Title:اخلاق: چارچوبی برای تصمیم گیری

۰۸-۰۴-۲۰۱۱ ارائه دهنده: استیو گیمبل این وب‌کست فقط برای مشاهده در دسترس است، برای اعتبارات AICP CM قابل استفاده نیست. این جلسه بر چارچوب ارزیابی موقعیت های اخلاقی و اتخاذ تصمیمات اخلاقی متمرکز خواهد بود. دکتر استیو گیمبل بخش‌های مختلف موقعیت‌های اخلاقی را بررسی خواهد کرد – چه کسی، چه چیزی، چه چیزی، به چه کسی و با چه کسی. سناریوهای مختلف برنامه ریزی در چارچوب این چارچوب مورد بررسی قرار خواهند گرفت.

قسمتي از متن فيلم: Hello my name is Cody price and I just want to welcome everyone it is now one o’clock so we’ll begin our presentation shortly today on April 8 we’ll have a presentation on ethics a faint framework for a decision-making given by Susan touts and Steve gimble for help during

Today’s webcast please feel free to type your questions in the chat box found in the webinar tool bar to the right of your screen or call one eight hundred two six three six three one seven for content questions please feel free to type those in the questions box and

We’ll be able to answer those at the end of the presentation during the question answer session here’s a list of our participating chapters divisions in the university and I want to send a personal thank you out to the Pennsylvania chapter for sponsoring today’s session here’s a list of our upcoming webcast as

You can see our next one will be next Friday on April 15th campus planning for pedestrians and bicyclists I want to point out a few pointers the one on May 10th the revitalized Chesapeake addresses frustration program this is still in the process of being uploaded

To the website so this will be up in a few days and so be sure to look at look out for that if you’re interested and also we just added the June 24th June 3rd and June 24th webinars so if you are interested in those you can find those

Listed at WWE Utah APA org slash webcast and you can register for your webcast of choice and you’ll also be able to find a complete listing for 2011 at the conclusion of the webinar you’ll be able to log your cm credits how you’ll do so

Is by going to WWE so I kept Tim DS by date and then underneath Friday April 8 you’ll select ethics a framework for a decision making and this is up and it’s also I’m eligible for one and a half CM credits so we’ll be able to claim those

As well we are also recording today’s session so you’ll be able to find a video recording and it the F of today’s session @ww Utah – APA org / webcast – archive and this should be up by Monday at this time I’ll now like to

Hand it over to Susan L so V introducing our speakers for today thank you Cody thank you to the attendees for joining us today my name is Susan Elks I’m the professional development officer for the Pennsylvania chapter of APA I’m also a community planner with the Chester County Planning Commission here in

Pennsylvania joining me today is dr. Steve gimble and he is the chair of the Department of Philosophy in Gettysburg College here in Pennsylvania today we’re going to break things up a little bit I’m gonna briefly provide an overview of the AICP code of ethics and professional conduct and then turn things over to

Steve gimble for a primer on moral deliberation then we’re going to have a couple of scenarios where we will be polling the audience to get your feedback on two scenarios that probably are fairly common I would say out in the planning world and then we’re gonna have some focused discussion on those

Scenarios and then at the end we do have a few resources to pass along to everyone so just to give you this overview on the the code of ethics and professional conduct one thing I do want to point out that you may not be aware

Of is that it was revised in October of 2009 that revision was specifically rule 26 and Section D which I’ll discuss later prior to that the code itself overall had been adopted and made effective in 2005 there are four main parts to the code a b c and d they are

The principles to which we aspire B the rules of conduct C procedures and then D is this new section planners convicted of a serious crime an automatic suspension of certification that code the full code is available on the APA website it’s only about eight pages long if you have not

Ever looked at it certainly do so download it and take a read it’s not that long of a read a little bit more detail on each section the principles to which we aspire there are some key areas in here and when I look at this list

Basically I think well yeah this is part of why I decided planning was a good career we have a responsibility to the public and specifically our primary obligation should be to serve the public interest as part of that we should always be focused on public involvement and always be sharing accurate

Information those are the types of things discussed in this section of the principles they also talk about a planners responsibility to their clients and to their employers and one of the key phrases in there that I have always thought of is independent professional judgment whether you’re serving your

Client your employer you know whatever the situation you always need to go back to your independent professional judgment and use that as one of your guiding forces essentially the third section is our responsibility to our profession and colleagues this focus is on education and research and professional development basically

Always be trying to better yourself and be sharing that not only within the profession but beyond that and the principles to which we aspire this is what you would kind of call the hazy part of the code if you violate this portion of the code you can’t get in

Trouble for it essentially there’s no sanctions there’s nothing of that nature as this little cartoon shows this is the part where you know you can draw it on the etch-a-sketch and shake it up a little bit because it’s not a hard-and-fast black and white type of thing these

Principles to which we aspire one of the key principles to point out is a 1h which discusses dealing fairly with all participants in the planning process and it specifically notes public officials or employees and dealing even candidly with all process participants another key principle is this conflict of

Interests or even the appearance of a conflict of interest and the third principle that I think is important is this one that just notes that we definitely should be always working on our education and training to help us in our jobs cm is part of this process but

Any training overall is part of this the rules of conduct these are 25 very specific rules there are some general topics that keep reoccurring in these twenty six rules conflict of interest turns up in more than one rule accurate information turns up more than one time and the code procedures themselves

Appear in more than one one rule this is the part that you need to worry about essentially if you think you’re starting to get in an area where you’re uncomfortable breaking a rule of conduct can you get get you sanctioned it can get you removed from a ICP or sanctioned

In some other form so the take-home point from this is you know twenty-five out of twelve twenty six rules is not passing just like seven out of ten commandments is not passing I have several rules here highlighted like I said there’s 26 I’m not at all

Going to go through them all but I do have a few here this one I think rule number one I think it’s a it’s a reason it’s rule number one it’s talking about accurate information it is really the starting point in doing any type of planning process that you need to be

Providing accurate information on the planning issues that you’re going to be discussing a few of the rules there’s definitely kind of the public rule and then the private sector rule and rules five and six are an example of this five directly discusses public officials or employees and compensation and and what

You should or should not be doing there and then rule number six is basically the equivalent for a private sector employee and you can see that the private sector side is a little looser you know focusing more on written disclosure from your boss rather than just absolutely don’t do it open this is

Definitely the key in either of these particularly with the private sector we’re a little bit more is permissible permissible rules eight and nine are similar again in that the one rule is public officials and the other one is more directive the private sector but again covering the same basic topic you

Know planning is to be an open public involvement process that’s not to be backroom discussions and decision making and both of these rules essentially address that that desire for openness another thing to keep in mind with these in addition to what the AICP has to say

About this you know of course there are local whether it’s at your your agency or your state there are local rules procedures or customs that typically have something to say about this and APA wants you to be following those as well rule number thirteen is fairly straightforward but

You know don’t be trying to say that you can do something or can get something or can you know in an improper manner improper influences is not the way they want things to be done moving on to the code procedures which are the third section of the code of conduct the

Charge of misconduct section is very standard I would say really you know if you know anything about the US justice system this kind of works in the same manner you know someone files charges then it gets investigated and there’s a variety of ways that things can be

Handled from that point forward so that is pretty straightforward what is a little bit different about this is the informal advice and the formal advice basically if you are in a situation where you’re starting to wonder that something might be wrong you can go to APA and ask for advice specifically you

Would go to the ethics officer which is always the executive officer of APA and AICP right now that would be Paul Farmer you know you can contact APA and find the ethics officer you can check the website and come up with them the informal advice is not in writing the

Formal advice is written so those are just a veneer Oh or you think someone else has started down a road that’s a problem you can seek advice before anyone gets to the point of misconduct section like I said that’s the 2009 revision and it’s last part of the code it defines a

Serious crime and it discusses the process that’s related if someone is convicted of a serious crime and that’s you automatically get suspension of your AICP you have to notify AICP you can petition for reinstatement and then you know it’s going to depend on the exact situation but automatically it’s a

Suspension of your AICP and this was like I said a new a new revision in 2009 I don’t know what brought that about one would think something specifically did but I really don’t know about that I’m going to turn things over now to Steve gimble he is chair of the Department of

Philosophy at Gettysburg College he has presented on this topic before for the PA chapter and the audience was very appreciative of his presentation previously so we thought we would bring this to a larger audience for everyone in addition to his classes and research he does present on workplace ethics to a

Variety of professional organizations and I’ll pass that off to him now well thank you Susan it’s absolutely wonderful to be here with everybody so what I want to give to you now is a quick primer on moral deliberation right how is it that we go about thinking about hard ethical questions right

Because we do think about them all right on the one hand it certainly seems as if well look we react from the gut and to some degree that’s probably right but when we come across a hard moral problem what we often do is we sit and we

Meditate on we think about it we deliberate and what I want to do now is discuss the means of deliberation how is it that we go about thinking about it because we don’t often think about the way we think about things but if we’re a little bit clearer than we normally are

On how we go about thinking about things we can understand how to approach a number of different problems now it’s a wonderful thing that planners have the code of conduct see code of conduct is nice and that it pre resolve certain standard conundrums right there are certain sorts of

Problems that any work environment is going to face over and over again and the idea is that as a community planners have gotten together and said look here is the problem we face this is the way we as a group think it ought to be

Resolved so what a code does for you is it keeps you from having to worry about the ethical issues underlying these problems it allows you to simply solve them in a pre form fashion there’s uniformity and expectations that is no matter where you go you can expect

That there is a certain particular way that these issues are going to be handled and you can set that bar at an appropriate place it also allows for the community to explicitly state expectations and standards that is right these things aren’t forced down upon you from above that they really are a

Reflection of the way that the community of planners itself thinks things ought to be done now if these advantages of the code were sufficient well I’d still be in my office there are disadvantages right now the way a code works and whether it’s a code of conduct for a professional organization or whether

It’s some set of laws that government on some level and act the idea is that those laws those rules those aspects of the code are set down in order to address common problems that you see in a very particular way now when you move from the abstract when you move from the

Everyday to what life is really like well life’s lot trickier life is complicated right any code that you have will have a finite number of rules listed what happens when you find that odd situation you weren’t expecting that doesn’t fit into a rule or what happens when you come across a case

We’re well this rule tells me I have to do X but this other rule says I should do not X which one – oh I obey what do we do when we find situations that the framers of of either the code or the law worked and

Tuition in which the code is not clear well we need to do is understand what we mean here by ethics right we have a distinction between what we can call factual statements right things that are descriptive Steve is wearing pants now this is a webinar you’ll have to take

This one faith but trust me I am here wearing pants this is simply a fact of the world this is descriptive it describes the way things are ethical statements on the other hand are prescriptive they prescribe they tell us how things ought to be whether they are

That way or not so when we say it’s immoral or it’s morally wrong to juggle kittens right that’s true whether I’m standing here juggling kittens or not which while I am wearing pants I I’m not juggling the kittens so the idea that the Easter statements while they’re both

True are different kinds of sentences the first kind of sentence describes how the world is the second describes how the world ought to be so when we’re talking about ethical questions we’re talking about how we think the world ought to be and how we ought to act with

Internet so this gives rise to the ethical question right descriptive propositions we just look out there in the world see whether it’s true or false how do we go about determining which ones of these ethical propositions are actually true how do I know what makes kitten juggling morally

Wrong well when you say Steve is wearing pants we know what we mean by the word pants we know what we mean other words Steve and we know what it means to wear something we look at the past we look at Steve and is Steve wearing those pants

It’s something that we understand each of the terms and we can determine whether that sentence is true or not but when we say it’s morally wrong to juggle kittens we know what we mean by kittens we know what we mean by juggling what is it that we exactly mean by morally wrong

What do the phrase is morally right and morally wrong mean if we’re going to be able to make determinations about the truth or falsity of ethical claims if we want to answer ethical questions questions about how we should act that we need to have a basic understanding of what we mean by the

Underlying fundamental moral vocabulary what do we mean by right and wrong and it turns out that unlike pants which has a very particular singular meaning if you take it just in the now sense not in the verb sense I suppose one could pant when we take ethics and we look at the

Basic moral vocabulary morally right and morally wrong it turns out they mean several different things we have to consider the different parts of an ethical situation we have to look at who is the person who is acting we have to look at what it is they’re doing you

Have to look at the action itself we have to look at the effects of having done it too so what what happens as a result of having taken that action we have to look at the to whom we have to look at the person to whom the act is

Done all right so it’s not merely the act it’s not merely who does it but who is it affecting and then with whom that is there will be certain ways in which people connected to you or affected by the things you do and we have certain special moral obligations to certain

Kinds of people so we want to do now is run through each of these five because associated with each part of the ethical situation is what we’ll call a moral system that is a definition of what we mean by morally right or morally wrong a way of answering the question is this

Morally permissible is this morally necessary do I have to do it or is it morally forbidden do I have to avoid doing now when we deal with the who part what we’re looking at is what we call virtue ethics okay virtue ethics deals with what the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle

Referred to as character the idea is that we create ourselves through our actions we are what we do right and the first part of your code the a sport is really about setting out principles as it says what it’s sitting on its virtues right the idea is what that

First part of your code does is really say this is the sort of character we want to develop amongst planners these are the sorts of people we want to be so by acting in a certain way we hope to embody these notions now Aristotle says every being has what he calls a kilos

Which is the Greek word for an aim a goal an end everything’s developing towards something and what Aristotle says is that what we act in a morally right fashion what we’re doing is actual izing in our potentiality as a human being we’re becoming the people we want to be

Right so just as within an acorn right there is the oak tree that it’s striving to become similarly within all human beings there is this end goal the perfect human being who does everything absolutely right my mother-in-law don’t tell her I said that and the idea is

That with each action with each thing we do when we act in a morally proper fashion we’re developing our character we’re developing ourselves in a way that we will naturally act properly we’re actualizing ourselves it’s the full human beings we could do now the question then is well how do you

Actualize that and according to Aristotle what you need to do is find the mean right the middle path moderation he argues is always proper you you don’t want to be cowardly you don’t want to be foolhardy it’s right in the middle you want to be brave you

Don’t want to be miserly you don’t want to be loose with your money you want to be in the middle generous now contemporary virtue ethicist pointed out well there are clearly certain cases where this rule of the mean doesn’t work right should I never cheat on my wife

Should I cheat on my wife with everyone no just with half of the people you need well clearly that doesn’t work so the idea here is to move back to this notion of Telos to this notion of goal aspirations as your code sets them out

And say well if this is the perfect me what would I need to do to be more like and when you face a moral problem and you face one of those tough conundrums or I just don’t know what to do what you do is you sit down and think well what

Would the perfect me do if I wanted to be the person that I could say to my kids look this is the model of how I want you to be how would that person and in doing so you would then be actualize in your potential you would be acting

Virtuously so under the virtue ethics picture moral rightness and wrongness is a matter of actual izing the best moral person you can envision yourself being so in certain ways it’s all about you but of course it doesn’t end there if it did philosophers would be out of work

And that would be a very bad thing trust me what we find around the 17th century is a turn where instead of looking at the agent the actor the person who’s acting we turn and we look at the act itself we look at what we call deontological

Ethics or an ethics of duty now here the idea is that ethics is much more code like that ethics comes as a result of having absolute rules Immanuel Kant who was the philosopher who really put this view forward says look you can think of somebody who is extremely virtuous who

Follows the mean who embodies all of the sort of properties we want in a human being right who is very smart who’s calm under pressure who you know acts in a way that is the most efficacious but if that person hasn’t ill will if that person wants to do harm then those

Virtues don’t make that person better that those virtues make the person worse think about the most evil villains we have in literature right they’re always the ones who in certain sense embody the actual virtues but they use it for evil so what Khan says is we can’t look at

The person who’s acting we need to look at what they do we need to look at the rules we need to follow and for cought these rules are absolute that is the moral this or wrongness of something it’s not in what it does to me it’s not what it

Does to someone else it is in the act itself so the paths that I said I was wearing are black right so where is the blackness of my pants it’s a property of the past themselves it’s implicit to the pants in the same way Khan wants to say

Stealing is immoral not because of what it does not because of what it does to you not because of what it does to the person you’ve stolen it from not because of what it does to society but that stealing is implicitly wrong that the act of stealing itself is morally

Problematic and so we have absolute duties moral rules that we must follow to the letter always do not lie it doesn’t matter what you’re lying about you don’t do it so the question then is where do these rules come from now one of the problems and this is the problem

I pointed out with the code earlier is that we face a potentially infinite number of possible situations we’ll have to deal with well if the number of situations is potentially infinite then the number of rules we need to know is potentially infinite but nobody could know that many rules therefore we

Couldn’t expect anyone to act morally consoles is promising okay we can’t know all of the rules but what we can have is a machine a rule that generates the other rules right the hardest-working rule in show business right this is the rule from which all other rules spring and it’s what he

Called the categorical imperative and the idea here is that we should always act so that the maxim that our action obeys should be a universal principle that is what you do is you take a look at the action you take away who does it you take away where they do it why they

Do it to whom they do it take away every aspect of the contests get it just down to the act itself now ask which one should be the universal rule always do it never doing so I need to decide whether I should lie to my wife when she

Asks me whether these pants make certain parts of her look larger well what I need to do I need to strip out the fact that it’s my wife I need to eliminate the fact that I don’t have a comfortable couch I need to eliminate all of these other

Aspects and get it just down to the element itself what is it it’s lying all right and what should be the rule always lie never lie ah the universal rule is never lie so you tell the truth regardless of what the consequences are right this is not about consequences this is not about

The facts this is about the act itself implicit within the Act is the rightness or wrongness that we’re trying to determine well never lie you know my wife I threw her a surprise party in order to get her to the surprise party I had to tell her that I had accidentally

Left my jacket over her sister’s house we just had to stop on the way out to dinner and pick it up it was a lie I hadn’t left my jacket there I had left many of her friends there right was that wrong well Kant would say yes but

Utilitarians would say no right the utilitarian Said’s look every time you act you change the world your actions make the world a different place now that place would be a better place or it could be a worse place what morality ought to do is lead you to act in such a

Way that your actions create the best overall circumstances that is the greatest play of pleasure over pain the greatest balance of good consequences over bad consequences so in this case so utilitarian would say don’t listen to can’t tell your wife whatever you need to to get it to that surprise party

Because she’s gonna love that surprise party right clearly you’re doing it for a good reason right so are there good lies are there bad lies well it depends upon what it is that the lie is doing right all of our actions exist within a context all

Of our actions exist in a world that will be different from the way we acted and what we need to do the utilitarian argues is consider how it effects absolutely everyone this is a very democratic way of thinking about ethics everybody’s results are considered equally are weighed equally it’s only the overall

That determines so no one is given special moral privileges no one is considered more morally important than anyone else if I act in this way what will I be doing to the world as a whole I need to consider the effects on everybody and I need to make my

Determination how to act based on a determination of what makes the world overall a better place for those who live in it but we also need to think about the to whom alright suppose you come home this evening you walk in from work you open your door you walk in and

You find your TV is gone and your computer and your DVD everything of on from your home in a panic you run into the kitchen and there on your refrigerator under a saved the children’s magnet that was not there when you left is a handwritten note saying thank you for your in quotation

Marks donation we have sold all of your stuff and we have used it to open a health clinic in sub-saharan Africa it’s now doing a lot more good than it had been before sincerely Sally Struthers in Bono now clearly all of the money you spent acquiring all of those things is now

Making the world a much better place than it had been before but are you right to be angry yeah you are right you will say something like they had no right to take what they talk so another notion of ethics that we need to deal with is this concept of rights and

Rights deal with the people to whom the action is taken now the notion of rights is historically one of the most important philosophical notion that are out there philosophers you know we have a reputation of just being up in the clouds not really making much of a difference but the notion of rights

Really is one place where history itself has changed notions of human rights of women’s rights right has really changed how we look at the world how we look at other people and how we write our laws how we organize our society so the notion of rights has done tremendous

Heavy lifting in making the world a better place but it’s actually when you look at it philosophically it’s an incredibly weak notion that is the concept that they write doesn’t tell me what I have to do it’s inherently prohibitive it tells me what I can’t do

To you right so you know the the famous plane that deal the right to swing my fist ends at my neighbors nose right the idea is that I’m free to do with my fists whatever I want until it impinges upon the rights of someone else but now

This while it seems like a oh such an incredibly strong notion it’s actually when you look at it a lot weaker than you would think suppose you’re walking down the street and you have a great idea you got to write it down right you know you’re gonna forget it you don’t have anything

On you and you’re walking past a yard sale and they’re in the yard sale somebody is selling an old spiral notebook for a nickel perfect buy the notebook you write down the idea you take it home at home and you’re looking for that brilliant idea you turn through the pages and they’re

On one page is this weird symbol it’s it’s short little lines connecting letters and numbers are written subscripts and that’s just strange your brother-in-law season says that that’s a symbol for a chemical I mean I have no idea what it is I’m an effective I could take it into work you know some

Of the guys there may be able to figure out wonder what that is all right let’s get a checked out then they see what it is and the people that your brother-in-law’s office realize oh my goodness this is it this is secured to the common cold it’s

Secured to cancer and secured to AIDS male pattern baldness all of the horrible evils affecting all of humanity this is it now whose is it well that symbol is on sheet of paper that came out of your notebook you own it it’s yours do you have to give it to

Medical science no it’s yours you could do it you could sell it for a lot of money you could hang out outside of oncology wards and say to people that you wish you had this now that would make you a jerk yeah it would but under a rights-based ethic is it immoral no

Because you have acquired the property rights to that thing by purchasing the note book it is yours so a rights-based ethic will not tell you what you have to do it will only tell you what you can’t do so this notion of rights while it is historically an incredibly powerful

Notion it’s not gonna do all of the heavy lifting for us now one last element to our moral deliberation and this really comes out of work that was done by feminist thinkers in the 60s 70s and 80s is to incorporate the notion of care all right if you think of all of

The earlier versions of ethics that we’ve been talking about notions of rights or notions of rules right they seem very contractual the sort of thing that you might see if you were a lawyer when you look at utilitarianism it seems very much like a full accounting right tally up all the positive consequences

Tally up all the negative consequences right see whether your moral debits are better than your moral credits right all of these pictures of ethics seem to be modeled on the sorts of reasoning that we find in the workplace that is traditionally associated with the work done by men Terrell Gilligan was a

Psychologist who realized that there are very different forms of relating one way that we can relate with each other its contractual think about what a contract is a contract is when two people agree I will do this for you you do this for me we shake hands on it we

Sign a piece of paper and then what happens you do your part and now I am obligated to do my part the minute I do my part what I’ve done is I’ve actually freed myself from the contract I’ve freed myself from the relationship once I’ve done what I agreed to do I no

Longer have any debt any obligation to you I am now out of the relationship all right that’s a contractual relationship acting frees you from the relation now maybe we’ll go and contract with each other again if I thought your services were good maybe I won’t it’s purely up to me

Right I’m no longer bound to you in any sort of way that’s very different from the sorts of relationships we find in traditionally female based work either in the home or in the workplace things like nursing or teaching right a teacher cares about his or her students right

And the idea is my job as a teacher when I’m in the classroom is not merely to cover certain topics because that’s the contract I have with the student my job is to figure out how I can improve them as people how I can get them to be more

Critical in their thought how I can get them to be more insightful in the way they approach problems my relationship with them isn’t contractual it’s a care based relationship and in a care based relationship when you act you don’t free yourself from the relationship you actually more deeply embed yourself in a

Care based relationship unlike a contractual is based on on the welfare of the other person I enter into a contract because it’s advantageous to me I enter into a care based relationship because I’m concerned about that other person and want that person’s life to be

As good as it could be so Gilligan says there are two very different ways to act contractually and in a care based fashion and typically when we look at the history of ethics the sorts of things we’ve just talked about you really see is a very contractual

Picture that is there are certain rules that I must follow certain ways I can expect you to act in my presence as opposed to a care based relationship where I can expect certain things from you now the foundations of this notion is the idea of a relationship right relationships can be strengthened or

Weakened based upon how we act right when somebody acts in a way that does something very kind and caring for you you think oh okay this person is really a good friend this is somebody I really can depend on and when that happens notice what happens the relationship itself becomes stronger

The bond becomes tighter on the other hand when a person acts in a way that’s problematic in a way that you weren’t expecting I really thought I could I could depend on this person what happens now you’ve alienated yourself from the other person you’ve broken those bonds

Right so in a care based ethic an act is morally good if it strengthens the relationships with that you find yourself within so an act is morally good on a care based picture if it strengthens interpersonal relationships that means that there will be certain relationships that will take moral

Weight and place it above other relationships so you know that was the standard sort of utilitarian picture is okay you’re at a swimming pool on one end of the swimming pool two children are drowning on the far end only one child is drowning which end do you go to

You can only make it to one in time and utilitarian and say well of course you go to the one with two children as opposed to one you double the number of children you save the care based emphasis says okay let’s put a twist here suppose the one child on the far

End is your child well we would certainly not fault the parent for rushing to save the life of their child even if it meant these other two strangers would have to suffer as a result so there’s a special weight that we give to care based relationships right if I’m

Driving down the road and it’s a cold rainy night and I’m on a back road and I see somebody whose car broke down and you know I just I’m late for a meeting I have to get there and I realize the person doesn’t have a cellphone you know

I’ll drive by and I’ll say boy I hope somebody else comes by I really wish I could pick you up sorry and I’ll feel some pang of guilt as I Drive by but if I’m driving down that Street and that’s my mother on the side of the road and I

Drive by and don’t stop to help yeah that’s a special level of nasty right the idea is that relationships care based relationships bring with them a certain moral weight so one of the things we need to consider in our ethical deliberations is the people with whom we share these special

Relationships so we’ve seen five very different approaches right on the one hand if I want to ask is this morally right or not well does it make my character better or not does it allow me to actualize the potential of being the perfect me well do I need to basically

Break it down to the rule always do it never do it is it implicit in the action or is it in the world right is it the results of what I do is that how I do it or do I need to consider the person to

Whom I’m doing it it’s just within their rights or not does it violate somebody’s rights or do I have to think Wow look okay is this gonna deepen my relationship with this person or with somebody else I know which one of these is right you’ve given me five very

Different ways of considering how to judge a moral situation which one’s right well the answer is yes when we think about ethical issues what we really do is consider all five of these right now when you have five separate criteria the obvious problem is what if

They don’t agree what if they tell me to do different things now in the overwhelming majority of cases this is in a problem usually they all point you in the same direction so I’m on you know a busy street and I see a an elderly person with very heavy bags and

I know the cars drive by very quickly should I help this person to the other side with the bags well if I look from the virtue ethics standpoint yep the perfect me would certainly be caring enough to help right that’s thoughtful that’s certainly a virtue right well

Always help never help well always help clearly is the rule so that one leads me that way utilitarian well it’s not gonna cost me much of anything I was crossing the road anyway and it clearly makes life better for this person so it makes the world a better place that says yes

Well it’s clearly not violating anybody’s rights to help them do something they wanted to do anyway and it would certainly allow me to at least in this small way interact and create a care based relationship with this person you know a person who was one his or her

Own so all of them point in the same direction and in the majority of cases that’s going to be how it works that all five of these different aspects of the ethical situation will point you in the same direction but what about our hard ethical questions what about the ones

That seem like they’ll never go away it seems like there’s no good answer to them when you analyze them when you think hard about them what you will actually find underneath them is a debate between ways of moral deliberation between ways of thinking about ethics that is you’ll find oh is

This a matter of rights or is this a matter of utility right well should we seize property by eminent domain if it means creating a better environment for the larger community well it clearly violates the individual owners rights but from a utilitarian standpoint it clearly makes the world a better place

And so what you find in arguments like that one or any of the other many many ethical issues that seem to plague us and never go away are different ethical systems leading you in the different directions so well wait a minute but then is this what they call situational ethics right

This is one of those horrible evil boogeyman well yeah it is but it should be ethical situations matter right when I’m trying to decide whether an act is right or wrong elements of the situation and need to be considered right there are times when I need to think in a

Virtual based way there are times when I need to think in a rights-based fashion there’s a time when the utilitarian consequences are just so dire that you know what we need to override the rights in this case all right so if I walk up

To a woman and ask her if she’d like to sleep with me when it’s my walk right the ethical situation matters now does it matter in a way that you think okay well yeah but it has to matter within a particular way of reasoning No

The idea here is that if you look we all reason every one of us in all five of these ways where we often differ is in particular situations which one of those ways ought to take the lead ought to trump the others so consider two standard sorts of ethical questions that

We often bring up in a philosophical classroom right so flag-burning all right if you look at the argument that says it should be a perfectly legal activity right it’s often couched by liberals right from those on the political left as a matter of Rights and it’s purely an issue of speech rights

You know I have the right to free speech ie this is a political act I need to be able to express myself and on the other hand right what you find from conservatives is a care based argument right well think of all the people who

Die for that flag right what would it be for them it’s invoking a notion of care right and both of these are interesting philosophical positions and what we need to do in determining whether to make the law or not whether the law would be moral or not is to decide which of these

Factors ought to be privileged but then if you look at a different issue something like endangered species should landowners be able to do whatever they want with their land if it means cutting down the habitat for an endangered species well those from the left now make a care based drilling argument

Right but think about the spotted owl think about what it means on the other hand the conservatives are now making a right space target well look this is about landowner rights this is about what a individual can do with land that he or she owns so they flip-flop which

In contemporary political terms is a bad thing but in philosophical terms there’s a realistic thing the idea here is that ethical problems are hard for a reason because they’re hard and we do need to think about these things in all five of these ways because in certain situations

The hard situations they’re going to point you in different directions and what we need to decide individually and as a society is which of those decide in this case how we ought to act so does this give us an answer to every ethical question is there a clearer way of

Saying this is what you morally must do well no but at least begins to give us a framework within which we can have civil intelligent discussions about hard questions and that in the end really is the best we can hope for hard questions are hard for a reason because they’re

Hard but what we need to do is have open-minded thoughtful discussions about them and when we realize that there are ways of thinking about these ethical questions when you come across situations that you find that are not in your code of conduct but clearly have effects on the community and on

Individuals within that community you need to be able to think you need to use as Susan said earlier your judgment but that judgment isn’t random it’s not just shooting from the it’s just not coming from the gut it needs to come from the head and hopefully what we’ve given you in the

Last little bit is a way to think more clearly and more rationally about those hard ethical questions that may not have easy answers within the code of conduct let me give you back this is thank you Steve we did get one question in that I am gonna go ahead and dress right now

William asked us if anyone has lost their AICP and if so why and I can tell you that people have lost their AICP definitely more than one and why I can’t really answer basically I can tell you for a violation of the code a serious violation of the code but APA does not

Publish those type of details with the new revision to the code the 2009 the serious crime APA did add into the code that it would be published if someone basically fell under that rule if someone is violating some other portion of the code however APA doesn’t go into

Specific fix they do each year do report and you can find this on the website the APA website I think you go under the AICP heading and the ethics heading under that and you can look up the reports for each different year and I don’t have that in front of me at the

Moment but I can tell you that the numbers are not high I mean in the past ten years or so every year there’s been maybe between five and twelve investigations that have been of a serious nature some people have lost their AICP some people have the charge has just been dismissed various things

Like that but I do want to add in one thing that the code is very clear about when you have started down that process and this is laid out very specifically Part C which is the procedures if you’re being investigated you basically can’t back out of that they will investigate

And they will come to some sort of conclusion they will sanction you or not sanction you if you decide that you’re not going to renew that year perhaps you’re trying to avoid something that’s not a way you can get out of this essentially you can go away and lose

Your AICP but if you try to come back in they basically we will restart the investigative process so I just want to make everyone aware of that when when you when you have been charged with something and they’re investigating that charge it’s not a process that you can

Opt out of and maintain your AICP okay we are one fast we’re going to do our polls now and the first one we’re going to do is for scenario a Wow jumping ahead here scenario a this one I’m going to go ahead and give you time to look at

This screen and actually read this out loud for you the question is at the bottom and once I’ve given you some time to look at this page I will go ahead and launch the poll and you’ll be able to respond the local emergency management task force which includes members of the

Fire department local government officials and local government planners is offered a tour of a Marcellus Shale drilling facility including a site currently being drilled and a site in operation by a company working in the area this is an issue you know in this instance it’s Marcellus Shale it could be something different essentially

Though an activity that’s having a land-use impact that is a new issue for your area someone is offering a tour so people can learn more about it these are locations where access is typically restricted you can’t go up to their front gate and knock and say can I have

A look around I don’t really understand how these things work it is typically restricted so the fact that there’s a tour and an opportunity to learn something is different the purpose is to familiarize the task force members with the operations for purposes of Emergency Management planning transportation by

Bus tour and a box lunch are provided you are an a ICP local government planner serving on the task force and the company which is offering the tour has been before your community’s Planning Commission on a variety of issues related to their drilling operations what is your best course of

Action regarding the tour a is going to be decline B is going to be attend and take part in all activities C is a 10 but decline the Box lunch and reimburse for the bus tour let me bring up the poll here and we’ll give about 30 seconds for

Everyone to answer that question again we’re asking for your best course of action regarding the tour of course with respect to the code of conduct a bean decline D is a 10 and take part in all activities and C is a 10 but decline the Box lunch

And reimburse for the bus tour will give a few more seconds it seems like a fair amount of people are still answering so we’ll wait a little bit before we close the poll all right I think most people who have who are taking part have taken

Part at this point so we’re going to close this poll and then we have a scenario B that we’re going to go ahead and pull on that okay scenario B planner a who is the director of planning for large human totality and in AICP retires prior to their retirement there was discussion of

An upcoming project within the municipality but details were not determined player a is now employed with a consulting firm their former municipality has put out an RFP for the project that was in general discussion during their tenure at the municipality as part of their new job planner a is to

Respond to the RFP from their new firm the question in this case is responding to the RFP a conflict in the eyes of the Code of Ethics a is going to be yes with the rules of conduct and with the aspirational principles be not with the rules maybe with the aspirational

Principles and C is no I’m gonna launch this poll for everyone to respond to the poll is open now we’ll give about a minute for people to respond to this one in both of these cases you know what you have in in front of you the information

Is what you should be responding to we will discuss different nuances two things as part of the discussion again a is yes with the rules of conduct and the aspirational principles be not with the rules maybe with the aspirational principles and see is no okay we’re

Going to go ahead and close this poll all right I’m going to flash up the poll results for both of these so everybody can see how the entire audience responded we’re gonna go back to a first for scenario a your best course of action regarding the Marcellus Shale tour in

The audience eleven percent thought it would be best to decline to take part in the tour 37% said attend and take part in all activities and 52% said attend but decline the Box lunch and reimburse for the tour alright let me give you a little bit of background on the codes

Specifically with these the parts of the code that you would be thinking about with this in aspirational principles the one that says you should avoid a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest the one that says we should continue to enhance our professional education in

The rules of conduct we shall not as public officials accept compensation and then b8 we shall not as public officials engage in any private communications as prohibited by law or agency rules procedures or custom so I would say that your best option here is C really to do

The tour but to decline the box lunch and reinforce reimburse for the bus and this is based on exactly how the scenario was written obviously there are some things that could change in regards to a conflict of interest this group has appeared before the Planning Commission

So that could potentially be seen as a conflict of interest however if this is an area where as a planner you’re not familiar with something and you need to go see this facility and you need to go see how it works this is part of continuing your professional education

So those are two aspirational principles there that are somewhat in conflict what I would say though is the conflict of interest part you need to be open it needs to be known in advance that you’re going to go on this tour you need to ask permission from your

Supervisor and it just needs to be an open decision that you’ll be attending for the educational value of it in regards to to b5 & b8 the compensation point to avoid any issues I would definitely just decline the lunch and you know work out something with the bus

Tour or perhaps drive your own transportation whatever you feel comfortable with or what your agency feels comfortable with AICP in itself the code they are not worried about the nominal value of something like a box lunch but your agency or your code at work may be worried about that so

Definitely be checking on that and then this is more dependent on the situation and what what you know specifically of this company or these people or how things have gone in your community which obviously you that wasn’t part of the written scenario that you could respond

To but yeah if the company during the tour kind of wants to walk up to you and talk about you know driveway permit that they’re going to be going after next week that’s not a discussion that you can be having that would be a private communication something that should be

Happening in a meeting in front of your Planning Commission not on this side tour so that’s something you need to stay away from and if you have a situation where you think that type of thing they definitely be happening then you probably should decline but scenario

A is it was written that really wouldn’t you wouldn’t know that from the written part of it so the best option again see do a tour decline the box lunch reimburse for the bus tour take your own transportation or something of that nature Steve do you want to say anything about that yeah

Let’s Steve have a take on that one as well concerns about conflict of interest her essential and notice that it is an actual conflict of interest but even the appearance of a conflict of interest that is the concern here because with an appearance of a conflict of interest

Whether you actually feel yourself to have been influenced or not the larger communities faith in your ability to do your job well is is what really is at issue now when the company sets up the tour clearly they are going to be setting enough to be taking you certain places

To be showing you certain things led by a person who will be telling you certain things and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that this is advertising that this is in a certain sense a sales job as much as it is professional education so if there are other ways that you could

Get that information perhaps those ways would be better but if it is something that you need to see in person needs something where you really do need to be present all right making these other gestures as small as they may be right are imperative in order to assure those

Outside that you are coming in in an educational fashion that is you’re coming in with an open mind and thinking about this in a critical fashion so avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is essential especially when there is concern that the information you’re getting is

Clearly going to be designed to convince you in certain ways all right we’re going to share the results for scenario B which was the retired planner in the RFP process the audience felt that it was 47% it would be a conflict with the rules of conduct and the

Aspiration of principals 37% not with the rules maybe with the aspirational principles and 15% said no you might be a little surprised by my take on this my take would be that with the way this was specifically worded anyway that it’s not a conflict obviously this is very case-by-case and very specific generally

The code does not want to punish someone for moving from public to private they don’t want to punish someone for using their skills and experience they do however want things to be open and they do want someone to be following the rules so for example if the agency did

Have a rule about a separation time between when you retire from the public sector and when you can move into the private sector and come back and go after things then that clearly would have an impact and you need to be following that particular rule the conflict of interest those are

Aspirational principles that a to see one avoiding the conflict of interest or an appearance this would have to be very open and the conflict of interest with again as the scenario was written this person heard about this project that was going to be yep coming they weren’t a

Detailed part of putting it together so in this case I would say that’s not a conflict if however when they were at the public agency they have been part of putting this are feet together again that’s that’s different and that would change things but you know in every single job you

Hear about all sorts of things going on and if you were prevented from ever having input on a project that you had heard about once at your job there wouldn’t be much left for you to do in the world so there is definitely a line

There and you have to look at the level of detail that was gone into ahead of time and how open things are and again that the agency rules benign which is a rule the private discussions with decision makers as prohibited by law or agency rules procedures or custom the

Way it was written up you know there is no there’s nothing that you can read in the scenario of B that would say that this planner had talked with his co-workers and said hey I’m gonna go out to the private sector like are you gonna give me this job the scenario didn’t say

That so you have to assume that it did not happen if that did happen well then yeah they shouldn’t be that’s you know a violation of the rules that’s under be thirteen or and this is not in the scenario itself but a again a changing of things if you change what had been

Written up there if this planner had gone to the private sector looking for jobs and said you know you hire me and I can get you this job that’s going to come out out of my agency in the next few months that would be a violation of the code so it’s very

Case-by-case if there’s prior discussion some type of gentlemen’s agreement between the ASAP and the private sector ahead of time that’s a problem if there was a department policy about separation that was not followed that’s a problem and if the AICP had been heavily involved in the development of the RF

Prior to their retirement that would also be a problem as the scenario was written though none of those things or something that you could tell had happened and as I said before you know the code understands and APA understands that people move from the public to the

Private sector they want it to be open they want you to be following agency rules they want you to be following the code but they’re not going to deny you the ability to use your skills and experience from the public sector out in the private sector we had a question

From Henrietta that I thought the code prohibited people from working with companies that you had had dealings with the code does not speak to that specifically now I believe one of the earlier versions of it was more detailed with that but now they basically leave

It up to the agency to have some sort of detail about that time period separation there is a rule in the code however that gets into a position that you may have taken you cannot work in the public sector and have a position on a price on

A project go to the private sector and then change your position and start trying to advance that position that’s a problem with the code of conduct that is not something that APA wants you to be doing again that goes back somewhat to the independent professional judgment they want your decisions at the public

Agency to be very similar to what your decisions are going to be in the private sector so the code does address that but in terms of a time period separation they leave that to to the local agency Sandra had a question about what the definition of serious crime is and that

Is defined in Section D of the code now and it is very specific about the types of thing that you are convicted of I don’t have that detail in front of me but it is section D of the code that defines serious crime Gunnar asked if there’s still one year

Waiting period to work with former municipalities and again no that’s the one where you have to check with your local agency and see what the time seperation is the code does not speak to that it speaks more to the type of positions that you have as a planner no

We seem to be getting several questions coming in you know is there a two-year revolving door rule and and there are no no time period specified in the code at this point I believe the the version that was prior to 2005 did have something more along those lines but

There’s not anything like that at this point I will say that you definitely need to check what your agency has or what your state has in Pennsylvania we have Sunshine Act we have a right to know law and those are the types of things that the AICP code is referring

To when it says agency or law locally and that is basically they are deferring to your state to your municipality to your public agency whatever it is you need to be following those rules in addition to whatever the AICP code notes while we’re checking for some more

Questions from anyone I do want to provide you with some other resources Carol Barrett has a book which is from 2001 which is getting a little dated at this point but it’s called everyday ethics for practicing planners one thing to be aware of if you do want to go out

And get this book or borrow it from your library is that it is under the old code so you need to be aware of that so some specifics are not going to apply but it is very thorough discussions of a lot of different scenarios and she goes through and essentially presents here’s a

Situation here are some things that you could do if the situation were to change like this this is what you should do instead and so she goes through all those different nuances and for many different scenarios and so it’s still quite useful despite the fact that it’s

Under the old code the APA website is also very useful with this of course under their ethics heading number one you can get the contact information for the ethics officer if you ever need informal or formal advice again the informal advice it’s not written it’s not necessarily binding on anyone but

It’s meant to be just what it says informal if you’re just kind of looking the officer can provide that for you and if there were to be some problem later down the line you could say you know I did seek advice and this is what I was told

The formal advice is again much more formal as the name implies they want things in writing and then they will respond in writing and then they will publish that written advice that is given out with specifics taken out of the information so that it’s not anyone’s name or exact

Position or anything of that nature but it will be out of what the direction was from APA so those are two resources out there for you and I will say if you look up the ethics report online which talks about how many people may have been suspended or sanctioned in some other

Manner it also tells you how many people have sought informal or formal advice and the numbers are quite low which I find to be somewhat surprising that very very few of us asked for advice on this issue at least to apa if you are not in a ICP officially of course you don’t

Have to follow the AICP code of conduct but it’s a good starting point anyway but there is also the ethical principles and planning which APA developed for non-ai cps to follow which deals a lot with public process and in that type of issue and the toolkit for conducting ethics sessions that’s something that

APA just did in the past few years for people who are running cm sessions like this you know it’s for that purpose but it’s useful because in the back of it they have about 30 different scenarios that are listed out and what the APA positions are on them so that’s just an

Interesting read for all those different types of scenarios that are discussed and what what APA thinks the proper answer is essentially so those are some resources out there for you we have some questions some discussion referring back to I guess what would be scenario B the retired planner Scott

Noted that he would assume given an existence of open government sunshine laws etc that the general public had just as much access to the subject as the RFP as did planner a what would interest you me more is if planners planner A’s contributions and suggestions to the RFP played toward the

Strengths of the private firm would it be appropriate to have planner a filter his or her input such that the majority of the firms in the area could provide the services required by the RFP that is definitely something if planner a had detailed input into the RFP that did

Direct it to particular firms you know if it was more driven to a public involvement firm and he was going to affirm that was very strong in public involvement yeah that’s a problem and that’s something that again that level of input into the RFP would be a problem

Essentially dan had a question again I think we’re still with scenario B here if the planner lost his or her job due to budget cuts in the public sector the job opened up in the private sector they get the new job with the expect a expectation they will bring in work

Obviously that’s what private firms want people to do for sure the planner has a family to feed and take care of is knowing that the planner can help bring in this new frfu work and the impacts obviously on them personally um again that’s where I you know APA

Understands that people move from the public sector into the private sector they don’t want to deny someone the ability to use skills it’s expected that you’re gonna have a level of knowledge from working in the private sector and that is what or you have a level of knowledge from

The public sector and that is what the private sector wants from you they do expect you to bring in work you know your network of contacts and things of that nature you know where it would start being a problem is if Flair gentleman’s agreements and things like this oh I can

Absolutely win you this job you know you give me this job dependent on me getting this job because my old friend and my old apartment says oh absolutely getting get it that’s where there’s an issue with the code of conduct someone’s just asking where the code is it is on the APA website

There is an ethics heading and it’s available under that it is in PDF form you can download it like I said it’s about eight pages or so so it’s not all that long I’m going to bring up a contact slide for myself and for Steve gimble if you have questions that we

Don’t get to today or something that you think of later essentially you can contact us another question here this is from Jill I’ve been concerned about the fact that developers seem to have their actions kept confidential while they are scoping out a major project that may have substantial impacts on a neighborhood

While the residents are kept in the dark until the official public meetings and until the wheels are greased by the developer any comments overall I would say one of the things that APA stresses in the code of conduct and essentially in every publication that they put out

Is that public involvement is a critical part of planning and it should be early in the process essentially you can it’s impossible to to do too much public involvement and you need to be reaching out to people in a variety of formats these days in particular APA in in all

Instances I would say in the code itself refers to more public involvement more opportunity and earlier in the process at all times and that’s something specifically to speak to web base outreach these days that’s a fabulous thing you can bring in a new audience that way but communities definitely need

To number one still be doing other forms of outreach that get to people beyond the internet and also making sure if they do web based outreach that it’s accurate information one thing I’ve seen a lot of that drives me a little crazy personally I have to say is that when

There’s a website for something and then it’s out of date or it’s inaccurate information that’s not doing good public outreach just having a website is not useful if the information on it is wrong all right I think we’ve covered most of our questions right now at this point I

Want to thank dr. Steve Campbell for joining us today we will be checking over any questions that we did not get to and covering those after the fact if that’s possible again as Cody said this is one and a half cm credits and it does cover the ethics credits that are required through

That process thank you for joining us today yes thank you oh one second get my slides Becca so yes Thank You Susan and Steven and also you Sarah for taking care of the questions for those of you that are still in attendance I would just like to

Go over on logging scene credits again like Susan was just saying it is available for one to have ethics credits and so you can go to WWE em select activities by day and then underneath Friday April 8th you’ll find ethics a framework for decision making and this

Is up already so as soon as we’re done you place those and then we are also recording today’s session so you’ll be able to find a PDF and a video recording of today’s webinar @ww Utah APA org slash webcast archive and like I said this should be

Up by Monday this does conclude today’s session so I just want to thank you and have a good day

ID: 5-gWzyV1oek
Time: 1344192044
Date: 2012-08-05 23:10:44
Duration: 01:26:50

منبع