Renowned writer on ethical thought, Philippa Foot passed away earlier this month. Her collected essays in “Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy” (1978) and “Moral Dilemmas: And Other Topics in Moral Philosophy” (2002) dealt with reason and morals, or vice, as natural defects. The pitfalls of “should,” “would,” and “good” all were grist for the mill of Foot’s study.
The moral distinction between intended and unintended consequences, between doing and allowing—the duty not to inflict harm weighed against the duty to provide aid were gracefully presented in Foot’s writings. Her framing of moral judgments based in rational basis changed the way people think. The trolley example is arrestingly and simply stated by Foot. The ethical dilemma faced by the trolley driver of a runaway trolley hurtling toward five track workers is the premise of this example. By diverting the trolley to a spur where just one worker is on the track, the driver can save five lives. The clear answer is that the driver should divert the trolley and kill one worker rather than five. But what about a surgeon who could save five lives—by killing a patient and distributing the patient’s organs to five other patients who would die without the new organs? (Credit to William Grimes for this succinct summary of the Trolley Problem.)
There are many ways these types of dilemmas are presented to leaders. “Should” I lay off workers to preserve the company? “Would” a new product perform better than the current product? I had the opportunity to work with a group of nonprofit leaders on strategic planning over the better part of the past weekend. The only life vs. death decisions we considered were that of the organization and or programs within the organization. But the process was the same. The paradoxes we ruminated were universal to philosophers, neuroscientists, economists and psychologists.
The right or “good” answer to all leadership questions is rooted in both the intended and the unintended consequences. It is easy to site one’s own version of the Hippocratic Oath “first do no harm”, but this lends itself to short term vision and action. Often a painfully cut must be made to improve organizational structure and performance. Sometimes that pain is reflected as the end of a product or program, or staff members’ employment. Sometimes the pain is in a perceived costly investment in capital to reap the reward of return on investment in the future.
I was fortunate to work with a team of skilled leaders to dig into just these types of decisions facing the nonprofit sector in our community. I am grateful for the thoughtful discussions, the long-term vision and the collegial learning environment I was invited to join this weekend and I promise to continue to honor Philippa Foot and to look at both the intended and the unintended outcomes of my leadership decisions.
