Searing, "The HARPS Methodology"
Notable for its rigor and completeness, for flowcharting the entire decision process, for including conceptual analysis, for using effective conflict-resolution procedures, for coping with missing facts ("holes"), and for permitting backtracking
SOURCE FOR THE PROCEDURE
Searing, Donald R. HARPS Ethical Analysis Methodology: Method Description. Taknosys Software Corporation, 1998.
See http://www.taknosys.com/ethics/harps.htm for a summary.
This methodology is implemented in the Ethos software system.
A demonstration version is available.
The HARPS methodology emerged from the Engineering Ethics program at Texas A and M University,
and is based on the work of Charles E. Harris, Michael S. Pritchard and Michael J.
Rabins:
- Harris, C.E. Applying Moral Theories. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1990.
- Harris, C. E., M. Pritchard and M. Rabins. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1995.
This book contains a set of diagrams that flowchart the method.
A better integrated set of charts, covering much of the same ground, can be found in Searing's book.
- Pritchard, M. "Teaching Engineering Ethics: A Case Study Approach." National Science Foundation, Grant No. DIR-8820837, 1992.
THE PROCEDURE ITSELF
- Collect information.
- Select a moral agent.
- For consistency, adopt the point of view of this agent for the remainder of this procedure.
- Explain the moral agent's role in the decision.
- Explain the moral agent's viewpoint, including relevant information available exclusively to the moral agent.
- List known relevant facts.
- List the facts available firsthand from the case.
- List the additional facts that were found in sources outside the situation, if any.
- Ensure that the facts listed are relevant to the case and non-controversial.
- Make factual assumptions.
- Find the fact "holes" (missing facts) in the case.
- Determine if the fact can be resolved or whether an assumption needs to be made.
- If it can be resolved, do the research and record the resolution.
- If it cannot be resolved through research, then develop an assumption to resolve the factual issue.
- List conceptual issues.
- Find the terms or concepts in the case that are controversial.
- Find the terms or concepts in the case that are unclear.
- Define these concepts.
- Develop definitions for the terms at issue.
- Determine whether or not the developed definition for the term is applicable to the case.
- List moral issues ("Is it morally permissible to do action X?").
- Select one or more methods of analysis.
- Perform conflict resolution.
- Rank conflicting obligations according to the strength of the obligation.
- Find a "creative middle way" that fulfills the greatest number of the highly ranked obligations.
- If this fails, make a hard choice.
- Perform line-drawing analysis.
- By adding or subtracting morally relevant features, create a series of new cases.
- Arrange these cases in an ethical continuum, from positive to negative.
- Where would the present case fit in this continuum?
- If closer to the positive end, then the action is morally permissible.
- If closer to the negative end, then the action is not morally permissible.
- Perform utilitarian analysis.
- Select one or more of the utilitarian tests.
- Perform the "act utilitarian" test.
- Perform the "rule utilitarian" test.
- Perform cost/benefit analysis.
- Determine whether the tests agree.
- If the tests agree, select the option with the greatest net increase in utility.
- If the tests disagree, resolve the conflict.
- Weight the tests.
- Rely on the test with the greatest weight, selecting the option emerging from it.
- Perform respect-for-persons analysis.
- Select one or more of the respect-for-person tests.
- Perform the rights test.
- Perform the "golden rule" test.
- Perform the self-defeating" test.
- Determine whether the tests agree.
- If the tests agree, select the option that passed all the tests.
- If the tests disagree, resolve the conflict.
- Weight the tests.
- Rely on the test with the greatest weight, selecting the option that passed the highest-weighted test.
- Negotiate a conclusion based on the solutions provided by the methods of analysis.
WALT'S CHECKLIST
The same checklist was applied to all procedures.
- This method is most useful when the DECISION-MAKER ...
- can tolerate ambiguity, complexity or conflict
- has a working knowledge of several ethical theories [step 8]
- has plenty of time for investigation and analysis
- is skilled in case-based, precedent-based or example-based reasoning [step 8b]
- is skilled in causal or consequential reasoning [step 8c]
- is skilled in conflict- or dilemma-resolution methods [step 8a]
- is skilled in semantic or conceptual analysis [steps 5 and 6]
- is skilled in the application of general ethical principles to specific cases [step 8]
- is willing to frame the issue in numerical or quasi-numerical terms [step 8]
- uses a "bookkeeping" system that allows multiple alternatives to be tracked, scored, ranked and compared [step 8]
- This method is most useful in a SITUATION ...
- where an optimal decision is required
- where much is at stake
- This method is most useful when STAKEHOLDERS ...
- share ethical principles [step 8]