Higher education continues to see a shift toward online course delivery. Many professional graduate programs offer online courses when content does not necessarily require face-to-face contact. The use of movies to teach ethics and professionalism to medical students is not a new pedagogical approach. At a university in the United States, a shift in a tracked physical therapy curriculum triggered a course in ethics and professionalism to be delivered earlier in the program, leaving students without prior clinical experience before starting the course. The instructor revised this online course using movies to provide context for the topics covered making them relatable to physical therapy practice. This article describes student reactions to the implementation of movies into this course. Students valued the addition of the movies as they provided context using relevant health care situations, ultimately helping them relate the concepts to the physical therapy profession.

Some engineering educators recognize the necessity and challenges of teaching students moral sensitivity. As recently pointed out by some scholars, along with moral sensitivity, promoting “self-knowledge” is significantly lacking in engineering curricula. We suggest that the “ethics autobiography” employed in some health and psychological science programs can serve as a useful tool for helping engineering students develop moral sensitivity and self-reflective competencies. First, this paper briefly discusses some unique potential strengths of introducing ethics autobiography as a tool for moral pedagogy to engineering education. Second, this paper provides five specific examples on how to implement ethics autobiography in the classroom. Among the five examples, two are directly related to engineering education and the other three can easily be adapted to meet the needs of engineering education. Finally, this paper concludes with some discussion of the implications of ethics autobiography for engineering ethics education reform and the limitations and ethical considerations of using autobiography in moral pedagogy.

Noting that issues raised during clinical bioethics consults at a southeastern US hospital involve the application of basic ethical principles, the Clinical Bioethics Consultation Service developed and piloted an interprofessional ethics immersion. The goal of this 4-week immersion was to improve teamwork and collaboration, support resolution of basic ethical dilemmas, and develop on-site ethics scholars who apply basic ethical principles to challenging clinical situations. The impact of the immersion on ethical environment, team communication, and confidence in resolving of basic ethical dilemmas for interprofessional clinical teams was examined using follow-up interviews with seven of the eight participants from two ethics immersion offerings. Findings support that an interprofessional ethics immersion training is a valuable strategy to improve ethics knowledge and resolve common patient care dilemmas. The unique aspects of this ethics immersion, team-based and interprofessional, are important considerations for ongoing development of clinicians to address the daily challenges encountered in healthcare.

This article gives a broad sense of existing debate about Global Citizenship Education (GCE) to help situate and contextualize a novel case study. Scholars for Syria originated at a small university in southern Indiana. This grassroots response to the turmoil in Syria bridges the gap between a seemingly distant crisis and a midwestern city in the United States. The unique pedagogical and curricular dimensions of the case study work as a helpful framing device for facilitating exploration of debates about the shape of GCE, as well as providing new ways in which to imagine GCE curriculum, pedagogy, and embedding ethics into wider university initiatives.

In-course marks and final grades each have their own nature and purpose and conflating the two does a disservice to both. Final grades represent a fixed and final statement about how a student did in the course in the end. They are a communication between the professor and anyone who will pick up that student’s transcript someday. In-course marks, by contrast, are a communication between the professor and student alone, and ought to be representative of an ongoing conversation about how the student is currently doing in the course. They are subject to change with each lecture, assessment, and conversation, and should embody that dynamism and potential for progress. Building upon the pedagogical concepts of differentiated learning, growth mindset, and backward course design, this paper will examine the advantages of differentiating between the two types of grades and present three grading models that incorporate the distinction.

This paper argues that business ethics would enhance its relevance if it is ceases to be a moralizing discourse and instead becomes a mediating discourse between conflicting and multiple interests. Yet business ethics can be relevant as a mediating discourse only if it acknowledges the “embedded” nature of market. To clarify this point, the paper draws from Freeman’s theory of narrative cores, Rehg’s Problem-based Approach and De George’s vision of business ethics as an interdisciplinary field composed of descriptive, managerial and normative components. Finally, we argue for the relevance of the case study, whose juxtaposition of “bi-polar” or irreconcilable dichotomies makes it a vital pedagogical tool for our proposed reconfiguration of business ethics as an interdisciplinary, mediating field of enquiry.

Ethics training is becoming increasingly common in pre-professional contexts to address ethical misconduct in business, medicine, science, and other disciplines. These courses are often taught by philosophers. The question is whether such ethics training, which involves philosophical reflection, is effective in cultivating ethical behavior. This paper takes a closer look at the goals of teaching ethics and how our current methods are ineffective in achieving the affective and active goals of teaching ethics. This paper then suggests how experiential learning and, specifically, service learning may be one way forward in achieving these goals. While some pre-professional programs have implemented service learning, the ethics courses offered by philosophers also may be improved by giving students more opportunities to engage their communities through service learning.

This paper describes a newly-developed course titled Philosophy of Censorship. Developed out of materials covered in an applied ethics course, this course seeks to improve the students’ understanding about the rights to free expression, and the ways in which these rights are—sometimes necessarily—curtailed in the contemporary society. In studying J. S. Mill’s prominent argument for freedom of thought and expression, the course analyzes the argument for its strength and applicability, when it comes to frequently challenged forms of expression, such as pornography and hate speech. Moreover, the course looks into alternative arguments that aim to safeguard individuals’ right to free speech, including non-consequentialist arguments. The course also strives to keep current with contemporary discussions of freedom of expression and censorship.

Following increasing public concern over the ethical and social implications of contemporary technology, computer science departments around the world have recently increased their efforts to incorporate ethics into their educational curriculum. For our redesigned undergraduate course on Computer Ethics at Rice University, in addition to teaching variety of fundamental ethical theories and approaches to technology, we also sought to emphasize the role of “social” technologies in mediating moral relations and to encourage students to consider moral decision-making, rather than as an abstract rational process, as matter of affective care. To help us achieve this educational objective and inspired by the work of artist Jenny Odell, we designed an activity for students to practice focusing “deep” attention both on themselves and others. In this article, we describe in detail our rationale for this activity, report on lessons learned, and discuss potential applications for this activity in regard to the ongoing online teaching environment following the Covid-19 pandemic.

The recent development within moral psychology has contributed to change the understanding of how people in general make moral judgements. The results suggest that moral judgements typically involve two cognitive processes, rapid emotional responses and slow acts of rational thinking, where the significance of the latter traditionally has been overemphasized. It is possible to argue that the division in moral psychology has a counterpart in an ethics of care which distinguishes between intuitive acts of natural care and deliberate choices of ethical care. The purpose of this paper is thus to discuss if and how the recent development within moral psychology can be used to understand an ethics of care as a moral pedagogical model. We will argue that the findings in moral psychology can contribute to the interpretation and application of an ethics of care which can benefit the understanding of both theories in an educational context.

Western Michigan University’s Center for the Study of Ethics in Society has always had a “generalist” approach—that is to say, an interdisciplinary orientation toward studying a broad range of ethical issues. This article explains how the center’s “generalist” orientation developed and why it is desirable for promoting public reflection about ethical issues. It focuses on these dimensions: (a) valuing an across-the-curriculum approach to promote understanding of complex ethical issues; (b) adopting a broad, rather than narrow focus, when it comes to ethics; (c) committing to practical ethics, which bridges theory and practice to shed light on issues of practical relevance to all; and (d) decentering philosophy as the arbiter for what counts as “doing ethics.” The article ends with a look at challenges concerning stable funding and administrative support for a center that does not fit neatly into a single academic unit or specialty and shares some lessons learned.

The goal of this article is to offer a three-step approach for a systematic discussion on the procedures, roles, and responsibilities of ethics centers. First, we identify three levels of responsibility: scientific, organizational/institutional, societal/global. Second, we propose that justice (as outlined in the concept of Sustainable Development), contextual pluralism, and a process orientation serve as normative foundations for developing ethics centers’ mission. Third, we outline and emphasize the crucial role that teaching plays in the work of ethics centers, as well as in other academic (and non-academic) institutions. As an overarching perspective, we suggest two complementary kinds of approaches for the role of ethics especially in scientific research: i) ethics becoming a constitutional part of any research (and teaching) project. ii) specific in-depth interdisciplinary projects with ethics being the research (and teaching) topic.

When evaluating the success of an ethics center, one can look to the center’s level of engagement and achievement with affiliated institutions and communities. Such criteria are appropriate. What can be overlooked, however, is the internal structure and processes that help constitute the ethics center itself. In short, it is not merely the results an ethics center may claim that should be of interest for evaluating institutional health and longevity, but the very character of the organization itself. Using criteria offered in support of corporate agency and character, I argue that ethics centers can possess organizational agency and a “character” of their own. While not the same sense of character we associate with human beings, the “character” (and “virtue”) I describe is still a meaningful and identifiable feature that can and ought to be developed within the structure of ethics centers.

This article provides guidance and rationales for managing transitions within ethics centers as directors and staff are hired. The structures that reinforce the mission and ensures that the center continues to provide benefit to the community requires delicate strategizing among campus and community constituencies. The principles and practices that serve as a best-practices management approach are articulated within this article.

In this article we reflect on ethical issues arising amid our efforts over the past four years to set up a university-level engineering ethics center to facilitate faculty, staff, and student collaborations across disciplines. In this account we place considerable emphasis on relations with campus administration, including conflicts arising over the interests of potential donors and research sponsors; state and national political contexts; turf (specifically the balance of ownership over vision-setting and action between faculty and administrators); and the scope and role of ethics in a STEM-focused public land grant university. We also discuss challenges we faced in communication, both across disciplines in a large university setting, and with administrators inclined to conflate professional ethics with other topics such as technology ethics or public policy concerns. We share discussions we have had among ourselves around what types of alternative structures might facilitate our mission; and how such alternatives might help us resist replication of the kinds of problematic power dynamics we are already witnessing and navigating. It is our hope that our participation in this conversation provides an opportunity for us to learn from others, share what we have learned thus far, and come to a position of greater clarity regarding our intentions and priorities. Most of all we seek moral imagination to identify creative paths forward for a broad set of stakeholders to more deeply encounter professional ethics in discovery, learning, and engagement.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, ethics centers were forced to reimagine program delivery. In a tumultuous time with rampant social isolation, the need for ethics education and dialogue was also critical. The authors, members of the directorship team of the Kegley Institute of Ethics (KIE), discuss how KIE met these challenges through organizing over fifty online events during the pandemic, including webinars, pedagogy workshops, ethics bowls, intercollegiate student conversations, colloquia, film viewings, and podcasts. The article describes both the opportunities and challenges that different types of virtual events present and argues that innovation in online programming can help ethics centers show ethical leadership in their communities. As one example, we discuss how online events can both enhance and hinder accessibility for participants. We also describe how online programming presents both barriers and opportunities for community building and can prompt ethics centers to reflect on their identities and missions.

In this essay I propose that ethics centers should take leadership roles in clarifying uses of normatively thick and complex concepts. Using the concept of integrity as an example, I build a case for increased focus on thick concepts at work in ethics. Integrity is a special case, given its conceptual complexity and the diversity of contexts in which it is utilized. I argue that failure to focus on conceptual clarification leaves the door open to misuse or manipulation of ethical concepts and to contextual siloing, each of which limits the work that ethics and ethics centers can do in support of institutional cultures. Ethics centers stand, or—as I make clear—should stand, as conceptual stewards for articulation of the importance of such concepts in balancing external ethics visibility and personal ethics engagement.

Individual and institutional conflicts of interest arise with increasing frequency and negative sequelae as universities and their principals, as well as individual faculty members, engage in research (and other activities) with support from profit/not-for-profit entities. This essay examines how institutional and individual conflicts of interest (COI) arise for ethics centers and their faculty/staff, respectively. It defines COI, endorses a reasonable person standard for determining when COI exist, and considers problems that arise when disclosure of COI is embraced as a remedy for them. It argues that transparency and disclosure are generally inadequate measures to address COI, especially those of ethics centers. It concludes by sketching other measures that may be ingredients in attempts to avoid, manage, or mitigate the COI of ethics centers and their faculty/staff.

This paper explores some of the reasons why we, as a business ethics center housed at a state university, are transitioning from being a largely neutral platform on business ethics topics to becoming an advocate for specific perspectives. Comprising the topics of interest are issues such as climate change, capitalism, and certain medical and public health controversies. Presented here are four main reasons behind this move: pluralistic arguments, moral “switching,” existential crises, and combating disinformation. Two examples regarding capitalism and vaccine mandates are used to demonstrate advocacy in practice.

Social injustice and calls to activism take many forms, whether in environmental, medical, legal, political, or educational realms. In this article, I consider the role of activism in ethics institute initiatives. First, as a case study, I discuss an activist initiative for police reform led, in part, by the Kegley Institute of Ethics at California State University, Bakersfield. Specifically, I outline the formation of the Bakersfield Police Department—Community Collaborative (BPD-CC), created to review regional and national police policy and training recommendations and to solicit and formalize community-sourced recommendations for policing reform and building trust and greater partnership between the BPD and community. Second, I discuss outcomes and implications of this project and consider its significance for understanding activist roles available to the community engaged ethics institute more generally. In this discussion, I explore practical dimensions and ethical implications of activist approaches in the work of an ethics institute.