Individual’s Personalities Influence on Morally Ethic Decision-making
Personalities develop as individuals grow up and can be influenced by the environment we grow up in. Making morally ethic decisions is something everyone does over time and that will affect the way their future will be. The research question seeks to explore the multifaceted relationship between personal characteristics, moral values, and decision-making behavior in diverse situations. Through empirical research and analysis, this question aims to uncover the extent to which factors such as personality trait and moral values influence the decision-making process, including factors such as risk-taking behavior, ethical judgment, and conflict resolution strategies. In this essay, Rowan Williams’s “Making Moral Decisions” and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” will be used and compared. In investigating the impact of individual personalities on morally ethical decision-making, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth utilize rhetorical appeals, general questions, and different types of research information to provide perspectives. Through an analysis of the texts, it explores the relationship between personal traits and ethical decision-making.
Both Rowan Williams’s ‘Making Moral Decisions’ and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s ‘On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making’ reveals how rhetorical strategies show the complexities of moral reasoning and the influence of decision support systems on ethical outcomes. Rowan Williams used logos to show the significance between personality and decision making. Williams states “Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern (Rowan 4) The quote presents a logical argument about the nature of decision-making, asserting that choices are influenced by personal characteristics and perspectives. Williams suggests that decisions are not made in isolation but are shaped by one’s beliefs, values, and experiences. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth also used logos as a main rhetorical appeal. They write, “Individuals in the organization face many decisions that may contain one or more ethical issues. That is, the decisions made in these situations have the capability to favorably or unfavorably affect other individuals or groups”. (John, Dawn, Lori 180) This quote shows a rational argument about the nature of decision-making within individuals or groups. It highlights the logical consequence that decisions made in such contexts can have ethical implications, affecting various individuals or groups either positively or negatively.
Additionally, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth used examples of general questions to show the relationship between personality and ethical decision making. For example, “Whom shall I marry? Shall I marry at all? … Think about these and choices like them. Each of them – even ‘Which charity shall I support?’ – is a decision that is coloured by the sort of person I am; the choice is not made by a will operating in the abstract, but by someone who is used to thinking and imagining in a certain way: someone who is the sort of person who finds an issue like this an issue of concern.” (Rowan 3-4) This quote shows the complexity of decision-making and the deeply personal nature of ethical choices. It relates the choices made to the trait of an individual. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth used a similar way of asking questions to show the connection between traits and decisions. John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, and Lori L. Wadsworth writes, “‘What harm could occur as a result of this action (decision)?,’ ‘What is the likelihood that this harm would occur?,’ and ‘How many people could be affected by this decision, and to what degree?’ … If decision makers considered ‘What harm would be done as the result of this action?,’ they may be more likely to realize that there is a moral issue that they may not have otherwise considered.” (John, Dawn, Lori 190) This quote shows the importance of considering harm in decision-making, it mentions the ethical dimension of choices. And, it suggests that decisions should not only be evaluated based on their immediate benefits or advantages but also on their potential negative consequences and the degree of harm they may inflict on others.
Lastly, Rowan Williams and John R. Carlson, Dawn S. Carlson, Lori L. Wadsworth used different types of research information to provide perspectives. The structure “Making Moral Decisions” is in a philosophical or theological framework, with an emphasis on exploring moral principles, ethical dilemmas, and the nature of moral decision-making. But, “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” follows a more research-oriented structure, focusing on investigating the relationship between decision support systems (DSS) design characteristics and ethical decision-making processes. In that case, Williams use data from other philosophers and literature artists, and John, Dawn, Lori used information from observational research. For example, “The point that both Rhees and McCabe are trying to make is emphatically not that ethics is a matter of the individual’s likes or dislikes but, on the contrary, that it is a difficult discovering of some- thing about yourself, a discovering of what has already shaped the per- son you are and is moulding you in this or that direction.” (Rowan 4) Rush Rhees is a Welsh philosopher and Herbert McCabe it a prominent British Catholic theologian and moralist. They argue that ethics involves a challenging process of self-discovery, where individuals uncover deeper aspects of themselves that have already influenced their identity and are shaping their moral development. In that case it is their personalities. On the other hand, John, Dawn, and Lori writes “Clearly, a decision maker does not make better ethical decisions by leaving unconsidered the potential ethical aspects of a situation (Primeaux and Stieber, 1994)…This article proposes that the use of a DSS by an individual which forces this consideration of the ethical issues involved in a decision-making situation can lead to improved ethical decisions by the individual user.” (John, Dawn, Lori 185) As a more researched based text, they inform us about the importance of considering ethical aspects in decision-making and suggests that the use of a DSS can enhance ethical decision-making by prompting individuals to consider these ethical issues.
In conclusion, by examining this relationship across various contexts and populations, researchers can gain valuable insights into the interplay between individual characteristics and decision-making outcomes, informing theories of human behavior. In exploring the influence of individual personalities on morally ethical decision-making processes across two texts, Rowan Williams’s “Making Moral Decisions” and John R. Carlson’s, Dawn S. Carlson’s, Lori L. Wadsworth’s “On the Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics and Ethical Decision Making” that employ rhetorical appeals, general questions, and different types of research information to illuminate the relationship between personal traits and ethical decision making.
Work Cited:
Carlson, John R., et al. “On The Relationship Between DSS Design Characteristics And Ethical Decision Making.” Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 11, no. 2, 1999, pp. 180–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40604264. Accessed 6 Apr. 2024.
Williams, Rowan. “Making Moral Decisions.” The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics. Ed. Robin Gill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 1–15. Print. Cambridge Companions to Religion.