The scores on your questionnaire show how strongly you prefer one or another of two major styles for recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas. The higher your "J" score, the more you rely on an "ethic of justice." The higher your "C" score, the more you prefer an "ethic of care."

Neither style is better than the other, but they are different. They may initially seem opposed to one another because they differ so much on the surface, but they’re actually complementary. In fact, as the scores on your questionnaire show, you probably already rely on each style to a greater of lesser degree. (Not that many people end up with scores of 9/0 or 0/9.) Moreover, the more you can appreciate both approaches, the better you’ll be able to resolve ethical dilemmas and to understand and communicate with people who prefer the other style.

Ethic of justice

An "ethic of justice or rights" is based on abstract, impersonal principles, like justice, fairness, equality or authority. People who prefer this style see ethical dilemmas as involving primarily a conflict of rights that can be solved by the impartial application of some general principle. The statue "Justice Blindfolded" captures this approach very well. People with this style tend to place a good deal of weight on moral principles, laws or policies, which they believe should be applied to all equally. They usually do not like making exceptions based on special circumstances, and they worry about "setting precedents."

The advantage of this approach is that it looks at a problem logically and impartially. People with this style try to be objective and fair, hoping to make a decision according to some standard that's "higher" than any specific individual's interests. The disadvantage of this approach is that people who rely on it might lose sight of the immediate interests of particular individuals. They may unintentionally ride roughshod over the people around them in favor of some abstract ideal or policy. Carried to an extreme, people who strongly prefer this style may tolerate human harm in the name of some principle. Others might think them as inflexible, cold and uncaring. Their approach can appear to be not simply impartial, but impersonal.

This style is more common of men than women, and of people who define themselves in more solitary, individualistic terms. It seems to fit with a more legalistic approach to life that gives allegiance to some external source of authority. This approach can also go along with a traditional management style that prefers to justify decisions according to authority, policies or other impersonal standards, like numbers or executive prerogative.

Ethic of care

An "ethic of care or responsibility" is founded on a sense of responsibility to reduce actual harm or suffering. For these people, moral dilemmas generally involve a conflict of duties or responsibilities. People with this orientation believe that the focal point of every ethical dilemma is the specific individuals involved and the particular circumstances of the case. Solutions, then, must be tailored to the special details of individual circumstances. Notions of equity, or what is appropriate or "fitting," tend to be favored by this approach. Making exceptions does not phase these people, and they tend to feel constrained by policies that are supposed to be enforced without exception.

The advantage of this approach is that it is responsive to immediate suffering and harm. This approach is flexible, caring and subjective--appropriately so. It can respond quickly to changing circumstances and is not preoccupied with the idea of setting precedents. The bad news, however, is that by focusing so much on circumstances, people with this orientation can lose sight of the forest for the trees. Their reliance on subjective, "gut" response can limit their appreciation of other factors. When carried to an extreme, this style can produce decisions that seem not simply subjective, but arbitrary.

This style is more common of women than men, and of people who define themselves primarily in terms of their relationships with other people. It seems to fit with a more situational approach to life. This orientation seems related to a management style that is sensitive to the consequences of decisions on the individuals involved, that considers consensus-building to be very important, and that emphasizes having people do things as a result of personal "buy-in" rather than simply following orders.

Click here for a fuller explanation of these two styles and the debate about whether they're related to gender.