Moral Imagination
Patricia H. Werhane
The idea of moral imagination derives historic ally from the work of Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant. According to Smith, imagination plays a key role in ‘‘fellow understanding,’’ our ability to place ourselves in the situation of another (the function of sympathy) and thus make moral judgments about others. Imagination is also important as each of us steps back in order to evaluate ourselves and others from a more impartial perspective on the basis of societal moral rules and sometimes to critique and revise those rules (Smith, 1976: I.i) For Kant, imagination is a key component of experience, understanding, and reasoning. Kant argues that imagination works on three levels. The reproductive imagination synthesizes our sensations, the productive imagination creates the data of experience, memory, and knowledge, and the creative imagination enables us to formulate new ideas and think ‘‘out of the box’’ (Makkreel, 1990).
However, neither Smith nor Kant uses the term moral imagination. More recently, the notion of moral imagination has been explicated in detail by Mark Johnson. In an important book, Johnson defines moral imagination as ‘‘an ability to imaginatively discern various possibilities for acting within a given situation and to envision the potential help and harm that are likely to result from a given action’’ (Johnson, 1993: 202).
In business ethics, moral imagination is de fined as
the ability in particular circumstances to discover and evaluate possibilities not merely determined by that circumstance, or limited by its operative mental models, or merely framed by a set of rules or rule-governed concerns. In management decision- making, moral imagination entails perceiving norms, social roles, and relationships entwined in any situation. Developing moral imagination involves heightened awareness of contextual moral dilemmas and their mental models, the ability to envision and evaluate new mental models that create new possibilities, and the capability to reframe the dilemma and create new solutions in ways that are novel, economically viable, and morally justifiable. (Werhane, 1999: 93)
Being morally imaginative includes:
. Self reflection about oneself and one’s situation.
. Disengaging from and becoming aware of one’s situation, understanding the mental model or script dominating that situation, and envisioning possible moral conflicts or dilemmas that might arise in that context or as outcomes of the dominating scheme.
. The ability to imagine new possibilities. These possibilities include those that are not context dependent and that might in volve another mental model.
. Moral imagination requires that one evaluate from a moral point of view both the original context and its dominating mental models, and the new possibilities one has envisioned (Werhane, 1999).
Moberg and Seabright have expanded on this notion of moral imagination and developed more fully the ways in which it can enrich the managerial decision making process. They define moral imagination as ‘‘a reasoning process thought to counter the organizational factors that corrupt ethical judgment’’ (Moberg and Seabright, 2000: 845) and they integrate moral imagination into Rest’s four stage model of ethical decision making, clarifying its role in the identification of moral issues, the formation of moral judgment, the development of moral intent, and the guidance of moral behavior.
All these thinkers focus on moral imagination at the individual or managerial level. However, moral imagination is not merely a function of the individual imagination. Rather, moral imagination operates on organizational and systemic levels as well, again as a facilitative mechanism that may encourage sounder moral thinking and moral judgment. It is these latter phases that have been neglected. In an organizational con text, managers are often trapped within an institutional culture that creates mental habits that function as boundary conditions, precluding creative thinking. To change or break out of a particular mindset requires a well functioning moral imagination. Similarly, a political economy can be trapped in its vision of itself and the world in ways that preclude change on this more systemic level. Thus moral imagination, the ability to get out of these models and traps, is critical at all levels.
How does moral imagination work on the organizational and systemic levels?
A truly systemic view thus considers how . . . [a phenomenon] . . . operates in a system with certain characteristics. The system involves interactions extending over time, a complex set of interrelated decision points, an array of actors with conflicting interests . . . and a number of feedback loops . . . Progress in analyzing [ethical issues] . . . can only be made with a full understanding of the systemic issues. (Wolf, 1998 9: 1675)
Moral imagination involves engaging in a systemic multiple perspectives approach. This includes the following:
- Concentration on the network of relation ships and patterns of interaction, rather than on individual components of particular relationships, spelling out the networks of relationships from different perspectives.
- A multi perspective analysis that is both descriptive and normative, taking into account various perspectives of the manager, the citizen, the firm, community, state, law, tradition, background institutions, history, and other networks of relationships.
- Then taking an evaluative perspective, asking: What values are at stake? Which take priority, or should take priority?
- Becoming proactive, both within the system and in initiating structural change.
In this process one describes the system and its networks of interrelationships in order to grasp the interconnectedness of the system. One investigates what is not included in the system (its boundaries and boundary creating activities) and what mindsets are predominant, asking who are the stakeholders (individuals, associations, organizations, networks, agencies), what are the core values of each set of stakeholders, and what sort of consensus can be concluded from what is often a disagreement about core values of each stakeholder. Additionally, one outlines the core values of the system and speculates as to what these should be. Finally, one should think about whether and which organizations or individuals within the system might be capable and willing to risk challenging bits of the system and carry out change. The result: ‘‘moral imagination and systems thinking encourage networked systems analysis that is engaged and critical, creative and evaluative, and values grounded. This process encourages constructive change within a network of relationships’’ (Werhane, 2002).
Bibliography
Cohen, D. V. (1998). Moral imagination in organizational problem solving: An institutional perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, Ruffin Series 1, 123 47.
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larmore, C. (1981). Moral judgment. Review of Meta physics, 35, 275 96.
Makkreel, R. (1990). Imagination and Interpretation in Kant. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moberg, D. and Seabright, M. (2000). The development of moral imagination. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 845 84.
Smith, A. (1976) [1759]. A Theory of Moral Sentiments, ed. A. L. Macfie and D. D. Raphael. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 33 42.
Wolf, S. (1998 9). Toward a systemic theory of informed consent in managed care. Houston Law Review, 35, 1631 81.