Ethical Navigation

Abstract

Risky play poses ethical dilemmas for decision-makers. This chapter introduces a methodology for ethical analysis. A central component is the Navigation Wheel, which outlines how decisions about risky play rely on clarifications regarding law, identity, morality, reputation, economy, and ethics. The chapter describes how the traditions of consequentialist ethics and duty ethics can provide conflicting answers about risky play. It also identifies the principle of equality and the principle of publicity as core elements in ethical analysis.

In the previous chapter, we discussed the difference between do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics. Here we will take ethics a few steps further and present philosophical tools that can be used to analyse dilemmas around risky play, both in advance of a decision and when one looks back at it and wants to evaluate one’s own efforts. This is a tool chapter, where an important element is the Navigation Wheel, a figure that can be used to analyse the diversity of decision-making considerations when you are in a dilemma.

Ethical navigation is the heading we use for a method of thinking through and finding answers to ethical dilemmas, situations where no matter what you do, something of ethical value will be lost. When you are in an ethical dilemma, there are good ethical reasons to do A and equally good reasons to do B. Regardless of whether you decide to do A or B, someone may have reasons to be disappointed. Ethical navigation is the activity of trying to set a steady and responsible course and identifying a good alternative under the circumstance. The process also prepares you to provide reasons and justification for your decision.

We start from a set of ethical dilemmas from a kindergarten teacher who has shared stories about risk with us. They are suitable for shedding light on ethical dilemmas connected to risky play and how you can navigate when you are in them.

I remember a boy once. We were going to make a ski jump, and we thought that at best they might be able to jump 7 or 8 meters. They are pretty good at jumping when they land that far down the slope. And this boy was good at jumping and he wanted extra speed, and then he jumped somewhere between 14–16 meters! He stood for a while, but then he fell. Then I remember there was a suction going through my stomach when I saw that the kid just flew and flew.

It is the kindergarten teacher who has given the go-ahead for this jump. When adults compete in the ski jump, there is usually a trainer at the jump, signalling with the arm when it is okay to go downhill. Then there is no question of ethics, since the jumper is an adult and goes downhill at his own risk. It is different with children. They need adult help to assess whether this is too dangerous or not. The adult is responsible for saying yes or no to the activity. The same goes for the next story:

We had two-wheeled bicycles in the kindergarten, and we rode on long trips with them. And once it was a bit on the border, because we came to a rather steep path that wound its way down. I’m betting quite a few adults had not been able to cycle down there. And I remember that I cycled down first, and stood on the brake down and the bike slipped … And then my colleague stands at the top and shouts “shall we send them down?” And then I replied that «yes, you can send them, but you must say that they must be careful and STAND on the brake all the way down! They have to stand all the way on the brake ». And then of course one boy wants to challenge us, and he whizzes down without using the brakes and disappears into some green forest. And I think “is this going well?” And then I hear from inside the forest “ha, ha, ha, ha”. So it went well.

Here, the assessment takes place quickly and is perhaps governed more by a gut feeling that things are probably going well than by a risk assessment of whether it is safe for the children to cycle when it is so slippery and steep. Sometimes it is caution that trumps, as in this story:

I have experienced that the children stand in the window and watch the rain. They can see that the ponds and puddles fill up with water. Then they shake their heads when they see adults coming and draining away all the water before they go out. Because the teachers have read that if it is so and so deep then the one-year-old can drown. Then you do not understand the participation of children. There are also kindergartens that go on trips to the lake, and then the children are not allowed to play by the water. Then you step on the influence of children. Then you should not go there.

These three stories come from a kindergarten teacher with a basic view of the balance between do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics. He can acknowledge that both ethics have something to do with it. The situations he finds himself in are ethical dilemmas, since there are good reasons to say yes to the activity that the kids are ready to throw themselves into and at the same time also good reasons to hold back and say no.

In the first two examples, it is the teacher himself who defines the scope for risky play and must balance between do-good-considerations and avoid-harm-considerations. In the third, he witnesses someone else defining what he perceives as too narrow a scope of action for play, in that they drain away the water. Those who decide are in a dilemma between allowing water play with a minimal probability of an absolutely terrible outcome, namely drowning, and removing the water so that this type of play is impossible. The teacher himself is also in a dilemma, since he can choose between accepting that caution wins in this case or raising his voice to challenge and oppose what he sees.

The decisions made in all three situations should build on both factual knowledge and ethical principles. We will take a closer look at what can be a systematic approach to making a good decision in such cases.

The Principle of Equality

We have previously drawn a distinction between morality understood as personal and common perceptions of right and wrong and ethics understood as analysis and reflection on what is right and wrong. Morality is often expressed in quick and intuitive assumptions about what should be done or not—in line with what Kahneman calls system 1 for making decisions. Then we can move on to ethics and system 2 by spending time assessing what speaks for and against different alternatives. In this field, we draw the distinction between do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics.

Morality and ethics can be linked in different ways. Teachers in kindergartens and schools can suddenly end up in situations where there is no time for ethical analysis. They have to make a quick decision about risk, without any time to think. This was the case, for example, with the teacher who had cycled down the steep and slippery ground in the story above. Was it safe to let the kids down the same hill by bike? He spent only a few seconds deciding that the answer was yes. Should not a teacher who is in such a situation sit down and evaluate for and against before making the decision? Is it not unjustifiable to blindly follow the moral intuition? Not necessarily, because the teacher may have spent time assessing such situations earlier, alone or among colleagues and others who are concerned with children’s upbringing and opportunities for mental and motoric growth.

The link between system 1 (morality) on the one hand and system 2 (ethics) on the other may be that you prepare for situations that require quick decisions by thinking through similar scenarios in advance. You will not be totally surprised, since you know that such dilemmas accompany your job, and you have made up your mind about how they should be handled.

Such a way of thinking also makes sense in work situations far away from kindergartens and schools. For example, people who are going to move to other cultures to work there can train themselves to face dilemmas that can suddenly arise in these environments. Suddenly you are faced with someone who will give you an expensive gift. You have no time to think and have to accept or reject it, there and then. Then it is good to have thought through dilemmas in advance and received advice from someone who knows the culture. How to draw the line between bribes and gifts? What would be a polite and acceptable way to say no in this culture?

Let’s say you have made a decision based on moral intuition, an immediate impulse about what is right in the situation. Later you sit down to think about whether this was a good decision. You waved a clear signal in the jumping hill to the boy who was ready to jump with extra speed. You agreed that the kids could ride down the slippery, steep hill. Or it was you who decided that the water had to be drained away before the kids could go out and play. These decisions were impulsive and not well thought through, there and then. Now you can calmly and critically revisit them to consider whether they were right. In other words, you go from morality to ethics.

In order for this ethical reflection to hold true, it is important to avoid what is called confirmation bias (Nickerson, 1998). When people have made up their minds about an issue, they tend to notice information that confirms this opinion and overlook even the most obvious reasons why it is wrong (Kvalnes, 2019). This is how it can be when we reflect on a morally intuitive decision afterwards as well. We may look for confirmations that the original instinct we followed was correct and ignore information that points to the fact that it was incorrect. For the ethical reflection to maintain good quality, it is necessary to keep the possibility open that we should revise our perception of the matter. We need to be receptive to arguments that point to the fact that we were wrong in the first place.

What resources can we find in the ethical toolbox? A tool that lies there is called the principle of equality (Kvalnes, 2019):

Equal cases should be treated equally. A difference in treatment requires that there is a morally relevant difference between the two cases.

This is an ancient principle, written down by the Greek philosopher Aristotle more than 2000 years ago. Even though it is a principle with a long history, young children can insist that we follow it, long before they have learned to read and write. The principle of equality is rooted in a sense of fairness, that advantages and disadvantages in life should be distributed on a factual basis. Siblings can insist on getting exactly the same amount of soda in the glasses when sharing a bottle. A brother may be outraged at the fact that a sister is allowed to participate in fun that he himself is excluded from. It can also feel unfair if one has to clean up after the game, while the other escapes and is allowed to go straight to football training.

It is worth noting that the principle of equality does not mean that everyone should be treated equally. Equal treatment can be deeply unfair and not in accordance with the principle of equality. Imagine if a ten-year-old is denied the opportunity to go out in the neighbourhood alone, because the parents want to treat all their children equally, and have a three-year-old who is not ready for this. There is a morally relevant difference in maturity between a ten-year-old and a three-year-old, so it is obviously right to give the ten-year-old more room for manoeuvre than the three-year-old. It is important to avoid the misunderstanding that the principle of equality means that everyone should be treated equally.

It is important to follow the principle of equality when determining children’s scope for activity and risk. Who will be allowed to jump on the new ski slope? Both Per and Kari want to do it. Should both, only one, or neither of them be allowed? It depends on what we know about these children and what we think counts as a morally relevant difference. We can choose to take into account that:

• Per has light hair and Kari has dark hair.

• Per is a boy and Kari is a girl.

• Per is six months younger than Kari.

• Kari has somewhat more experience with jumping in such slopes than Per.

• Per has anxious and protective parents.

• Kari’s parents are supporters of risky play in kindergarten.

Here we have a list of candidates to make a morally relevant difference between Per and Kari. Hair colour is on the list to illustrate a difference that indisputably does not constitute a morally relevant difference. The gender difference might have previously been considered a reason to open up for jumping only for Per, but this is hardly the case today. Furthermore, the age difference is probably too small for it to play a decisive role. There is also no particular difference in what kind of experience they have as ski jumpers. Does it matter that the parents are at each end of the scale for what they tolerate of risky play? It will certainly influence the reactions to the decision of whether to allow jumping or not. No to both will be applauded by Per’s parents, while Kari’s will probably be negative. If both are allowed to jump, her parents will be happy, unlike his.

A justification based on the principle of equality should also be available to the children for assessment. Imagine if the kindergarten says yes to Kari being allowed to jump and no to Per and explains that it is because the parents have different views on protection and risk. It is probably perceived as deeply unfair by the person who is denied to jump. It is extra bad if the reasoning is also perceived as awkward. Per will probably have a reasonable expectation of being assessed on the basis of his maturity and skiing skills and not based on his parents’ attitude towards taking chances.

What about cycling in the terrain? In the example above, a boy challenges the adults and drives straight down the slippery slope without standing on the brake, in violation of what he has been told to do. It creates a more dangerous situation for himself than what the adults planned. Later, this can be a basis for being more careful about taking him on risky cycling trips. He can at least benefit from getting a warning before the next bike ride on trails and slippery surfaces. Why do the others have to go to their bikes and get ready for a ride, while he has to stay and have a serious chat with the teacher? Because on the previous trip he thundered down the slippery steep slope without applying the brakes. On this trip he has to do as the adults say.

The principle of equality is at the heart of all ethics. It is related to the golden rule, which says that you should do to others what you want others to do to you. This rule is enshrined in most religions and cultures. It also has a relation in Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, which states that each individual should behave as if the rule of action they follow can be used as a general norm for anyone who ends up in a similar situation (Kant, 1998 [1785]). The teacher who is at the bottom of the steep and slippery ground can say yes to the kids cycling down there, only if he thinks that any other teacher in the same situation should be able to do the same.

The thinking enshrined in the principle of equality seems to be universal. What can vary enormously is what is the result when the principle is in use. Although the principle is an element in every ethic, there are great differences in what is considered to be a morally relevant difference. For example, gender may be considered morally relevant in some cultures and not in others. In some cultures, boys have significantly more room for manoeuvre for play than girls, on the assumption that they are basically more robust and have a greater need to toughen up before adulthood. Per can be let into the ski jump because he is a boy, while Kari has to give up because she is a girl. When we follow a completely different practice in our culture, it is based on exactly the same principle of equality, but with different perceptions about the existence of morally relevant differences between boys and girls in this field.

The Principle of Publicity

Ethics is inextricably linked to transparency and openness about our decisions and actions. If we sense that it will be embarrassing and awkward if others get to know what we are about to do, then it is a sign that we are on ethically thin ice. Actions and decisions should withstand the light of day. This way of thinking is embodied in what is often called the principle of publicity (Kvalnes, 2019):

You should be willing to defend your decision publicly and be open about it to relevant people.

This principle is important when teachers in kindergartens and schools define the scope of action for risky play and say yes or no to activities for children. Are they prepared to justify and explain their decision? This question may be relevant both in an organization where do-good-ethics dominate and there is a high level of activity and in a place where avoid-harm-ethics and caution are prevalent. In both places, those responsible can ask themselves whether the practice can withstand the light of day, or whether they prefer to see it as secret and obscured.

It is important to avoid two possible misunderstandings of the principle of publicity. Firstly, this is not a reputation principle. It is not about how likely it is that someone will find out about your own decisions and practices and how likely it is that the press will appear and ask pertinent questions. The ethical principle is detached from such probability assessments. Instead, it invites reflection about how it will feel if what you do actually gets public attention. The chances of this happening may be zero, but from an ethical point of view it is still relevant to make this assessment. It is a thought experiment that can strengthen or weaken the perception that a certain action is something we should move forward with.

Another possible misconception is that the principle of publicity will provide dramatically different conclusions, depending on whether the decision-maker is introverted or extroverted and comfortable speaking in public or not. Some people find it stressful to stand in the spotlight with a microphone in front of them, while others are inspired and get positive energy from it. Thus, one would think that they can also come to different answers as to whether they will be willing to defend their decision publicly.

The introvert can say no, without it meaning that the action that is up for consideration is unethical in this person’s eyes. It’s perfectly fine to let children out in mud ponds to play before we have drained away the water, but it’s not something I want to front or debate in public, the introvert may think. It is the idea of being in public that motivates the negative answer. The extrovert can say yes, even if the action itself from this person’s own point of view appears to be ethically questionable. Yes, I would like to make sure that the water is away from the ponds before we let the children into the outdoor area, even if it means that they do not get a chance to splash around in the water and make dams, which they love. I like to defend this view in full public, says the extrovert and debate-happy. It is the idea of the spotlight that brings out the positive answer and not an ethical quality assessment of the action.

In order for it to make sense for different people to apply the principle of publicity, they need to imagine a form of open arena where their decision will get some public attention, where it either feels right or not to defend it. The introvert and extrovert will probably envision completely different contexts, but both can benefit from this ethical principle when making a decision, since it safeguards the very basic ethical idea that what we do should withstand the light of day.

The Good and the Right

A distinction in ethics is between the duty ethics, which claims that conduct (the right) is more important than the outcome (the good), and consequentialism, which goes the opposite way and believes that the outcome (the right) is more important than conduct (the right) (Kvalnes, 2019). To illustrate this difference, we can imagine how these ethical theories view honesty about risky play that children have participated in. Specifically, we can examine what they would advise staff to do after a child has participated in an activity that is far more dangerous than what the parents will appreciate.

The boy has jumped fifteen metres on skis in the kindergarten and might have harmed himself in the process. It went well, and the kid was proud and happy to have mastered the conditions so well. If the parents hear about his risky ski jump, there will be uproar. They will probably require a sharp reduction in the child’s opportunities to engage in ski jump activities. The unrest can quickly spread to the rest of the parent group as well. Thus, the opportunities for creating joy and involving children in anti-phobic activities will be reduced for both this child and other children. Should the teacher talk openly about the long ski jump, or get the child involved in a little concealment? This will be between us. Mom and Dad do not understand how much you enjoy the ski jumping. Best for you if they do not get to know about today’s hill record. We do not have to lie, just do not tell everything. This is the consequentialist solution. The overall outcome will be best if we say nothing to the parents.

Duty ethics would define this alternative as highly dubious and unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. The truth must come out. Honesty is more important than a positive outcome, and we cannot include a child in a deceptive plan. Respect and human dignity point in the direction of saying it as it is, even though this alternative will reduce the scope for healthy and beneficial risky play.

Consequentialist ethics will at least try to map possible outcomes of openness versus concealment about the long ski jump. How do we bring out the best consequences for affected parties? If it is the case that the parents will probably be hysterical upon hearing about the long jump, and thus want to start controlling the activities in the kindergarten and restrict the boy’s room for risky ski jumps, then this speaks for a concealment. The long-term consideration for the child’s motoric and physical development trumps the consideration of telling the truth and sharing all information with the parents.

How should we place do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics in relation to the two traditions we have become familiar with here, duty ethics and consequentialism? Basically, that distinction is about doing good and avoiding harm and so about positive and negative consequences of actions. Thus we can think that such assessments belong under consequentialist ethics. However, duty ethics can also be concerned with consequences. It does not say that consequences are ethically irrelevant, but that there are ethical considerations—honesty, respect, and human dignity—that are more important than the consequences. This means that a duty ethicist can be happy to take part in a discussion about the balance between do-good-considerations and avoid-harm-considerations. The duty ethicist may appreciate the value of giving children opportunities to engage in risky play, because it can be documented to be mentally and physically healthy for them, but nevertheless be sceptical of the alternative of lying so that anxious parents will not hear about this activity.

The Navigation Wheel

So far in this chapter, we have looked at ethical concepts and principles for assessing what kind of scope of action children should have for risky play. Both the principle of equality and the principle of publicity can be used to think through the alternatives. The same can be said of duty ethics and consequentialist ethics, which emphasize different aspects of the situation and give different answers to what should be considered to be morally relevant characteristics of it. The Navigation Wheel (Fig. 6.1) can be used to place ethics in a broader decision-making context (Kvalnes & Øverenget, 2012).

Fig. 6.1

The Navigation Wheel

The Navigation Wheel points out six considerations that can be relevant when making a decision, without pointing out how they should be prioritized or ranked. It is up to the decision-maker to decide which considerations should weigh the heaviest in a given situation. Normally, however, a “no” to the legal question will be enough to put an end to that alternative. In a well-functioning society, there is often little reason to go beyond the law. Then there may still be exceptions, cases where the legislation seems unreasonable, which may open the door for civil disobedience, an effort in which moral and ethical considerations are considered to be more important than the legal one.

We can imagine a situation where the alternatives under consideration are to continue with or shut down the three risky activities described at the beginning of the chapter. Ethical assessments can be about whether it is right that kindergarten children are given opportunities to:

• Make long ski jumps

• Cycle in muddy and hilly terrain

• Splash and make dams in rainwater

In the examples, the adults in the kindergarten gave the go-ahead for the first two activities but put their foot down for the last one. What does it look like when we take these options through the Navigation Wheel?

When it comes to LAW, it is the national laws regarding activities in kindergartens that set the conditions. Let us use our home country Norway as an example. It has laid down the legal framework for play and activity in the kindergarten. Paragraph 1 states:

The kindergarten shall provide children under compulsory school age with good development and activity opportunities in close understanding and cooperation with the children’s homes.

This general description gives no indication as to whether the activities mentioned above are legal or not.

The activities shall be planned, designed, arranged and operated so that the regulations’ provisions on well-being, health, hygiene and safety conditions are met in a generally accepted manner.

The Kindergarten Act in Norway has elements that link it to both do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics, but the main emphasis is on protection and injury avoidance:

Both outdoor and indoor conditions must be pleasant and designed so that the risk of accidents and health damage to the children is prevented.

In connection with risky play, parents can appeal to the Kindergarten Act to complain when a child has been injured. Per broke his foot in a kind of ski jump that children at his age are not ready for. Kari suffered a concussion after overturning a bicycle on a steep and muddy hill. An injury in itself cannot be used as proof that the law has been broken. In some cases, a reasonable risk is taken, and the outcome is still that the child is harmed, due to a series of unfortunate circumstances.

It is also possible for parents to refer to the Kindergarten Act when they call for greater scope of action for risky play. The kindergarten may have barred children from engaging in ski jumping, mountain biking, and water activities, and parents may perceive this as an unacceptable restriction of the children’s development and activity opportunities.

In reality, both of these legal initiatives are more theoretical than real. Parents and other affected parties very rarely use the Kindergarten Act actively to criticize the scope of action for risky play. There are other aspects of the Navigation Wheel that seem more relevant.

IDENTITY in this context means the core values that form the basis of the activities in an organization or profession. Who are we? What does it mean to be us? An organization can also formulate a vision that tells something about what can be expected from those who work there. Ferista is a Norwegian outdoor kindergarten. It states the following about its own identity and values:

Our vision is to run a kindergarten based on the children’s basic needs for activity. We want to give the children a safe and good upbringing based on good nature experiences, friendship, co-determination and physical activity.

Here again we see that the balance between doing good and avoiding harm is articulated. Does the statement provide guidelines for employees who are in doubt about whether they should allow ski jumping, mud cycling, and water play after rain? Not really. Like other formulations of values and visions, they are at such an overall level that it is difficult to read out any specific advice for how dilemmas and cases of doubt should be handled.

The trade union for Norwegian teachers (Utdanningsforbundet) has formulated a professional ethics platform for teachers. It contains statements that can also potentially provide a guideline for allowing or restricting risky play in kindergartens and schools. Here is what the platform says about teachers’ core values:

The teaching profession’s ethical platform is based on the following universal core values:Human dignity and human rights as well as respect and equality. The values of professional integrity and privacy are concretizations of these previous values.

Again, the value statement seems to be so overriding that it does not provide any clarification as to what kind of scope teachers should provide for play that involves both a risk of injury and can be decisive for children’s physical and mental development. The pattern when we go to core values is that they are formulated so generally that they do not provide a specific guideline for how specific cases should be resolved. However, they can have a function by acting as reminders, for example, that professional integrity is important. Then it is reasonable to ask for meaningful content for this term. How does a professional with integrity proceed to make decisions about risky play for children?

MORALITY is, as we have seen before, about personal and common beliefs about what is right and wrong. When we face a decision, we often have a moral intuition about what is right and what is wrong. When the teacher stands at the bottom of the hill and sees that the most eager ski jumper moving further back to gain extra speed ahead of the jump, a gut feeling often arises as to whether this is okay or not. It is Kahneman’s system 1 that is in operation. The moral intuition can be to let the ski jumper assess this himself or to intervene and ask him to get further down the upper slope, to reduce speed. When there is little or no time for reflection, we tend to make impulsive decisions, partly formed by our moral intuition.

What about REPUTATION? What is under consideration here is whether following a specific alternative will strengthen or weaken the decision-maker’s status among others. A reputational assessment can include a specific kind of risk assessment. How likely is it that the action we are considering will become public knowledge, that others will find out what we have done? If it is unlikely that anyone will ever get to know that we let the kids cycle down a steep and muddy path on their bikes, there will be little reason to worry about reputation. If, on the other hand, the decision-maker considers that there is a significant probability of receiving negative attention for such a decision, then the reputational warning lights flash red. A decision-maker who is particularly concerned about reputational risk could end up choosing caution every time.

Reputational thinking often takes the form of wanting to look good in the eyes of others. What will he or she think about us if we do so? This can be in contrast to a value-based thinking, where what matters is to act on the basis of what one stands for, and not try to please the outside world and other people’s expectations. It is not uncommon for organizations to be unclear as to whether they prioritize identity or reputation considerations. A municipality writes about itself under identity and values that it wants to “appear to be a service-friendly municipality.” This can be read as a reputational statement and not an identity statement. The municipality is eager to create the impression that it is service-friendly, rather than to actually be so.

ECONOMY is the decision-making consideration in the Navigation Wheel that is least relevant for assessing the scope of action for risky play. The wheel is intended to be used in many different situations where considerations can stand against each other, and finances can then often be relevant. In a context where it is about ski jumping, cycling, and playing with water, this will play a marginal role and only to the extent that activities like this take up financial resources.

When it comes to ETHICS, we have already seen that there are many different questions and principles that can apply. We can assess ethics of an activity on the basis of (1) the balance between do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics, (2) the principle of equality, (3) the principle of openness, and (4) consequentialism and duty ethics. We can distinguish between ethics in the narrow sense, which consists in using tools (1) to (4), and ethics in the broad sense, which involves using the Navigation Wheel and making an overall assessment in advance of a decision.

A process of evaluating the alternatives in light of the Navigation Wheel provides us with reasons for and against particular instances of risky play. How can we sum up and reach a conclusion about what is right in this particular case? The Navigation Wheel helps the decision-maker to analyse and get an overview. In the end, it is up to the decision-makers to weigh and prioritize among the reasons that have been provided. It is not a good strategy to simply count the number of reasons for and against a particular alternative and go for the alternative with the highest number of positive reasons and the lowest number of negative reasons.

Ethical Pre- and Post-work

We have defined ethics as systematic reflection about right and wrong. Ethics can also be seen as the language that we can use to clarify the issues at hand and have a conversation about what is the fair and right alternative in each situation. Without ethics, it is difficult to deal with moral disagreement. Bente thinks it is right to let the children out before all the water has been drained away, so that they can play and have fun in the rainwater. Bent disagrees and thinks it is unjustifiable to do so. Here there are two moral intuitions that stand against each other. In such situations, a common language and some common principles are needed to guide a conversation. Without this, two people with conflicting moral intuitions can end up shouting at each other. They lack the words to express their own viewpoints. If they are in possession of ethical principles, they can engage in a systematic conversation to identify the sources of their disagreement and try to find a solution that is acceptable to both.

The Navigation Wheel can be used in ethical preparation, that is, in processes to find out what should be done. Another important area of use is for ethical debriefing. Did we do the right thing in that situation? Did we pay enough attention to law, identity, morality, reputation, economy, and ethics when we proceeded in that way? Ethical debriefing is often a neglected activity. We move on and imagine that we are ready for new ethical challenges. Research in other fields shows that experience alone does not create learning. It is experience in combination with reflection that makes us learn and be better equipped to face similar situations later. Therefore, it makes good sense to sit down to think through an incident and consider whether it was handled well and where there is room for improvement. It can be about the actual implementation, but also about the process that led to a decision. This process can be evaluated on the basis of both whether important considerations came to light and gained sufficient weight and whether people experienced being listened to and taken seriously.

Summary

In this chapter, we have moved on from the distinction between do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics to provide a more comprehensive presentation of ethical navigation. We have seen that alternatives can be assessed on the basis of the principle of equality and the principle of publicity. The first principle states that equal cases should be treated equally and that a difference in treatment requires that there is a morally relevant difference between the cases. In the assessment of alternatives for risky play, this is an applicable and concrete principle. Which children are ready to climb the trees, cycle in the mud, and explore the world around the street corner? Both children and adults have a sense of fairness which is reflected in the fact that we want a justification for why she is allowed, but not him. It is reasonable to expect that differential treatment can be justified by pointing to relevant facts of the matter. She has some relevant qualities that he lacks, so therefore only she is allowed. Then it is also natural to think that the decision we make should withstand the light of day, as the principle of publicity says. If we have a feeling that it is best if no one gets to know about this, then we are probably in dubious ethical territory. Duty ethics and consequentialism give us guidelines for what is the right action and may point us in conflicting directions. Is it the course of action or the outcome that should have priority? The Navigation Wheel helps us to keep track of the various concerns that are relevant for the decision, both as preparation ahead of the decision and when it’s all over and we sit down to try to learn.