Moral diversity

Different actors in different perspectives will not see good the same way and there is a risk of moral arrogance.

It would be too simple to look at the three perspectives as one-dimensional perspectives on what is right or wrong. Obviously not all people think the same, share the same values and find the same things important. The same can be said for organisations. Logically, not all organisations have the same take on what is morally acceptable or not. And finally, culture will definitely play a part in how we perceive certain behaviours to be good or not, so also the society perspective should not be generalised.

Figure: Diversity within all perspectives

It is tempting to see that this added complexity makes it harder to recognise good, let alone to agree on it, but probably the benefits outweigh the negative aspects. After all, each perspective on good, whether from one of the frames or one of the perspectives, adds strength to the definition of good. Especially if you consider that our understanding of what is right or wrong is not static, but rather evolving over time, you will see that there is value in a process of hearing all views on good.

In the next section of my blog about the ‘Good matrix‘, I will set out to provide an overview of how both frames and perspectives can help us understand ‘good’ better.


Posted

in

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *