2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

The survey was re-administered in the summer of 2003. A review of the original ethics
instrument was conducted to further refine the DND/CF ethical decision-making model (Dursun
and Morrow, 2003). A new approach to measuring moral intensity represented the most
significant change to the model and the measurement instrument. This paper will illustrate how
moral intensity was measured and will present preliminary results of the moral intensity
component of the 2003 survey re-administration.
MEASURING MORAL INTENSITY
Perceived moral intensity deals with the individual’s perception of the specific
characteristics of the moral/ethical issue and directly influences whether the individual believes
that the issue contains a moral or ethical dilemma. If the moral intensity of a situation is
perceived to be weak, individuals will not perceive an ethical problem in the issue.
While ethical perception is concerned with the individual’s recognition of a moral issue
(Jones, 1991) and drives the entire ethical decision making process (Hunt & Vitell, 1993), ethical
intention is making a decision to act on the basis of moral judgments (Jones, 1991). The moral
intensity dimensions should influence all stages of the ethical decision making process, from
recognition that an issue represents an ethical dilemma to deciding whether to engage in a
particular action.
Moral Intensity
Jones (1991) describes six dimensions of moral intensity: magnitude of consequences
(MC), social consensus (SC), probability of effect (PE), temporal immediacy (TI), proximity
(PX), and concentration of effect (CE).
Magnitude of consequences refers to the sum of harms (or benefits) resulting from the
moral act in question. Jones illustrates this construct as follows: an act that causes 1000 people to
suffer an injury is of greater magnitude of consequences than an act that causes 10 people to
suffer the same injury (Jones, 1991).
Social consensus refers to the degree of social agreement that a proposed act is ethical
or unethical. Individuals in a social group may share values and standard, which influence
their perception of ethical behaviour. A high degree of social consensus reduces the level
of ambiguity one faces in ethical dilemmas. An act that most people feel is wrong has greater
moral intensity than an act about which people’s opinions vary.
Probability of effect refers to both the probability that the act in question will happen,
and the probability that the act will actually cause the harm predicted. The more likely an act
will cause harm, the greater the propensity of an individual to view the act as unethical. For
example, Jones (1991) suggested that selling a gun to a known criminal (?) has a greater
probability of harm than selling a gun to a law–abiding citizen.
609
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003