Retorts

Ethical Grid

I find myself somewhat bemused by the article on the Ethical Grid [Feb]. While the grid does look as if it would be a useful aide memoire to issues to consider in tricky ethical situations, it doesn't seem to be any more than that. The grid arrangement seems completely pointless, as the only actual organisation involved is items becoming more general as one moves inwards. One would do just a well with a simple checklist.

The examples of reasoning bear this out -- the system doesn't seem to assist the process of analysis other than by providing points to think about. The author indicates the grid helps to avoid inconsistent decisions, but never explains how, and later notes that it can be used to arrive at contrary positions.

On a less fundamental level, some of the boxes seem a little odd. Why are there separate boxes for the vague concepts "create autonomy" and "respect autonomy"? Why is there any need for a "do most positive good" box? Surely the point of the exercise is to help determine what action will do the most positive good. Perhaps a "verify the facts" box would be in order too.

P. Dalton, Nelson