A Uniform Set of Stages

            I concede that the best minds in applied ethics will never agree on a uniform set of steps and sub-steps for their heuristic decision-making procedures.  We all have our creative differences, we all build our procedures for different audiences, and we all use our methods to address the different problems and issues.  However, at a higher level of abstraction, it may be possible to reach consensus on a uniform set of stages.  As a step in that direction, I propose the following:

1. The Preparing Stage. 
   During this earliest stage, we cultivate moral awareness and sensitivity, clarify our value system and worldview, observe human nature, engage in ethical behavior ourselves, learn some ethical theory, and prepare to avoid ethical traps.

2. The Inspecting Stage.
   We now face a possible problem situation, so we attempt to define the problem by noting facts, participants, groups, roles, relationships, events and actions.  At this stage, we make no effort to determine what is morally relevant, only what is factually relevant, and we try to produce a list of uncontroverted facts that would be acceptable to all parties.  Finally, we determine whether the situation is truly a problem, one that requires further attention and action.

3. The Elucidating Stage. 
   Here we identify facts that are missing, and either develop these new facts or make assumptions to cover them. We clarify technical, ambiguous or vague concepts, and we try to eliminate biased and emotionally charged language.  We isolate key factors in the situation, including especially factors that set this situation apart from otherwise similar cases.  We identify the difficulties and obstacles that may hinder analysis.  We do epistemological legwork, trying to assess the reliability of our sources and the validity of our information. We try to determine the immediate antecedents of the problem, how the situation came to be.  We discriminate between primary and secondary participants, and we determine which parties are affected by actions of other parties.  Potentially, these affected parties are the stakeholders, but we do not make that association until the Focusing Stage. 
   
   We consider all the lists we have made, and eliminate from these lists any items that do not meet some minimum threshold for significance.  Given all this, we try to estimate whether this is a short-term problem that can be resolved quickly, or a long-term problem that requires sustained effort.  Finally, in a very preliminary way, we begin to frame possible issues: “Is it true that X should do Y assuming Z?”

4. The Ascribing Stage. 
   We begin to infer and specify the values, goals, ideals, interests, ideologies, priorities and motives that are most likely responsible for creating the dynamics of the problem.  We ascribe these biases, tendencies and proclivities to various participants or to ourselves.

5. The Optioning Stage. 
   We brainstorm to list all possible courses of action that are (or were) available to the participants.  This list may include actions that are ill-advised and actions that are contingent on other actions. 
   
   Once we know the full range of alternatives, we try to eliminate from the list those actions that are clearly not feasible or that fail to meet some threshold for relevance.  We do not exclude an option because we think it is wrong.

6. The Predicting Stage. 
   For each remaining option, we list potential consequences, including consequences that would result if no action were taken.  We discriminate between short- and long-term effects, between likely and unlikely consequences, and between results that are intended and unintended.  We associate these consequences with specific participants or with ourselves, either as a risk or as a benefit.

7. The Focusing Stage. 
   We consider all affected parties and identify those who are sufficiently affected to be elevated to stakeholder status.  We note the rights that are claimed, or could be claimed, and we identify the responsibilities or duties that correspond to those rights.  We determine which facts are morally relevant, which actions have moral consequences, which values are moral values, which questions are moral questions, and which issues are moral issues.  We take special note of virtues, values, rights, priorities and ideals that appear to be at risk, or that appear to be in conflict.  We eliminate all factors that are morally irrelevant or insufficiently relevant.  Based on all this analysis, we identify and define the core ethical issue, which is often expressed as a dilemma:  “Should X do or not do Y assuming Z?”

8. The Calculating Stage. 
   Some decision-making procedures attempt to quantify risks, costs, benefits, burdens, impact, likelihoods and even relevance.  These weights and numbers, if required, are generated at this stage.  Later, at least in theory, it will be easy to determine which option produces the most probable morally relevant benefit, with the least probable morally relevant risk.

9. The Applying Stage. 
   This is the stage where most of the critical work of applied ethics is done.  Ideally, each possible stakeholder/action pair is considered separately and sympathetically.
   
   Reasons for and against particular actions are cataloged, then ranked. Morally required actions are distinguished from those that are morally permitted but not required.  Values are weighed against other values.  Sometimes entire value systems are weighed against competing systems.  Short-term benefits are weighed against long-term risks.  In similar fashion, long-term benefits are weighed against short-term risks.  Various ethical theories may come into full play -- and into full conflict.  Like and unlike cases are considered and compared.  We construct moral analogies and dis-analogies, examples and counter-examples.  Best- and worst-case scenarios are elaborated.  Diverse ethical principles are applied, and we note whether their advice is conflicting or convergent.  Options are evaluated according to the virtues they promote, or the rights they respect, or the obligations they satisfy, or the values they maximize, or the principles they obey.  Philosophical arguments are constructed, deconstructed and evaluated.  Laws, policies, ethical codes, and professional literature are reviewed for parallels.  Associates, supervisors, mentors, trusted friends, advisors and stakeholders (if willing and available) give the decision-maker the benefit of their opinions. 
   
   Results may be convergent but typically are conflicting, contradictory or inconsistent.  Since conflicts are so common, special strategies are invoked to resolve them.  When the dust settles, we hope the problem has been reduced to a coherent set of pivotal considerations.  If this happens, the long list of options produced in Stage 5 can be shrunk to a much shorter list of promising options.  For these remaining options, full justifications are prepared.

10. The Selecting Stage. 
    An option is chosen, and that decision is confirmed by applying a series of informal, commonsense ethical tests (e.g., the Reversed Roles Test or the Public Scrutiny Test).  As a double-check, we may perform a “sensitivity analysis” to identify those situational factors that, if altered, would greatly alter our decision.  We would then revisit our analysis of those factors. 
    
    All things considered, we may not be 100% comfortable with our decision.  Even so, we should reach a settled state of “wide reflective equilibrium.”  If not, we may decide to re-start the analysis at an earlier stage, time permitting.

11. The Acting Stage.
    We plan exactly what is to be done step by step, and who is to do it. We try to ensure due process for all stakeholders.  We may construct a timeline to sequence individual actions. We identify the means to be employed. We gather the necessary resources. We develop indicators of success and failure, including some early indicators.  Finally we take action, and we take responsibility for the consequences.

12. The Reflecting Stage. 
    In this final stage, we monitor the decision as it is implemented with special attention to the effects it is having on stakeholders. We assess the results as they unfold using the indicators developed in the previous stage.  If, by those early indicators, the decision is failing, we may re-implement the decision, and if that also fails, we may abort and start over, circumstances permitting.  Otherwise we live with the decision and learn from it.
    
    When finished monitoring, we may recommend new policies to address particular issues.  We may review and evaluate the decision procedure itself with an eye toward process improvement.  Did the procedure work as intended?  Were the steps in the correct order?  Finally, we may consider what could have been done in the first place to prevent the problem and, where appropriate, take steps to prevent recurrence.