MORAL
IMAGINATION
What is imagination?
► The term imagination is generally defined as creating new images or scenarios,
being creatively projective, creating fantasies or myths, and so on. According to
the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur, “to imagine is to make oneself absent from
the whole of things to become disengaged, focused on the fantastic, distanced
from reality and ordinary experience”.
How far does one’s imagination go?
► The possibilities are limitless.
Moral Imagination Defined
► Bollier says that MI “is a morally courageous or unique activity or decision of a
particular manager or company”.
► Tivnan argues that controversial moral debates such as abortion, capital
punishment, and racial justice, can be understood and even transcended if we, as
an open society, develop moral imagination. Quoting John Dewey who said that
“imagination is the chief instrument of the good”, Tivnan defines moral
imagination as “imaginative sympathy”, “moral creativity”, or the ability to take
an “imaginative leap”, allowing oneself to be a “decent, compassionate, good
person in a diverse community.”
Moral Imagination Further Defined
► Mark Johnson – M.I. is the “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”.
► Charles Larmore – M.I. is “our ability to elaborate and appraise different courses
of action which are only partially determined by the given content of moral rules,
in order to learn what in a particular situation is the morally best thing to do…”
► Martha Nussbaum – enables one “to see more deeply into the relationship between
fine-tuned perception of particulars and a rule-governed concern for general
obligations: how each, taken by itself, is insufficient for moral accuracy, how (and
why) the particular, if insufficient is nonetheless prior; and how a dialogue
between the two… can find a common “basis” for moral judgment.”
Moral Imagination in the Final Analysis
► In the final analysis, “Moral imagination, then, is the ability in particular
circumstances to discover and evaluate possibilities not merely determined by that
circumstance … or merely framed by a set of rules or rule-governed concerns.”
Anticipating possible consequences is, therefore, the key to achieving a good
decision in any given situation.
Questions
How should one act in a moral situation? Are there rules for acting in a particu
lar way or manner? What considerations should enter into one’s decision-making?
Can’t someone else make the decision for me?
The Tylenol Case
► Sept. 29, 1982 – 7 people died in Chicago after taking cyanide-laced capsules of
Extra-strength Tylenol (a painkiller)
► Marketers predicted – J&J would never recover from that incident (from 37%
share of the market, it plunged to 7% after the poisoning)
► Exactly 2 months after the incident, Tylenol was back in the market. A year later,
its share climbed back to 30%.
How did J&J handle the Situation?
► Question: What set apart J&J’s handling of the crisis? IT PLACED
CONSUMERS FIRST by recalling 31 million capsules from store shelves and
offering replacement product in the safer tablet form free of charge.
► Prior to 1982, nobody ever recalled anything. “Companies often fiddle while
Rome burns.” James Burke, the company chairman, was widely admired for his
leadership in the decision to pull Tylenol capsules off the market, and for his
forthrightness in dealing with the media.
The Apparent Contradiction
► Interestingly, the J&J Tylenol incident illustrates how a dominant script can
become a positive driving force for moral imagination. In permanently, pulling the
capsules off the market, James Burke and other managers at J&J broke with a
number of commonly held management practices. They violated precepts of good
marketing practice; they questioned their legal counsel, who was afraid this action
would be perceived as an admission of guilt; and they placed their consumers first
as their primary stakeholders, even superseding their commitment to earn profits.
Thinking out of the box
► What is distinctive about moral imagination in the Tylenol case is that at each
stage of decision-making, the imagination enables critiquing the situation at hand
and evaluation of newly formulated possibilities and justification of possibilities
outside a “given script” (the dilemma of whether to pull off the capsules or not).
This demands that the “imaginative spectator” (moral agent) is ready to move
his/her thinking from the status quo( traditional practices) to new possibilities and
then evaluate those possibilities by some norm, perhaps a company credo
(consumers first) or statement or principle (Kant’s categorical imperative) or other
more general principles of morality (do good and avoid evil).
A familiar situation
► In the church, many have told me that they grew up in a very paternalistic ecclesial
environment where they were not encouraged to think for themselves. In fact,
some didn’t even know that they were supposed to think! As one person put it,
“We were told just to pray, pay, and obey.” Bishops and priests were expected to
have all the answers, were sought for answers, and generally gave answers to
every practical moral question put to them. Now, people are trying to learn how to
live in the church after the Second Vatican Council, which encouraged them to
take responsibility for both discovering moral values and charting the direction of
their lives.
(from Richard M. Gula, SS, Moral Discernment. New York, Paulist Press, 1997, 1-2)
Assignment
► What does the situation stated above (Gula’s introduction) imply?
► Have you experienced the same thing?
► If yes, cite specific instances and react. If no, simply give your reaction to the
situation.
