Chapter Ten: Navigating Goodness and Evil; Professional Ethics
Part One: Goodness and Evil
Readings:
Hallie, P. (1981). From cruelty to goodness. Hastings Center Report, 23-28.
Birmingham, P. (2003). Holes of oblivion: The banality of radical evil. Hypatia, 18(1), 80-103.
Key Dilemma of Part One:
Mainstream USA culture presupposes that conflicts generally start from the different and threatening self-interests of the disputants. The basic mediation process assumes that a resolution to a conflict will be found when disputants combine their self-interests, so that a win-win solution can be created.
A case can be made that this assumption is not true for everyone because disputants often internalize the interests of larger groups–political, cultural, social, familial, identity and business. Sometimes, disputants sacrifice their self-interest for the interests of larger groups. Most of us probably cycle through all of these moral commitments, depending on the situation, and depending on our moods. The following chart demonstrates the diversity of moral commitments that disputants can bring to the table.
| Moral Realm | Self-Interest | Immediate Circle Interest | Distant Others Interest |
| Needy Self/Selfish | yes | no | no |
| Extending Morality to Immediate Circle | yes | yes | no |
| Negligent of Immediate Circle | yes | no | yes |
| Universal Balance | yes | yes | yes |
| Sacrificing All for Immediate Circle | no | yes | no |
| Sacrificing Self for All | no | yes | yes |
| Sacrificing Self and Circle for Far | no | no | yes |
| Universally Negligent | no | no | no |
In the chart, above, the following terms are defined as follows:
Moral Realm: The area or areas that one considers as part of one’s moral commitment.
Self-Interest: Where one’s morality primarily revolves around what is good for oneself.
Immediate Circle Interest: Where one’s morality primarily revolves around what is good for one’s family, home, friends, clients, interest groups.
Distant Others: This category includes diverse people, species, and nature beyond one’s immediate circle.
Review of List of Navigation Strategies for Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, Differences, and Dilemmas:
Example to help us work through this dilemma:
The following example focuses on a divorce that involves young children: Let’s say that both parents want primary custody because that goal fits their self-interest. At first glance, this looks like a win-lose conflict that fits the top rung of the chart above, “Needy Self/Selfish.” However, the mediator may ask the disputants about how much they value the interests of the children. Hopefully, their morality supports honoring the interests of the children (Extending Morality to Immediate Circle.” From this, a shared custody plan can be created where time with each parent is designed to maximize the interests of the children.
The default setting for thinking about the practice of mediation is to suppose the people have self-interests and that these can be combined to produce a resolution to their conflicts. If asked about self-interest, people can produce them, even when self-interest is not the primary way that they lead their lives. Mediators have success creating resolutions with the combining-self-interest strategy, so why think about changing it?
On the other side of the difference/dilemma, is the view that mediation need not be confined to the combining-self-interest strategy. I suggest that mediators ask disputants about the moral reasoning that drives their side of the conflict. When disputant moral principles are on the table, then there may be a way to combine these principles to reach a resolution to the conflict at hand.
Discussion Questions:
1. Can you think of particular individuals, that are familiar to you, who tend to fit these categories?
2. Can you explain why they are the way that they are?
3. How can one have a balanced moral life, while having boundaries against moral burn-out?
4. How does competitiveness affect our moral commitments?
5. Is there both a healthy and unhealthy level of competitiveness in the moral life?
6. Does the need for losers fuel selfish competitiveness?
7. How is dishonesty and gaslighting create toxic moral environments, and undermine conflict processes, collaboration, and community?
8. How is secrecy and the lack of transparency create toxic moral environments, and undermine conflict processes, collaboration, and community?
9. What other forms of manipulation to people use that can undermine conflict processes, collaboration, and community?
10. How is healing basic to goodness?
11. How is goodness a kind of welcoming?
12. What is the banality of evil?
13. What is the relationship between evil and hate?
14. What is the relationship between hate and hate crimes?
15. How is affirmative action both necessary and perceived as unfair?
