should be deeply committed to their communities and know them well, yet they should weigh hotly contested claims with cool, dispassionate impartiality.
Katherine Fanning’s case study (Anchorage Daily News; later The Christian Science Monitor; president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors) is used to illustrate a truth-versus-loyalty dilemma.
The scenario: A banked investigator’s son is suspected of arson; the Daily News has confidential sources about the investigation but not corroborated documents or on-record sources; a grand jury indictment is expected; U.S. attorney’s letter indicates the target status; there are tapes but no source willing to go on the record.
Editors consider publishing: would require attribution to “Daily News sources” only; the risk of harming innocent family members; the fear of being scooped by competition; the editor notes it has already taken months to verify through multiple sources.
Frank Reed Sr., the father, pleads not to publish because his son might be framed; he has supported the paper in the past; the editor recognizes the tension between loyalty to a community member and duty to the public’s right to know.
The newsroom is divided; the executive editor wants publication; the editor questions timing (why now?), and whether official confirmation or on-record sources are available; the editor asks Don Hunter for input; the decision point is a high-stakes truth-versus-loyalty moment.
Page 7
The dilemma intensifies as deadline approaches. The editor asks: why can’t we wait for the indictment? A response: “Because we’ve sat on the story for months, and the competition may publish first.” Frank Reed Sr. claims his son would be framed and believes there is no indictment.
The editor reflects on past support from Reed Sr. and the potential personal cost of publishing: harming Reed Jr.’s life, the family, and children—especially given Reed Sr.’s prior civic leadership and financial support to keep the Anchorage Daily News afloat.
The editor considers a possible compromise: delay publication, seek official confirmation, or attempt to get someone on the record; but there is skepticism about obtaining official on-record confirmation.
The newsroom atmosphere: “Daggers” and a potential loss of respect if the editor gives in to pressure; the editor weighs personal loyalty against public accountability.
The decision is framed as a truth-versus-loyalty dilemma of the first intensity, with publication vs. delay and the risk of harming individuals.
Page 8
The resolution process is outlined: gather relevant information, explore alternatives (get on the record, hold the story, etc.), and, if facts remain unambiguous, seek guidance from a moral principle to resolve the dilemma.
Three Principles for Resolving Dilemmas are introduced as common, familiar approaches:
1) Ends-based thinking: “Do what’s best for the greatest number of people” (utilitarianism).
2) Rule-based thinking: “Follow your highest sense of principle” (rule-based, deontological).
3) Care-based thinking: “Do what you want others to do to you” (the Golden Rule).These principles are widely recognized and arise naturally from everyday experience, with roots in moral philosophy and religious instruction, but they are not the only possible approaches.
Ethics is framed as the concept of what one ought to do, not what regulation requires or what nature compels.
Page 9
A detailed introduction to Ends-Based Thinking (Utilitarianism): the greatest good for the greatest number is the guiding idea. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism (teleological: focusing on the end results of actions).
The tradition traces from:
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832): first systematic utilitarianism; happiness as the measure; pains and pleasures weighed to assign relative values.
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873): refined Bentham; some pleasures are more desirable/valuable; greatest happiness includes the happiness of all concerned; impartiality is required.
Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900): introduced axioms of practical reason: prudence, benevolence, justice.
Utilitarianism branches into two main forms:
Act utilitarianism: maximize the good for each action.
Rule utilitarianism: follow rules that maximize benefit.
Both forms hinge on assessing consequences; rightness is determined by outcomes, not motives or the rules used to reach them.
In modern policy-making, utilitarianism heavily informs assessments of future consequences and extrapolates current data to predict effects. Personal utilitarian calculus weighs alternative futures to maximize the overall good and determine the scope of beneficiaries.
Criticisms of utilitarianism include:
Difficulty in foreseeing all consequences; humans are poor at predicting outcomes.
The potential to justify extreme harms (e.g., sacrificing innocents for the supposed greater good) in extreme scenarios.
Challenges in defining and measuring the “greatest number” and the “greatest good.”
Page 10
Continuation of the utilitarian discussion, including further criticisms of the approach and examples illustrating potential moral pitfalls.
The text emphasizes that utilitarianism is not a perfect guide and invites scrutiny of foreseeability and fairness across large populations.
Page 11
Introduction to Rule-Based Thinking (Deontological Ethics, Kantian): focus on duties and universalizable maxims rather than outcomes.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: moral worth is in the maxim guiding an action, not in the consequences. The key formulation:
\text{I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.}The idea is to act according to rules that could be universalized, i.e., rules one would want everyone to follow in similar circumstances.
Critics argue that strict universalization can be too rigid, failing to account for context, exceptions, and evolving human needs. Examples are used to illustrate potential conflicts between universal rules and real-world complexities.
Page 12
Further elaboration on Kantian ethics and its potential rigidity. The text discusses the tension between universal rules and real-world exceptions (e.g., promises, the need to prevent harm).
The critique centers on whether strict universal rules can accommodate the nuance and variability of human situations.
Page 13
Introduction to Care-Based Thinking (Golden Rule): “Do to others what you would want them to do to you.” Also called the care-based principle because it centers on caring for others by placing oneself in their position.
The Golden Rule is widespread across cultures and religions (Christian, Jewish, Islamic traditions; Confucianism; Hinduism; Buddhism; Taoism; Zoroastrianism; etc.).
It is described as a criterion of reversibility and is rooted in the idea that actions should consider the perspective and interests of others, not just self-interest.
Critics (notably Kant) argue that the Golden Rule is too simplistic to serve as a sole guide to ethics or as a universal rule; it may be derivative or insufficient on its own for specific moral decisions.
The text also highlights that the Golden Rule supports both limiting harm and promoting the interests of others and can be complemented by other frameworks.
Page 14
The Veil of Ignorance (Rawls): a thought experiment to ensure impartial ethical decision-making.
Rawls asks decision-makers to imagine they are behind a veil of ignorance: they do not know their own class, status, wealth, intelligence, strength, or upbringing; they lack knowledge about which position they will occupy in society.
With this ignorance, decision-makers choose principles impartially, using the fairest and most universal standards available, since they could end up in any position in society.
The concept is closely tied to the reversibility criterion and is designed to prevent biased or self-interested judgments.
The text notes practical limitations: deciding which “other” to put in someone else’s shoes is difficult when multiple stakeholders are involved.
Rawls’s framework is especially valuable for policy-makers when evaluating regulations from a global or universal standpoint.
Page 15
Recap of applying the three principles to Fanning’s dilemma:
1) Ends-based (utilitarian) application: weighing public interest versus personal loyalty.
2) Rule-based (Kantian) application: considering which rule should be universalized in journalism ethics.
3) Care-based (Golden Rule) application: considering the impact on Frank Reed Sr., Reed Jr., and other affected individuals, including the broader community.
Page 16
Application of rules for Journal experiment
Ends-based application to Fanning: greatest good for the greatest number likely favors publication (safeguarding the public’s right to know and upholding First Amendment principles; the public interest outweighs the potential harm to Reed Jr. and his family).
Rule-based application to Fanning: identify the highest applicable rule (e.g., “Always publish the truth” vs. “Always protect the innocent”). The practical difficulty is determining which rule should govern universally in this case.
Care-based application to Fanning: consider Frank Reed Sr. and the broader human impact; the decision may be guided by compassion and a desire to avoid harming a family, though not at the expense of justice or truth.
The outcome in Fanning’s story, as described, is that she ultimately bases her decision on the rule-based and care-based guidelines, holding the story rather than rushing to publish. The emotional and moral reasoning leads to delaying the publication; eventually, Reed Jr. is indicted a week later, and the newsroom secures the scoop first.
Page 17
The decision by Fanning is summarized: she chose to Hold the story, reversing the executive editor, prioritizing not harming an individual’s life over beating the competition.
The justification emphasizes: (a) the public interest requires careful timing and verification; (b) personal indebtedness should be irrelevant to the principle involved; (c) the decision would ideally be same even if the father were unknown; (d) the outcome was that the indictment came a week later, validating the cautious approach in hindsight.
The text emphasizes that the highest principle was not merely to beat the competition but to avoid irreparably harming an innocent or near-innocent person, and to consider the timing of the publication.
Page 18
Transition to examples illustrating the application of the three principles (Ends-based, Rule-based, Care-based).
The resolution process is not a simple mechanical calculation but a deliberate reflection to identify a moral direction when information is incomplete or ambiguous.
Page 19
The Trooper’s Dilemma (Chapter Three, pp. 57–58) is reprinted here to discuss the real-time application of the principles.
Scenario: A state trooper arrives at a wreck; a driver is trapped in a burning cab and screams for help; the driver asks to be shot to end his suffering; the trooper contemplates killing to relieve suffering but is constrained by law and ethics.
The dilemma: short-term relief (shooting the driver to end suffering) vs. long-term preservation of life and the prohibition against killing.
The problem is framed as a justice-versus-mercy dilemma: mercy argues for killing to stop suffering; justice demands adherence to laws that prohibit murder.
The trooper has to decide under extreme time pressure, with limited information about whether the vehicle might explode or what outcomes will follow.
Page 20
Ends-based analysis (utilitarian): what is the greatest good for the greatest number? If the driver’s life is likely to be lost regardless, one might argue for saving the greater number, potentially including the trooper and any rescuers.
The ends-based logic might also argue for rule utilitarianism: preserving the “never kill” rule could have broader benefits for societal trust and lawfulness.
Kantian critique: consequentialist reasoning is speculative; you cannot know outcomes with certainty, so you should adhere to a universal rule such as “Do not kill.”
The Golden Rule asks what you would want if you were the driver; but extreme circumstances complicate this direct transfer of perspective.
A key takeaway: the trooper ultimately chooses a middle path that reduces suffering without killing, illustrating that dilemmas can yield a third way when one steps back and analyzes paradigms.
Page 21
The trooper’s case demonstrates that ethics can diverge from law: legal requirements may be clear (you don’t kill), but ethical courage may push beyond the law in rare circumstances.
The discussion emphasizes that ethics is not identical to law; legality is necessary but not sufficient to determine moral action.
The trooper’s action is seen as a potential moral heroism if it is judged as aligned with a higher ethical standard (beyond mere legality).
Page 22
The Social Service Counselor: May, who discovers she has two sexually transmitted diseases (one being potentially transmitted via her ex-boyfriend), suspects him of transmitting diseases and confronts him; he denies testing and denies involvement.
Months later, a young woman client comes in and reveals the name of her boyfriend, May’s former partner. May now faces the dilemma: should she reveal what she knows (risking personal and professional consequences) or maintain professional decorum and not reveal?
Multiple ethical frames apply:
Self-versus-other (professional norms vs. protecting the public’s health): revealing could prevent further harm but undermine the counselor’s professional role.
Short-term vs. long-term impact: revealing might avert immediate risk but damage the agency’s credibility or May’s career.
Utilitarian analysis weighs consequences: failure to tell could allow the boyfriend to transmit further disease; telling could damage May’s professional standing and reputation if it's seen as personal vendetta or revenge.
A plausible conclusion is offered by the Golden Rule: May should tell the young woman the truth if she would want to be warned in a similar situation; the rule is guided by care for others and integrity.
The text notes that this is a case where the three principles do not always provide a single definitive answer, illustrating the complexity of real-world ethics.
Page 23
The May case is continued: the consequences of telling vs not telling are weighed. The utilitarian view supports telling because it could prevent harm to the community, though it risks May’s career and the trust in the agency.
The rule-based approach seeks a universal rule such as “Save life” or “Protect patients’ health” that would guide counselors in similar cases, though ambiguity remains about which life to prioritize or how to balance competing interests.
The Golden Rule supports telling because the counselor would want to be warned if in the client’s shoes; it emphasizes ethical integrity and honesty with the client.
The text acknowledges that there may be no clear conclusion in such cases and that the decision must be made in light of the counselor’s highest moral judgment.
Page 24
The Loyal Employee case (Bill and Maud): Maud is a long-time staff member who is loyal but can no longer perform effectively due to age and tech changes; replacing Maud would save costs but would devastate her and affect morale.
The utilitarian view: removing Maud would improve the school’s efficiency and finances, benefiting the majority of stakeholders, even though it harms Maud.
The Kantian view (second formulation of the categorical imperative): treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or in the person of another, always as an end and never merely as a means. This would argue against firing Maud simply as a means to an organizational end.
The care-based view asks what action reflects the best way to care for Maud as a person and to maintain the school’s integrity and future success. It could support keeping Maud in a different role or transforming her to a position that fits her strengths.
The text explores two possible rules: (a) “Always do what strengthens the team” (which could support firing Maud to enable others to perform better), and (b) a rule that emphasizes care for employees as part of the organization’s identity and culture (supporting retention when feasible).
The real challenge: knowing Maud personally and understanding her strengths, weaknesses, and potential future contributions, which requires deep, long-term knowledge beyond a case summary.
The concluding note emphasizes that real resolutions depend on intimate knowledge of the individuals involved and the organizational context; case studies in ethics rely on extended deliberation and discussion rather than quick, formulaic decisions.
Page 25
The discussion of Maud continues, exploring how different ethical frames influence decisions about personnel in a small college setting.
The Kantian approach is re-emphasized: avoid treating Maud merely as a means to an organizational end; she should be treated as an end with dignity and potential.
The text argues that a simple utilitarian calculation is insufficient, because it would overlook Maud’s intrinsic value and the potential for better-aligned roles or future contributions.
The “Always do what strengthens the team” rule may mean different actions depending on who is in the targeted role and what “strengthening” entails; it could support firing Maud or keeping her for loyalty and morale, depending on context.
The care-based perspective invites leadership to consider Maud as a valued member and to seek alternatives that respect her humanity, possibly reassigning roles or providing a transition plan.
The passage emphasizes that ethical decision-making often involves considering multiple stakeholders and balancing competing values over time, rather than simply applying a single principle.
Page 26
The authors stress that Maud’s case requires intimate knowledge of her as a person, developed over years, not just a case summary.
They argue that real resolutions require an inward understanding of character and relationship, which is why their seminars invite participants to share dilemmas from their own experiences.
They assert that case-based discussion helps illuminate the limits and applicability of the three principles in real life, not just in theory.
Page 27
The Girls’ Basketball Team case (Allen): four senior girls who previously started on last year’s team get drunk at a bar, miss classes, and return to school; the school faces a cross-pressure between justice (enforcing penalties) and mercy (recognizing underlying problems and providing support).
Two camps emerge: (a) Punish strictly to set a clear precedent and protect the integrity of athletics; (b) Mercy-focused approach focusing on rehabilitation, counseling, and potential reintegration.
Ends-based analysis suggests a pragmatic solution: allow the girls to play if they demonstrate genuine repentance and the coach supports their return, balancing the team’s needs with potential negative consequences if misbehavior recurs.
The Kantian approach emphasizes enforcing rules consistently; the highest rule could be “Enforce the rules” to preserve the long-term health of athletics and the educational mission.
The Golden Rule prompts considering what Allen would want if he were one of the students; it argues for firm but compassionate leadership, balancing punishment with the chance for reform.
The text suggests that a combination of enforcement and mercy may best serve the school’s educational mission and community values, even if it means sacrificing a season for long-term benefits.
Page 28
The section emphasizes the complexity of applying the three principles to real cases. It acknowledges the temptation to simplify decisions and highlights the importance of considering consequences, rules, and care for others in a balanced way.
Language matters: the use of hedging terms such as "perhaps," "probably," and "might" signals the ethical uncertainty inherent in moral decisions. The text cautions against expecting a simple, definitive answer from ethical frameworks.
The moral life requires switching between precise, formal analysis and narrative, human-centered reflection to reach morally satisfactory resolutions.
The conclusion emphasizes the need for a ridge between two extremes: neither purely formulaic nor entirely vague; ethics is a verbal activity and a practice, not a fixed destination.
Page 29
The Language of Ethics: discusses the tension between precise analytical language and expansive, narrative language.
Analytical language offers clarity but can be cold; narrative language provides rich, human detail but can be vague.
The author argues for two kinds of language: one for narrating dilemmas (personal, narrative, context-rich) and one for analyzing and resolving them (systematic, principle-focused).
The risk is oscillation between two extremes: heavy abstraction without real-world relevance, or vivid storytelling without principled guidance.
The remedy is to maintain a middle ground: use principled analysis to illuminate dilemmas while recognizing that language itself can shape ethical understanding.
Page 30
The final pages emphasize that ethics is a process, not a destination. Resolutions emerge as we work through the three principles, coupled with our own intuitions and experiences.
The text concludes with a reflective note: there is no universal formula for resolving dilemmas; language and narrative help bring moral issues into focus and enable people to make meaning together.
Ethics is portrayed as a pathway—a journey of judgment, character, awareness, perception, and discrimination that helps us live with moral complexity.
The overarching takeaway is that, through deliberate reflection and discussion, we can arrive at morally satisfactory resolutions that align with our deepest values, even if the exact solution varies by case.