Josh's StudyWiki

ProfessionalEthics-CriticalThinking

2 min read

Connection: Professional Ethics ↔ Critical Thinking

The Potter Process (ADMN 233) is a structured ethical reasoning framework that parallels the kind of disciplined, step-by-step argument analysis taught in PHIL 252. Both courses train the same underlying skill: suspending immediate reaction to examine a situation through explicit, layered criteria before acting.

graph TD
    PP[Potter Process\nADMN 233] -->|Step 1| PR[Define the problem fully]
    PP -->|Step 2| PV[Evaluate against community values]
    PP -->|Step 3| PPH[Apply philosophical principles]
    PP -->|Step 4| PL[Weigh loyalties]

    CT[Structured Argument\nPHIL 252] -->|Premise 1| CP[Identify claim/conclusion]
    CT -->|Premise 2| CE[Evaluate evidence and validity]
    CT -->|Premise 3| CF[Apply logical standards]
    CT -->|Premise 4| CS[Check for fallacies/bias]

    PR -.->|mirrors| CP
    PV -.->|mirrors| CE
    PPH -.->|mirrors| CF
    PL -.->|mirrors| CS

From ADMN 233 — Potter Process

Professional ethics requires rational analysis before acting. The Potter Process walks through:

  1. Define the problem fully — don’t act without complete information
  2. Consider values — what would the community (society, profession, organization) expect?
  3. Apply timeless principles — Aristotle (middle-ground), Kant (universal law test), Mill (utilitarianism: most benefit, least harm)
  4. Consider loyalties — prioritize broader loyalties (public > organization > self)

The process produces a defensible decision based on explicit reasoning, not gut reaction or convenience.

From PHIL 252 — Critical Thinking

Critical thinking involves evaluating arguments through:

  • Identifying conclusions and the premises that support them
  • Assessing whether premises are true and whether they support the conclusion (validity + soundness)
  • Spotting informal fallacies (appeals to emotion, authority, irrelevant reasons) that bypass rational evaluation
  • Distinguishing strong inductive reasoning from weak reasoning

Why This Matters

Both frameworks respond to the same problem: emotions and biases distort judgment. In ADMN 233, the Potter Process ensures professional decisions aren’t made purely from loyalty to a boss or fear of consequences. In PHIL 252, argument evaluation ensures conclusions aren’t accepted purely from emotional appeal or authority.

Understanding both together makes ethical decisions more rigorous (Potter Process gives structure; PHIL 252 gives logical vocabulary) and makes argument analysis more practically grounded (PHIL 252 logic applies in real workplace scenarios, not just academic exercises).

Applied example: When Isaac asked for a premature “no flaws” press release, the correct response used both skills — critical thinking to identify the claim as unsupported (no evidence of no flaws), and the Potter Process to navigate the organizational and ethical complexity of rejecting it empathetically.

ProfessionalEthics, CriticalThinking, Empathy

Graph View

Backlinks