Why not donate a kidney to a stranger?

by Courtney Bither

On June 1, 2021 I donated a kidney to a stranger. Most people want to know, immediately, “Why? Why donate a kidney to a stranger?”

 The screening process for kidney donation is thorough, and there are several psychological and social screenings for non-directed (or altruistic) donors. Throughout the process, and in speaking to others about my decision, I’ve come to realize that donating a kidney, while certainly a sacrifice and a very big decision, always felt within the realm of possibility for me.

In my experience, most people who aren’t confronted with organ donation have not spent much time thinking about it. I certainly did not consider myself a candidate for organ donation until a history professor of mine shared with our class that he would be donating a kidney and asked if we had any questions about the process. This conversation prompted me to think more about organ donation: the risks, the benefits, the requirements. And I decided to submit myself as a candidate not long after.  

We return to the why: Why donate a kidney to a stranger? The answer is simple: because I wanted to. Because it made sense to me. I decided if I made it through all of the screening, I would be at such little risk for the surgery, and able to contribute so much to someone. So why not?

“Why not?” gave me much more pause than, “why?” Why not give a kidney to a stranger? Because I cannot know anything about the intended recipient, and I cannot choose to whom my kidney is donated. My kidney could go to a child, or a loving parent, or a justice-seeking teacher. Or my kidney could go to a white supremacist—a person’s whose actions I find not only questionable, but evil—a detriment to the wellbeing of others. And my kidney would extend that person’s life. 

So how, nonetheless, did I choose to go through with it?

I looked at my options: donate, or not. And I talked through my reasoning with close friends and family—people who understand me and my values, who could help me talk through what felt right for me. Talking out my concerns with each option clarified for me what I was most concerned with: doing good and doing no harm.

I realized, in self-reflection, that I would rather take a chance on doing good, even if it meant harm might result from my decision. It’s uncomfortable to think about, but it’s important to consider. In general, I tend to think that those in need should be given priority over those might take advantage of systems for those in need. I’d rather take a chance on a “good” person receiving my kidney than a bad one. And, beyond this, I can only do what is within my control—the decision to donate is within my control, not the past or future decisions my recipient makes.

Understanding my values here—to do good, to prevent harm, to fulfill what I believe my moral and social obligations are—helped me decide, with confidence, to proceed with kidney donation.

Understanding the gravity of the situation for those waiting for a kidney also helped me decide to donate my kidney: 12 people die every day waiting for a kidney transplant. In 2020 in the U.S., about 100,000 people were waiting for a kidney transplant, and only 22,817 people in the U.S. received one. Not everyone can or should donate a kidney. However, considering the manifold aspects of the issue, more people can and perhaps should think about kidney donation—and other “big solutions”—and where and how they fit in the process.

 I am very fortunate to be in a situation where I can donate a kidney: I have very supportive colleagues at work who encouraged me throughout the process; I have enough paid time off for my recovery so I won’t have to struggle financially; I live with my partner and two very supportive roommates who help with recovery while I cannot drive or make food. And for me, kidney donation never felt impossible. But for some people, it does. And that’s alright—even good. Donating one kidney involves much more than one person—each person involved in my recovery made this donation possible. Each “big decision” and “big solution” requires a team—yes, only I donated a kidney, but I couldn’t have done it alone. And what’s more, it’s something that felt right for me, with my values, it was something I wanted to do.

I must admit, at times I feel uncomfortable with the shock I hear from people questioning my choice to donate a kidney. I know people mean well—and I don’t deny, donating a kidney to a stranger is an unusual thing to do—but because donating a kidney was something I wanted to do, I don’t always understand the shock. My favorite responses have come from folks who tell me that they have family on dialysis, so they understand the gravity of the situation, or from those who appreciate that this sort of decision is brave—it certainly required courage. But it isn’t an impossibility—it was a choice I made, and I made it happily.

Everyone can have a role in making the world a better place—in doing good work—and, in my opinion, it’s a good thing that people have different roles in the process. Rather than focus on how impractical another’s role would be for you, perhaps it would be more helpful to reflect on what it is you want to do and what it is that you can do.

You might start by asking yourself, “What do I want to do to make the world a better place? What makes sense to me? And what kind of team or community do I need with me to take action?”

Perhaps will you feel inspired to look into kidney donation (link here), or maybe you’ll sign up to donate blood (link here). Or, maybe you will challenge yourself and a friend to work with an organization like Food for Free (link) or Meals on Wheels (link), working to ensure everyone has access to adequate food in your community.  

There are many ways to do good work—to work for a kinder, more equitable world. Find what makes sense to you, what you want to do, and start there.   

---

• Not sure what you value or how to make a decision? In my own life, I have found both the Value Sort (link) and the 5 Ds of Good Work (link) useful in my own discernment process (including in my choice to donate a kidney). Be sure to check them out.

• Would you like to learn more about kidney donation? I recommend this video and article (link here) from Dylan Matthews at Vox.

Diving into the 5Ds: Discussing & Debating

by Shelby Clark

At The Good Project when thinking about how to resolve a difficult dilemma we often apply a framework referred to as the “5Ds.” The 5Ds include:

1. Define: Recognize the dilemma in your life;

2. Discuss and Debate: An outward looking step, where you consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons, and probable consequences of various courses of action;

3. Deliberate: An inward looking step, where you personally reflect on the various options available, and whether or not to take action;

4. Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision;

5. Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.

To date, my colleagues and I have written several blogs that incorporate the 5Ds framework (here, here, and here). Here, I hope to dive deeper into how an individual might engage in element #2 of the 5Ds framework: discussing and debating.

The scholarly literature on discussion and debate is vast and I do not intend to cover that here; instead here are a few helpful ideas or frameworks that can guide individuals as they engage in discussing and debating dilemmas.

1. Preacher, prosecutor, politician, or scientist? In his recent book, Think Again, organizational psychologist Adam Grant points out that there are a variety of ways that we can approach discussions and arguments. If we believe our beliefs are at risk, we act like a preacher and try to protect our beliefs; if we think other people’s reasoning or logic is at fault, we attack it like a prosecutor would in court; if we want to win over others, we try to persuade them like a politician would.

While each of these modes of discussion certainly has its place, Grant argues that we should really try to act more like scientists in our discussions with one another—scientists, he notes, are “expected to doubt what [they] know, be curious about what [they] don’t know, and update [their] views based on new data… we move into scientist mode when we’re searching for the truth.”

When discussing a dilemma, which of these roles are you embodying? What would it look like for you to approach your dilemma like a scientist? Grant notes that even saying “Can we debate?” at the beginning of a discussion indicates that you are more interested in approaching a discussion as a scientist—someone interested in truth—than as a preacher, prosecutor, or politician.

2. Try to have a Better Argument: The Better Arguments Project (here) is a collaboration between the Aspen Institute, Facing History and Ourselves, and The Allstate Corporation that promotes the belief that individuals need to focus not on ceasing to argue, but on having better arguments. For them, better arguments include a focus on historical context, emotions, and recognizing power inherent in arguments, but such arguments also take five broad principles into account: 1) take winning off the table; 2) prioritize relationships and listen passionately; 3) pay attention to context; 4) embrace vulnerability; and 5) make room to transform. The Good Project has collaborated with the Better Arguments Project to create workbooks (here) focused on the idea that having better arguments can lead to good work.

What would your dilemma discussion look like if you focused on having a better argument around your dilemma?

3. Utilitarian, deontologist, or virtue ethicist? Historically, many have looked to normative ethical frameworks (here)—those that define the standards of ethical behavior—to help guide them in their thinking about what is “right.” For example, some think about what would be right for the most amount of people (here), as a utilitarian would. Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham in the late 1700s, is primarily concerned with the consequences of an action and whether or not a particular act maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain (here) instead of whether the act itself is moral.

Deontologists (here) often believe, instead, that certain duties should be carried out and that individuals have certain inherent rights regardless of outcomes. Founded by Immanuel Kant in the 1700s, Kant argued that it was not consequences that mattered to determine whether something was moral, but rather whether the intentions or motivations of a person were good. Kant argued that certain duties were inherent to everyone (here), and, perhaps most famously, defined the “categorical imperative” as a duty that everyone must perform regardless of the end result; that is, the act itself is also the consequence and therefore morally bad acts cannot be treated as a means to a good end.

Virtue ethicists (here) believe that if you respond to a dilemma by being a good person—for example, with courage and honesty—then such habits of character will lead to a flourishing life. Founded in the teachings of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics from ancient Greece, virtue ethicists argue that habits of good character are cultivated throughout life and help individuals to respond automatically (here) with “goodness” to everyday events. Thus, it is through developing moral and intellectual character strengths, such as intellectual honesty, prudence, or responsibility, that the virtue ethicist believes an individual is able to respond with goodness to the dilemmas of life.

When discussing the pros and cons of a dilemma at hand, how do you think about what is the right course of action? Consider using our activity (here) to help you explore which of these ethical frameworks you are arguing for or against as you discuss or debate your dilemma. Perhaps you are arguing for a framework not named here, such as an ethic of care (a relationship focused ethical framework), or for a religious-based framework.

4. Learn how to “disagree well”: Paul Graham, an internet pioneer, in his 2008 essay “How to Disagree” (here) laid out in pyramidal form a hierarchy of disagreements (here).

●     At the bottom of the pyramid is name calling.

●     Individuals then progress into ad hominem arguments, wherein individuals attack a person rather than their argument.

●     Next is “responding to tone”—the person responds to the content of an argument, but simply the tone in which it is said (e.g. a “flippant” argument).

●     Next is contradiction, where one just states an opposing argument without evidence.

●     This is followed by counterargument—a contradiction combined with evidence and reasoning.

●     Following counterargument is refutation—quoting someone’s argument and explaining the mistake in this quoted argument.

●     Finally, “refuting the central point”—finding someone’s central thread, refuting it, and then giving evidence to back up one’s argument.

As you discuss a dilemma, be aware of how you are disagreeing. What level of the hierarchy of disagreement are you at?

5. Build common ground. Scholars from a number of disciplinary backgrounds indicate that the best way to change other’s minds is to first build common ground with one another rather than throwing facts and logic around. Building friendships, showing care and civility towards one another (here), and building positive emotion is the first step towards opening the door to further discussion, sparking curiosity, and potentially changing one another’s minds. Consider exploring the research of organizations like More in Common (here) to help share ways that groups can reach across divides.

When you discuss a dilemma, are you looking for ways to reach out to others? Reflect on how you are attending to positive emotions and civil discussion as you think and converse about dilemmas.

As mentioned above, there are certainly many more discussion and debate frameworks, and some may be more appropriate for your population of students or for certain discussions over others. For myself, I am naturally drawn to Grant’s framework of preachers, prosecutors, politicians, and scientists. I often feel that I can fall into all three of these “P” roles; I am known to adamantly defend my beliefs, to attempt to persuade others of the faults in their logic, and I am sometimes competitive to a fault. Yet, my work has also been focused on developing adolescents’ intellectual virtues, like curiosity, and the essence of intellectual virtues is about trying to find epistemic truth. That is, how can curiosity, or open-mindedness, or intellectual humility help us better understand “truth”? As such, through my work I am constantly reminded of my role as a scientist—I want to dig deeper, and know more, even if it goes against my own beliefs.

We’d love to hear from you if you’ve found any routines or frameworks useful in your work discussing or debating our dilemmas. Contact us here.

Good Citizenship: A Series - Part 3

5 Ds, 3 Es and One Good Citizen

by The Good Project Team

Given recent events in the United States—increasing political division, yawning inequality between the country’s richest and poorest inhabitants, and well-documented violence directed towards people of color—the need for “good citizens'' is compelling. And that’s just within our borders. We need to attend as well to worldwide issues such as climate change and the current COVID-19 pandemic. Everyone is now a global citizen as well.

Our overarching goal at The Good Project is to help foster moral and ethical reflection in students and adults. One promising means of doing so is to practice reflecting on real-life dilemmas as they are encountered. In our conception, such reflection optimally draws on “Five Ds”:

• Defining the dilemma one is faced with;

• Discussing the dilemma with others;

• Debating the pros and cons of various courses of action;

• Deciding on an action (or deciding not to act); and

• Debriefing the dilemma by reflecting on what went right, wrong, or what might be done better next time one encounters a similar situation.

Let us take each of these in turn.

Defining the Dilemma

In our work on dilemmas, we speak about times when people are not sure about the “right course of action” or feel torn between conflicting responsibilities. To date, we’ve compiled fifty dilemmas in our online dilemmas database; these can be drawn on in discussions on all sorts of topics, across the range of ages, demographies, and fields of endeavor.

As just one example, let’s use our dilemma “Divided Loyalties.”

 Sara is the executive director of a national nonprofit that represents the concerns of America’s independent workforce, including freelancers, consultants, part-timers, and the self-employed. Sara’s grandfather was vice president of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and although she never met her grandfather, she has been very much influenced by his work as a union organizer.

Soon after being recognized as one of a group of outstanding social entrepreneurs, Sara was invited to the World Economic Forum (WEF), a meeting of leaders of governments and corporations from around the world. Because the WEF gathers so many powerful individuals together, there are often protests of one form or another, and Sara would have been forced to cross a picket line in order to attend the WEF. In this case, she felt torn between a loyalty to her roots in the labor movement and a responsibility to her role as a noted social entrepreneur.

Clearly Sara feels a dilemma. One way to clarify that dilemma is to say that she is torn between her sense of neighborlly morality and the ethics of her role. Neighborly morality refers the ways in which individual treats those in their immediate social circles; it includes behaviors such as honesty, kindness, caring, attentiveness, and other prosocial behaviors. In contrast, ethics of roles refers to the standards, norms, and regulations expected of those acting in a professional capacity (including students); one might think of the Hippocratic Oath for those in the medical field or the ethics expected of a journalist, a lawyer, a teacher, an auditor..

 In Sara’s case, she is being asked to adhere to the ethics of her role as a social entrepreneur—to advance the causes that she espouses in a responsible way. On the other hand, feelings of neighborly morality might call for her to show respect to those on the picket line—especially given her strong feelings of familial loyalty.

Discussing and Debating the Dilemma

 How should Sara decide what to do? What would it mean for her to act as a good citizen in this situation? In turning to discussing and debating the dilemma, we often suggest that individuals turn to respected others—mentors—in order to ask for their advice. Importantly, a mentor might not always be a single person to whom one looks up; rather, that mentoring role might be assumed by a fictional character, or individuals might pull different lessons from several individuals, a process we’ve referred to as “frag-mentoring.” At The Good Project, we also speak of the importance of “anti-mentors”—looking to examples of who we don’t want to be in a situation. Thus, in this situation, Sara might ask mentors in her life what they would do in a similar situation in order to be respectful to both family and work responsibilities, or, instead, what they did if they ever encountered a similar experience. (And if the mentors were not available, she might try in her imagination to recreate the advice that they might have given.)

In debating the possible courses of action, Sara should also refer to the Rings of Responsibility—whom will each course of action serve? To whom will she be acting responsibly if she crosses the picket line? What about if she elects to skip the WEF meeting altogether? Which action allows her to better serve her communities in an ethical, engaged, and excellent manner? For example, Sara might consider that:

• By attending, she might help her national nonprofit; she also could be furthering the needs of the communities that her nonprofit serves; she would be upholding her ethics of as a social entrepreneur; and she would be fulfilling a responsibility to wider society by serving an underrepresented workforce.

• By not attending, she might serve her image of herself as a supporter of workers as she honors the picket line; she could be serving her family by upholding her grandfather’s union legacy; or she might be serving her community (and the broader society) if she is publicly displays her support of others in the labor movement.

In wrestling with this dilemma, Sara would also need to consider her own values and how they might affect her decision regarding this dilemma. Perhaps she is already aware of her own values; or perhaps she might conduct an inventory, by taking a survey such as The Good Project’s Value Sort. Which course of action would be more aligned with Sara’s own values? We often speak about alignment as something that occurs when various groups or parties want the same thing or are working towards a common goal; but this desired balance can also occur within an individual when someone’s thoughts, actions, and values align with one another.

 Deciding on a Course of Action

Which course of action should Sara take? As we’ve described it, a “good citizen” is someone who acts in accordance with all three “Es” —specifically taking into account the community or communities to which that person belongs. Again, she might consider:

• Ethics: Sara has acted ethically if she makes a decision in light of her responsibilities to her several communities (to her organization, to the unions, to the ideals represented by the freedom to demonstrate), and if she acts in a manner that she believes will ultimately do the most good.  

• Excellence: Sara knows the norms and rules of her various communities well and in fact, her desire to adhere to the norms of one of those communities (i.e., not to cross a picket line) was what brought about her quandary. She recognizes that if she does an excellent job at the event, the potential impact she might have will expand her connections within the political community.

• Engagement: Sara has been deeply engaged in her work. Because this event brought together multiple communities of which she considered herself a part, the issues were especially relevant. She also is engaged with her family and does not take that affiliation lightly.

 Debriefing

When posing such a dilemma to students, we typically do not reveal an answer—it’s the process of applying the 5 Ds that is crucial.

However, here we can reveal that Sara elected to cross the picket line. She concluded that the harm her action might cause would ultimately be outweighed by the good she might be able to achieve by attending the event, making contacts, speaking on behalf of her beliefs about labor, and ultimately, furthering her cause. She acted in accordance with what she felt might, eventually, do the most good. In some ways, she chose long term over short term gain. Upon reflection, Sara was not fully at peace with her decision (she said she could never feel fully at ease crossing a picket line), but she felt that she made the best choice she could have at the time.

As mentioned above, there may at times be overlap between “good work” and “good citizenship.” In this particular case, Sara understands herself to be responsible to multiple communities and does her best to take these communities into account in her decision-making. The good work of a nonprofit director requires Sara to be a good citizen.

 Debriefing also involves a consideration of longer term consequences. Did Sara’s decision cause any family estrangement? What did she accomplish at the event, and were these accomplishments worth crossing the picket line? Would she make a different decision in the future, and why? These are the types of questions to consider in our efforts to foster good work and good citizenship.

Good Citizenship: A Series - Part 1

An Introduction: What is “Good Citizenship”?

By The Good Project Team

 The problems facing the world today are ample and, in a globalized and interconnected planet, are more likely to affect all nations and all persons. The international community recently witnessed the degree to which a previously unknown pathogen, COVID-19, could within weeks disrupt daily life for billions of people. Climate change poses an urgent threat for the survival of human beings as well as the numerous species with which we share the earth. Social disparities along racial and ethnic lines persist and are in some cases widening.

It is imperative for people (especially those with the time and resources to do so) to address these issues and to do so collaboratively. When we consider people coming together in pursuit of a goal that will benefit the common good, the terms “civic” and “citizenship” often come to mind.

How do those of us on The Good Project define “good citizenship”? What are the ways of thinking that will encourage citizens to contribute to a better world?

Launched in the middle 1990s, The Good Project initially investigated how individuals were carrying out their work under conditions of rapid technological change and strong market forces, which have only accelerated in the succeeding quarter century. Our research team conducted in-depth interviews about work with individuals drawn from a a range of domains—including law, medicine, journalism, and education. We asked our informants to consider their formative influences, beliefs, values, supports, obstacles, responsibilities, ethical standards, and allied issues. As a result of this extensive research, our “good work” framework emerged. As we now conceptualize it, good work is characterized by“3 Es”: it is high quality (Excellent), concerned with consequences (Ethical), and meaningful (Engaging).

The bulk of our research has focused on people’s professional lives. But the role of worker is obviously not the only role that individuals occupy in their multifaceted lives—nor is work the only sphere in which we interact with and influence others. One may, for example, think of oneself as a “mom,” a “daughter,” and a “friend,” and act differently depending on which role is dominant in a particular moment.

“Citizen” is yet another lens through which we might view ourselves. And so we have recently pondered: Can we conceptualize “citizenship” in ways that will encourage people to do “good” for the benefit of all?

What is a “good citizen”?

First and foremost, when referring to citizenship, we do not simply mean legal citizenship in a particular nation or country. Instead, in our formulation, a citizen is an inhabitant of a place or community, whether or not that comes with legal recognition. Although it is undoubtedly more difficult without legal citizenship, we believe everyone has a right and a responsibility to participate in civic life.

Accordingly, at The Good Project, we extend our conception of the 3Es of ethics, excellence, and engagement to describe and evaluate the meaning of “good citizenship.” With that schema in mind, good citizens are individuals who strive to do the right thing, not principally for their own self interest but for their broader communities and for society (ethics); know the rules, regulations, and norms of their particular communities and contexts, as well as conditions when it is proper or even necessary to defy them (excellence); and take an interest and find meaning in working for the betterment of community and society (engagement). As examples familiar to readers, we think of Cesar Chavez, Dr. Martin Luther King, or Malala Yousafzai; and while most of us cannot presume to accomplish what these heroic figures have accomplished, these exemplary citizens nonetheless serve as inspiration.

This way the 3 Es of good citizenship manifest themselves and resonate with one another will differ depending on one’s values, environmental circumstances, and upbringing. For some individuals, voting regularly may be sufficient political action to qualify as “doing the right thing.” For others, weekly protests calling for large-scale social change might be necessary in order to feel one has done enough. The issues that are salient to particular individuals will also vary.

At The Good Project we have gathered evidence in support of our claim that “good citizens” are ethical, engaged, and excellent. In our analysis, they are also able to critically consider the rings of responsibility; in so doing, their ultimate actions should be beneficial not only to themselves, but also to those in their various communities. It follows, then, that individuals would be acting in accordance with the principles of “good citizenship” if:

• When encountering dilemmas, individuals took the time to critically think about how they define the various communities and tried to act, or not act, in accordance with what they felt would do the most good for their communities rather primarily than for themselves (ethics).

• Individuals took the time to know the norms, rules, and/or laws of their various communities (excellence).

• Individuals displayed an interest in events and issues relevant to their various communities (engagement).

In the accompanying set of blogs, we explore good citizenship and good work through a variety of approaches and perspectives. Featured are:

• A discussion of the distinctions between a good person, a good worker and a good citizen

• The application of the Good Work “5 Ds” framework to unpack a dilemma

• A discussion of how good citizenship can be achieved through good work

• A consideration of the meaning and the achievement of global citizenship.

Tackling Dilemmas at Work

by researcher Kirsten McHugh

We at The Good Project talk a lot about ethical dilemmas and how these sorts of difficult scenarios can make achieving good work so challenging. My colleagues and I have recently formalized our approach to confronting dilemmas at work. We refer to this approach as “The 5 D’s” and touched on it briefly in our group post, “The Good Project and COVID-19”. 

To bring this tool to life, let’s take a look at how we might apply The 5 D’s to one of The Good Project narratives: A Tale of Two Lawyers.

In this real-life narrative, Joseph is a lawyer presented with the opportunity to represent a large bank in his city with a new acquisition deal. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement required Joseph to withhold information from a colleague representing a competitor to the bank. With financial and professional gains at the forefront of his mind, and along with the support of senior members of the firm, Joseph accepted the offer from the bank. At the same time, he also only provided a half-truth to the colleague representing the bank’s competitor when this individual directly confronted him about the specifics of his dealings. Eventually, the full story came out, and his colleague was furious. The relationship remained icy, and thereafter others at Joseph’s firm were wary of working with him. While sharing the story, Joseph admitted he wishes that he had acted differently.

Joseph believes he did not technically cross any ethical lines according to lawyers’ ethical code of conduct, but he still regrets the outcome of his actions. In this way, Joseph’s dilemma is one that does not have a technically “wrong” or “right” answer that he could simply “look up”. This is precisely the type of dilemma that we had in mind when we envisioned the 5 D’s.

In his account, Joseph admits that he felt “torn” about what to do after his initial meeting with the bank. That being said, he did not explicitly categorize the situation as a dilemma. Realizing that you are in the midst of a dilemma is vital to recognizing that you need to slow down and consider the terrain before moving ahead with any gut reaction. Without this first step, it’s unlikely to find a path to the next stages of discussion and deliberation. In Joseph’s case, it’s clear that his jumping to a quick decision cost him his reputation among some of his coworkers.

How might have this story unfolded if Joseph had instead followed the 5 D’s? Let’s imagine a different series of events for Joseph and how they might have led to a more considered outcome.

1. Dilemma: Recognize a difficult decision in your daily life that may not have a “right”  course of action.

As discussed, Joseph felt torn, but that feeling unfortunately did not tip him off that he was in the midst of a dilemma. Had he been aware of the 5 D’s, perhaps he would have recognized that this was a situation with serious implications involving others—implications of which he might not be fully aware—and that he should stop to consider the landscape more carefully.

2.   Discuss: Consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons and probable consequences of various courses of action.

Had Joseph known he was facing a dilemma, his conversation with the firm’s upper-management might have been presented as a genuine question regarding the appropriate next steps instead of as a “pitch” for approval of his taking on the bank as a client. Ideally, senior partners of a firm are aware of the various matters other lawyers are involved in and would have voiced concern over any competing loyalties. They may have also shared their wisdom and long-view regarding the value of a trustworthy reputation among peers versus the short-term gains of one lucrative contract.

Obviously, to be effective this type of conversation requires “good workers” as colleagues. The senior partners would need to put the firm’s financial gains to the side and be prepared to give honest—even if possibly disappointing—advice to their colleague.

3.  Deliberate: Engage in self-reflection and consideration of the various options available.

If Joseph had engaged in thoughtful discussion with his superiors, he might have then taken time on his own to sift through their advice. Allowing different opinions to settle and to reflect on his own priorities and responsibilities, Joseph may have been able to carefully think through the repercussions of each available course of action.  

4.  Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision

Joseph says that if he could go back, he would do things differently. He has already written an alternative ending for himself. As Joseph describes in the original narrative:

“I probably would have gone back to the new client, and I probably would have said to him, ‘Look, everyone in our firm is a professional. In order for us to make an intelligent decision about this, I have to have a complete and open conversation with all of my partners, including partners who are connected to the other bank. And you have to just trust my partners that they will not disclose this confidence.’ And then if he had said, ‘Sorry, you’re either going to keep this to yourself or it’s not going to happen,’ then I probably would have declined.”

5.    Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.

Joseph says that over the years he has “told this story many times” and that “most people have advised him that he did the right thing”. We can assume that he is referring to others within the legal profession, but it’s not clear whether or not they are simply trying to console him.

If Joseph had followed the earlier steps, it’s possible that he could have debriefed with the senior partners he spoke with during step 2. This conversation might have also involved the colleague working with the bank’s competitor. It could have been an opportunity to build trust and comradery as a team, feeling like the decision was a group effort.

At the end of the narrative, Joseph describes his regret in how handled the situation:

“I felt that I owed the highest duty to the client, to follow their instructions in terms of not disclosing the matter. I felt I executed my duty of loyalty and candor to my partner as best I could under those circumstances… I think I touched all the right ethical bases, and everything I did was by the book, but it wasn’t necessarily the best way to handle it.”

Perhaps if Joseph had originally recognized this situation as a dilemma and been able to use the 5 D’s as a tool at the start, he would have saved his reputation and salved his conscience.

The problem with a dilemma is that there often isn’t one right or wrong answer. The 5 D’s don’t promise to bring us the “right” answer; but hopefully they help guide us towards the best available option based on our own personal values and ethical framework. And if things did not turn out as well as one had hoped, one still feels one did one’s best and will be better prepared for the next dilemma—assuming it’s recognized as such!