The Markkula Center’s article “Thinking Ethically” lays out five key approaches to ethical reasoning: utilitarian, rights, fairness/justice, common good, and virtue. Each one provides a distinct way to frame difficult choices, but the article also emphasizes that no single framework guarantees the “right” answer in every case. Instead, ethical decisions benefit from considering multiple lenses and weighing their insights together. This idea connects well with NC State’s emphasis on collaborative problem-solving, where students are encouraged to evaluate issues from different perspectives before deciding on a course of action.

For example, the utilitarian approach asks whether an action will create the greatest overall benefit, while the fairness or justice approach stresses that individuals should be treated equally unless there is a clear, relevant reason to treat them differently. These approaches overlap in real-world settings such as workplace management, where leaders must balance efficiency with fairness among employees. At the same time, the virtue approach highlights the character of the decision-maker, reminding us that ethical choices are also about who we strive to become, not just about immediate outcomes.

Taken together, these frameworks act like a compass. They may not point to a single direction every time, but they ensure that decision-making is deliberate, transparent, and grounded in widely shared values. In this way, the Markkula framework encourages both personal reflection and collective accountability in ethical reasoning.

Source:
Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. “Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, 2021, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/

When reading the “Thinking Ethically” article from the Santa Clara Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, I was most drawn to the Utilitarian Approach, which emphasizes producing the greatest balance of good over harm. This framework resonated with me because I often find myself weighing outcomes and trying to make choices that will positively impact the most people. For example, when working on collaborative projects, I tend to think through how each decision will affect not only my immediate group but also the broader audience who might rely on our final product. The idea that “the ethical action is the one that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm” (Velasquez et al.) reflects how I strive to evaluate long-term consequences, even if it means making short-term sacrifices.

One real-world connection that comes to mind is my part-time job, where I often have to prioritize customer satisfaction while still respecting company policies. Sometimes, bending a minor rule in order to resolve a customer’s issue results in greater overall good—keeping the customer happy and protecting the company’s reputation. Another text-to-world connection I see is in public policy decisions, such as the allocation of limited resources like funding or healthcare. Policymakers often use a utilitarian lens to determine how to maximize benefits for the largest portion of the population.

These examples illustrate the practicality of the Utilitarian Approach and how it can serve as a guiding principle in both everyday decisions and broader societal contexts. By focusing on the balance of outcomes, individuals and groups can align their actions with a vision of maximizing well-being for as many people as possible.

Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer. “Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, 2021, https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/

Reading Carucci’s “Why Ethical People Make Unethical Choices” made me think about how subtle pressures in everyday workplaces can normalize behavior that feels wrong in hindsight. Instead of dramatic scandals like Wells Fargo or the Astros, I thought about industries where the pressure is quieter—like healthcare or education. For example, doctors sometimes feel pushed to see more patients in less time, which can lead to rushed care or overlooking details. Teachers may face pressure to “teach to the test” rather than focus on meaningful learning. In both cases, individuals don’t wake up planning to cut corners, but systemic incentives and cultural norms make it feel acceptable.

Carucci’s point that compliance rules aren’t enough really stood out. A handbook can say one thing, but if promotions, bonuses, or recognition only go to people who hit metrics, then values take a backseat. What struck me most was how small compromises pile up. People convince themselves that bending the rules “just this once” is harmless, but over time those choices shift the culture.

For leadership, the takeaway is that ethics isn’t about dramatic moments of right and wrong—it’s about the everyday environment leaders create. If leaders celebrate transparency as much as outcomes, people feel safer raising concerns before they grow into crises. It also means building systems where speaking up is rewarded, not punished. To me, the bigger lesson is that ethical leadership is proactive: if you don’t shape the culture intentionally, it will shape itself, often in ways you don’t want.

Carucci, Ron. “Why Ethical People Make Unethical Choices.” Harvard Business Review (2016).