Moral intensity, ethical reasoning, and equitable relief judgments

2010 ◽  
pp. 79-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M. Fleischman ◽  
Sean Valentine ◽  
Don W. Finn
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Moral Intensity ◽  
Equitable Relief

Ethical Reasoning and Equitable Relief

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M. Fleischman ◽  
Sean Valentine ◽  
Don W. Finn
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Reasoning Process ◽  
Professional Manager ◽  
Societal Context ◽  
Manager Perceptions ◽  
Equitable Relief ◽  
Innocent Spouse

Professional manager perceptions were investigated in this study using a survey containing two equitable relief situational vignettes to investigate empirically two of the four steps from Rest's (1986) ethical reasoning process. Business societal perceptions of the equitable relief subset of the innocent spouse rules were also investigated, focusing on the knowledge of evasion and abuse factors. The results indicated that the ethical reasoning process was significantly related to ethical decision making and Rest's (1986) model. Furthermore, decision makers were more likely to judge that relief be granted in an equitable relief scenario involving abuse than to one not involving abuse. The knowledge of evasion factor contained in both scenarios appeared to influence indirectly respondents' judgments to deny equitable relief, while the presence of emotional abuse strengthened relief judgments. Finally, the study presents a general framework involving the interrelationship of Congressional intent with societal perceptions regarding subjective equitable relief tax-law provisions that are associated within a societal context.

scholarly journals Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: the necessity of discrepancies in ethical reasoning

Critical Care ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frédéric Pochard ◽  
Nancy Kentish-Barnes ◽  
Elie Azoulay
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment

scholarly journals Public health decisions in the COVID-19 pandemic require more than ‘follow the science’

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107134
Author(s):  
Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky ◽  
Eduardo Undurraga
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Public Health Policy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Ethical Reasoning ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Good Decision

Although empirical evidence may provide a much desired sense of certainty amidst a pandemic characterised by uncertainty, the vast gamut of available COVID-19 data, including misinformation, has instead increased confusion and distrust in authorities’ decisions. One key lesson we have been gradually learning from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the availability of empirical data and scientific evidence alone do not automatically lead to good decisions. Good decision-making in public health policy, this paper argues, does depend on the availability of reliable data and rigorous analyses, but depends above all on sound ethical reasoning that ascribes value and normative judgement to empirical facts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document