- Values and facts
- Ethics develop and change over time
- Leadership involves ethics
- The dilemma
- Consequences and leadership decision-making
Ethics is the study or treatment of moral questions or dilemmas. Ethics is therefore concerned with determining why some situations or actions may be better or worse than others. They are about determining a good act from a bad act within a particular community, time and place. In outdoor leadership, ethical decision-making arises out of the need to resolve dilemmas of some sort where no clear right or wrong course of action is evident, where no way exists to find the right answer by measurement, calculation or testing.
This section does not differentiate between the words ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’, although a fine distinction in meaning is sometimes made. Ethical is often used in a quasi-legal sense, such as in following a code of conduct. Moral is used more in a quasi-religious or personal sense, such as in individual moral behaviour. In outdoor leadership, the distinction seems inappropriate given the leader’s role in both quasi-legal and more personal contexts.
Values and facts
Ethics is concerned with judgements involving values not facts. Resolving how far it is to the flooded river is a question of fact, whereas whether or not the party should cross the river is an ethical dilemma. To solve the dilemma involves consideration of values as well as facts. As a consequence ethical decisions are difficult, they require the leader to consider what the preferred options may be, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of each, as well as considering all the known and unknown facts.
Ethics develop and change over time
Legend has it that Ulysses was a bit of an outdoor leader! When he returned from the wars of Troy and his other adventures with Cyclops, Sirens and Gods, he apparently hanged a dozen slave girls said to have misbehaved during his 20 year absence. He also did away with the bunch of suitors who had moved into his house to woo his wife. Ulysses was a hero of his time, but he certainly wouldn’t get away with that today. Ethical standards develop and change over time, between different cultures and subcultures.
Common outdoor leadership practices of 20 years ago, such as burying rubbish, lighting large fires, or cutting blazes on trees, are less appropriate today. Because ethically appropriate behaviour changes and leadership circumstances differ, having a set of rules to determine ethical leadership will be of little use. Rules seldom serve all interests and can lead to unthinking, narrow-minded leadership.
Leadership involves ethics
It is important to recognise that leading is a moral endeavour. Leaders make decisions all the time based on some set of personal and professional beliefs which help determine what is good and appropriate. Leaders often decide what is best to include in a trip, where to camp, who should walk at the back of the group, when to have a rest, what to do if someone is injured, or how to resolve a group conflict issue. All of these involve ethical decisions, although some may be more important than others. Every leader needs to develop an ethical framework for decision making. To ignore ethics in leadership is to trust serendipity in place of careful consideration.
The basis for ethical thinking in outdoor leadership is recognition of what determines a good act. To do so leaders need to evolve a set of beliefs which become touchstones against which ethical judgements can be made. The process to determine what is ultimately good or right demands identification of the source of leadership morality. A complete discussion of this issue is beyond this chapter, but a few issues can be highlighted.
This chapter outlines some of the ethical strategies that philosophers have tended to use in helping determine appropriate action, via consideration of a common ethical dilemma, that of lighting a warming fire.
At the end of a long day’s walking the group of year 10 students are tired, cold and feeling pretty miserable about the trip. It has rained on and off all day, the views are obscured, the track is muddy, and the packs heavy. The campsite among a sheltered grove of snowgums lies just ahead. As a leader you want to cheer the party, lift their spirits and ward off any conflicts that may arise as camp is established. A good fire would do the trick. But is a fire appropriate here?
To use yourself as the touchstone in determining good from evil is the position known as ethical subjectivism. In this situation a fire would be a good act solely by the leader thinking it so. Clearly a roaring fire would cheer and warm the group. I would enjoy the warmth too; it would endear me to the group.It seems intuitively right.
As a means to determine a good act, subjectivism is seldom valid. Clearly in our society there are behaviours which are not condoned, yet for any given person may well feel pleasurable, serve self interest, or just seem right. Sexual harassment, stealing, or drunk driving are examples which some consider harmless enough, yet are clearly unethical in the broader community. One problem with subjectivism is that the personal gain obtained by the leader can subconsciously become the aspect most powerful in framing the decision. Determining an appropriate ethical touchstone is rarely a matter of personal opinion, open to opportunity and inclination.
The ethical positions of objectivism have sought truth through reference to external sources of morality which reach beyond the individual. Reason and faith are the two main sources of objective morality in Western culture. Certainly our judicial system is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and traditions (such as the Ten Commandments) and relies on rational processes to ensure truth is attained ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. However most ethical leadership issues aren’t helped by legal or religious tenets. The easiest leadership decisions to make could be those where legal imperatives give little room for interpretation. A leader confronted with the use of illegal drugs, underage drinking, or overloaded vehicles has a clear direction in which to move.
If it were a total fire ban day there would be no issue here. Also, the national park recommends against alpine fires—but who would know here today? However, I should just stick with the rules, no fires in alpine national parks. But what if we left the park just after lunch?
In cases which are not so easily directed, what is right and good in outdoor leadership could also be found through reference to other external objective sources. Leadership manuals, operating guidelines, workplace practices, organisational directives, professional principles can all serve to act as objective sources for ethical leadership decision making. In each case the leader is deferring their own sources of moral judgement to some external tenet. The appropriateness of this is itself an ethical issue.
One problem with ethical decision-making based on external sources, such as leadership guidelines, is that what seems right for one set of circumstances may be quite inappropriate in another context. Outdoor leadership is clearly different for young school children, senior students, or adults from a club, yet often similar leadership guidelines are applied as an objective source directing action for all. To rely too heavily and unthinkingly on such external sources is to err towards ethical fundamentalism, where the particular responses are maintained regardless of the circumstances. Simply because something is ethically true within one context does not mean it remains so in another.
Consequences and leadership decision-making
Most outdoor leaders make ethical decisions based on the consequences of particular actions.
A fire would definitely warm everyone up. We could cut out sods of earth and light the fire in the pit. Replacing the sods would prevent a fire scar. But, what about the limited dead wood and its role in the ecology of this place? Yet what if the students hate the trip, will they also hate the alpine bush as a result?
A fundamental factor in judging consequences, although often unacknowledged, is consideration of the ultimate good. The ultimate good is the position or values the leader holds as part of their personal and professional ethics leadership. This definition includes reference to subjective and objective sources of morality. The ultimate good needs to be a position that is both personally and professionally defensible. What feels intuitively right is often regarded as a good guide to ethical decision-making (Priest & Gass 1997) but needs to be balanced with objective sources mentioned above, and a good measure of critically rational thinking. Maintaining a high sense of self and professional worth is also linked to developing ethical beliefs and actions congruent with both personal and workplace value imperatives. Understanding the ultimate good helps the leader identify the best outcome or consequence.
In the example of the alpine fire, if the leader’s ultimate good was centred on human wellbeing and growth, and that underscored the conduct of the experience in the first place, then a fire would most probably be an appropriate ethical response. Alternatively, if the ultimate good was towards developing environmental appreciation and connectedness with nature, the leader would have a more difficult task in determining right action—a fire would most likely be viewed as an unethical solution.
Ethical consequentialists are guided primarily by their ultimate good. The Australian ethicist Peter Singer (1993) is a utilitarian consequentialist. He holds that provided the consequences of actions yield the greatest happiness for the greatest number, the means to attainment are less important. His views on abortion and euthanasia are controversial but remain consistent with his ultimate good.
As well as considering the ultimate good, leaders need to determine the importance of the processes used to get there. Ethical nonconsequentialists are concerned with the way in which the means supports and justifies the end, as well as the end itself.
I know we’ll have some environmental impact here but maybe a fire will help students appreciate the other aspects of the bush. Perhaps there are other ways to warm up, such as a game? But a fire will be easier and may well be worth the cost?
Outdoor leaders should consider the way in which desirable outcomes are attained and the outcomes in terms of their ultimate good. A strict nonconsequentialist view would suggest that no means should be employed which do not support the ends.
If I’m serious about minimising environmental impact then there is no choice. A fire conflicts with my environmentally related ultimate good. I’ll need to find other ways to warm the group.
In the end
Ethical issues will, by definition, remain dilemmas. What you do in the bush will always be judged with the accuracy of retrospective vision, however you still need to make ethical decisions. No recipe exists for ensuring appropriate decision making, but the following, adapted from Hunt (1990) can serve as a guide and acts as a summary to this section. These points are:
- Sort out the ethical dilemmas from the facts of the situation. Don’t confuse that which can be known with that which involves moral judgements.
- Avoid purely subjective or personal responses to ethical dilemmas.
- Develop and discuss your personal and professional ultimate good. Consider how this fits with that of your workplace and/or your participants.
- Don’t cast an objective ethical position in stone so that it is not open to renegotiation and interpretation (you might be confronted with another leader’s words, a management manual or published safety guidelines)
- Recognise ethical issues before they arise and before trips begin.
- Determine a priority of what is ethically important. Try to avoid issues which are not easily resolved, yet have little bearing on the quality and outcome of the trip.
Hunt J. 1990. Ethical Issues in Experiential Education. The Association for Experiential Education. Boulder, CO.
Priest S. & Gass M. 1997. Effective Leadership in Adventure Programming. Human Kinetics, University of New Hampshire.
Singer P. 1993. Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.