Carolyn Hax is an advice and relationship columnist, not an ethicist. Still, her ethical instincts, values and ethics problem-solving technique are impeccable. This week, she schooled her readers on the most important step in approaching any ethical dilemma: define the problem correctly.
An inquirer asked Hax,
“Am I being selfish in insisting that my parents can stay with us for only two weeks after the birth of our first child? My brother thinks so and isn’t speaking to me.”
As the letter proceeded, crucial details appeared. The writer’s parents had suffered some kind of financial crisis that required them to move into the brother’s home. The brother’s wife is pregnant. It looks like the stay will be six months, and the brother wants his sibling’s family, new baby notwithstanding, to do its fair share. Two weeks out of six months doesn’t seem fair to Bro.
Hax nailed the problem with the letter immediately:
“You open by framing it as a matter of visiting after a new baby — which makes your position sympathetic and the answer a slam-dunk: ‘It’s your baby, you get to decide how long someone visits, and two weeks is generous.’Ah, but it’s a lot more complicated than that, which you get to in Sentence 3. The more accurate phrasing would seem to be: “My hard-to-live-with parents are in financial trouble and staying with my brother and his wife for six months. Do I owe it to my brother to bring my parents to my house for part of that? I’m expecting my first child soon; does that change your answer?”
This is how we often arrive at unethical decisions: by manipulating the facts and defining the problem so as to compel and justify the result that benefits us. The letter writer wanted a validation from Hax to justify the solution that would be most comfortable, to the detriment of the brother. Hax redefined the problem, objectively and properly, so the analysis could proceed without distortion to the best and most ethical resolution for all concerned.
My favorite illustration of the importance of defining ethical dilemmas correctly at the beginning of the analysis is this hypothetical:
You are driving in a two-seat sports car during a freak snow storm. It is terrible outside, with furious chilling winds, and you see, as you drive along, that two busses have broken down. Then you find yourself stopped at a light, and notice three shivering people waiting at a bus stop, for a bus you know will never come.
One is a frail, elderly woman in a threadbare coat. She looks blue, and is unsteady: you guess that she needs medical attention. Next to her, you are stunned to recognize, is the soldier who saved your life in Operation Desert Storm, losing his hand in the rescue! You swore to him that you would find a way to pay him back, but you had lost touch completely. Now is your chance! And yet, next to him…is the love of your life—Elsa!— whom you thought you had lost forever when the Nazis marched into Paris! She is as lovely as the day you read that farewell letter, the ink running down the page in the rain. You know, just know, that you will be blissfully happy once you are reunited with her. This is surely fate.
Yet you have only one spare seat. The dilemma: who do you pick up:
The suffering old woman…the altruistic choice?
Your rescuer, meeting a solemn obligation?
Or the selfish but romantic choice: lovely Elsa?
The framing of the initial question, however, prevents you from arriving at the best decision….which is to give the car to your army buddy, have him take the elderly woman to a hospital, and join your lost love in a romantic, snowbound reunion. The right question would be: “Is there a way to do the right thing, and not have to sacrifice anyone’s happiness, including your own?” You’ll never find it if you don’t look, and turning the dilemma into “who gets the free seat?” makes effective analysis impossible.
The most important step in the ethical analysis process is defining the problem fairly, thoroughly, and objectively without intentionally or inadvertently precluding the best solution.
Ask Carolyn Hax. She knows.
( You can find her answer to the right question here.)
Ethics Alarms 
Your old army buddy is missing his hand. Can he drive the car (with a prosthetic, maybe)?
It’s his left hand, and he has a little grasping thing for the wheel. Luckily. Good thinking!
Are you joking, or did you miss the point completely?
Yes, I’m joking.
It’s quite simple, depending on who is the most agile, put either the love of your life in the boot, or you get in the boot of the car (behind the seats), and let the little old lady sit on the lap of your friend.
There are always solutions to problems, especially with family. To me, the real problem is, that as “children”, we have a tendency to bring all the baggage of childhood in dealing with our parents and our siblings. It is only when we “grow-up” that we learn how to see things (I hope) as rational adults.
I am dealing with the situation of being the sole local “keeper” for my 81 year old mother with a bad heart an 87 year old father recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. I live 20 minutes from them, but it is emotionally exhausting. I am a wreck. I am also quite aware that my sister, who lives half way across the country, is dealing with a business she is trying to keep alive. I only make “demands” on her when dealing with matters of health. She’s the nurse, I’m not. We were on the phone today, discussing things we both need to do.
The bottom line is that, when dealing with hard times, and families, it is not easy. But, perhaps the daughter might realize that having her parents in her home might help with baby care, give her a night out, and just might make her life a little easier. My cousin took in her elderly parents. Her mother was terribly difficult, but after losing her a few months ago, my cousin has realized it was worth every frustrating minute.
Maybe the problem isn’t an ethical one, but that of a spoiled and selfish individual who needs a bucket of cold water thrown on her. Then again, the parents could be difficult. The way I see it, my parents did the best they could raising me. I owe them the same in return. You don’t always get your way in life.
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
I’m so sorry that you are dealing with all of this now. In many families, but far from all, these crises bring out the best in everyone. It did in mine, luckily. But our parental drama lasted two years, and though they are both gone now, the stress lingers. Good luck, and courage.
Thank you.
It is bringing out the best, so far, in my family. I do think the first step is realizing that it is “not all about me”. The parents are doing okay. I’m learning a heck of a lot, which will probably find its way into a book.
Stress…what’s that? Ha!
As a new reader, I found this exercise very useful. I had a few different thoughts regarding your hypothetical, but it was only once you revealed your solution that I realized I truly wasn’t seeing the situation for what it was. I consider myself a creative thinker and a fair problem-solver but obviously, there’s a hole in my process that now I’ll always make sure to take a moment to consider.
For the record, I tackled the situation as a matter of prioritizing–the clear priority was promptly getting the elderly woman medical attention. In a pinch, were this my actual scenario, I would have told both my vet buddy and my lost love to find shelter and hang tight, as I would phone for their rescue or come back myself to collect them upon delivering the woman to a safe place. Despite my perceived obligation to my war friend, he was performing his job at the time, and while I may never feel my debt is satisfied, I could feel comfortable asking him to defer to someone who was in more dire need of my assistance at a given moment. As for my love, I would expect her to understand the situation and agree with my assessment, or at the very least, be content with my decision. (After all, if I love her so dearly, she must be a warm and compassionate person.) But your solution clearly trumps my basic ranking-and-filing, and had I approached it from the vantage point of, “How can I ensure everyone gets what they need?” rather than, “Whose needs are most important?” I could have easily arrived at it myself. Seems like such a small difference on the surface, but the results are fairly astonishing. Thank you; I will definitely be returning–I sincerely appreciate being given cause to truly *think*.
A lovely comment, Kat, and so appreciated. This gets to the real goal of the blog, not to argue over side issues. Thank-you. Keep coming back.
As I have said in an email to you, I don’t always see eye to eye with you, but Kat is right. I had to change my perspective after reading more of your blogs. It was an ego thing. They are thought provoking. Moreso than reading much of the opinion pieces and editorials. It isn’t about the issues on a superficial sense, it is about the exercise of learning and soulsearching before rationalizing in a real life situation. I am glad I came upon this blog as well. It has challenged me in many ways. Thanks.
Gee, people are being so nice to me today. Thanks…it helps a lot. (OK…what are you planning???)
Daggers in the shadows, Jack! Seriously though, your solution is about the only one possible… provided that one takes his personal interests out of the equation. That’s the factor that separates the logic of a decent man from the feel-good rationalizations of the selfish one.