A Quantification of Social Ethics: Legitimizing, Identifying, and Measuring Social Ethics for Public Policy

Transcription

1 96 Virginia Policy Review A Quantification of Social Ethics: Legitimizing, Identifying, and Measuring Social Ethics for Public Policy Rhody E. Mastin INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSITION Why Do Social Ethics Matter in Social Policy? When my comparative social policy class at the University of Virginia discussed various social policy topics and possible solutions, I often witnessed and participated in a struggle to dictate why a certain policy would or would not be feasible for a particular country. Indeed, we often traipsed around language that tried to convey a sense of duty to help others, cultural conceptions of the dream, and displeasure with the status quo. We were struggling to talk about a feeling, a pulsing conception of what was right for a particular people, and utilize that visceral emotional connection to policy in order to advocate for our desired outcome. This feeling does in fact impact society in a tangible and measureable manner. A study in the Journal of Business Ethics found, firms located in more religious countries enjoy cheaper equity financing costs (El Ghoul, 2012) and researchers have contemplated the need for a morally-defensible poverty line (Edward, 2006). An example that highlights this tension between emotional policy and desired outcomes occurred in a discussion of the role that solidarity plays in French policymaking. Solidarity, according to Timothy Smith (2004), is the belief that society should be more egalitarian than it is non-egalitarian, and that societal

2 Virginia Policy Review 97 restructuring will happen because of the willingness of the wealthy to help the poor, more than al redistributive spending. In a class of primarily American students, the idea was labeled immediately as utopian and un- American. We debated the merits of the system, but left with a resounding sense that if massive redistribution were to happen in the United States, it would have to be because of al policy, not a willingness of the people. However, as a class we had trouble identifying and succinctly stating why the French system of solidarity would not be applicable in the US. The closest we got to an answer was, It just wouldn t. We knew that there were numerous factors influencing any chance at a real answer to the question cultural factors, individual belief systems, historical party formations, etc. but we lacked the language to adequately express this concept. I assert that we were actually trying to describe something proximately related to social ethics. Van Der Linden (1988) describes social ethics in Kantian terms of social duties. His moral theory posits that social ethics demand that we actively seek the realization of ideal institutions because private, individual ethics render us passive to the needs of others. In 1902, Addams book Democracy and Social Ethics posits that social ethics are encompassing of a larger scope than individual ethics. They explain individual relations to the basic organization of society. What s more, she argues that we must adapt to society s changes, and the mechanism for that adaptation is a more robust and certain understanding of social ethics. As the world has grown more complicated and surely the world has grown more complicated since 1902 individual morality is not adequate or sufficient to achieve a moral and ethical society, in which individuals have social obligations. Indeed, social ethics are something entirely

3 98 Virginia Policy Review separate from individual ethics for Addams. A social ethic is not merely a coalescing of moral individuals, but is a formal shift in attitude that requires, as philosopher John Rawls said, an agreement to share in one another s fate (Sandel, 2009). Betsworth (1990) also contributes to the conversation by characterizing social ethics as a morality that explains the reciprocity between self and society and identifies what it means to be human under the guidance of cultural patterns. These ethics reflect cultural patterns while also forming reactions to that culture, implying that they are a dynamic, encompassing, and tacit force in every society. While not explicitly talked about throughout the course, our inadequate discourse about social policy was informed by emotional maxims that define social ethics. The social policy discipline forces one to confront issues pertaining to social ethics more frequently because the issues reflect how we relate to one another as social beings and interact with larger institutions. Poverty and economics each demonstrate social policy realms that are heavily influenced by social ethics and social conflicts the role of, religion, and inequality, in particular. The issue of poverty, for example, is as much a focus of al institutions as it is of the Christian church, implying that there are not merely pragmatic reasons for anti-poverty programs, but also a strong moral component. Mappes and Zembaty (1977) agree that the answers we give to such moral questions and the social policies we adopt in keeping with our answers will directly affect our lives. Therefore, social ethics are important to social policymaking, especially to the extent that they differ across time, culture, and country. They reinforce the idea that social policy solutions cannot fit all, but more importantly, give us the language to say why these policies cannot be universal.

4 Virginia Policy Review 99 What Can We Learn from Applying Social Ethics to Social Policy? According to Cortese (2003), the purpose of social ethics in a political sector is to clarify the moral principles and social goals inherent in social issues and public initiatives. Social ethics refine the link between the desire and the outcome. Ritchie and Lewis (2003) agree that using social ethics qualitatively helps policymakers to understand more fully the nature of the problems that social policies [have] to address, and to appraise those policies once implemented. The authors validate that social ethics are not just viable in terms of their philosophical implications, but also in praxis-based work. Ritchie and Lewis (2003) offer four functions of qualitative research, and each function accurately identifies functions of social ethical research. First, contextual research describes the form or nature of what exists as a starting point for policymaking. Second, explanatory research examines the reasons for, or associations between, what exists. Third, evaluative research apprais[es] the effectiveness of what exists, analyzing the outcome of a policy. And finally, generative research aid[s] the development of theories, strategies, or actions. Each of these research categories, when used within the context of social ethics, can help to teach us about appropriate policy solutions to social problems. However, I argue that social ethics use in generative research is, of the four, the weakest, and this is where my argument for quantification gains traction. How Do We Utilize Social Ethics in the Generation of Social Policy? Ritchie and Lewis assert that there is qualitative value in social ethics and its application to social policymaking. I do

5 100 Virginia Policy Review not dispute this claim; surely there is value in descriptively identifying the way that countries respond to social problems. However, I assert that to make social ethics truly useful in the act of both lawmaking and rule making (Arnold, 1990) we must be able to quantify it. We must be able to measure the way individual nations think at a given point in time so that policy can reflect, not only the will, but also the ethics of the people. While ethical maxims are often applied to policy outcomes after the policy has been drafted, passed, and implemented as a tool for analysis, I believe that they can actually be used prior to the implementation of policy. Social ethics, if quantified, have the potential to be useful in the creation and conception of policy, not merely after-the-fact. Indeed, they have, to use Ritchie and Lewis phrasing, definite generative capacity that is presently underutilized. QUANTIFYING SOCIAL ETHICS: PROCEDURE AND OUTCOMES How Do We Quantify Social Ethics? In order for social ethics to be usefully generative in policymaking, they must be quantified. In order to quantify a social ethic of a particular nation I began under the assumption that the data should be drawn at the individual level. Indeed, in an introduction to Charlotte Perkins Gilman s Social Ethics: Sociology and the Future of Society, Hill and Deegan explain that social ethics begin in the ethics of the individual and expand to the larger and more consequential ethics of structures, institutions, and societies (Gilman & Hill, 2004). Because of the importance of the individual, I used survey data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) to whittle a larger ethical analysis down to

6 Virginia Policy Review 101 the individual level. The ISSP is a continuing annual program of cross-national collaboration on surveys covering topics important for social research (ISSP, 2010) that uses individual level data. Utilizing ISSP archive and data resources, I selected three surveys and three specific questions within the surveys in an attempt to encapsulate and condense the essence of social ethics into one measure. In particular, I used the: 2006 Role of Government IV Survey 2008 Religion III Survey, and 2009 Social Inequality IV Survey. The reasoning for each survey and question choice will be explained in the following section. In this section I only wish to explain my data analysis procedure. I selected three countries based on Andersen s (1990) welfare typology: The United States from the Liberal Regime, France from the Corporatist Regime, and Sweden from the Social-Democratic Regime. I used one question from each survey that I felt could best serve as indicators of my larger variables: 1. On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the s responsibility to reduce income differences between the rich and poor (ISSP, 2006) 2. How much confidence do you have in churches and religious organizations (ISSP, 2008) 3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Differences in income in [one s own country] are too large (ISSP, 2009) Individuals responded to the first question on a scale of 1-4, and responded to the latter two questions on a scale of 1-5, stating the degree to which they agreed (1) or disagreed (4-5).

7 102 Virginia Policy Review Using each question as a measure in a cross-tabulation with the selected countries, I found the average numerical value for each question. This number, multiplied by a qualitative weight that I determined for each question depending on its relevance to policymaking, created the Social Ethic Measure (SEM) for each country. ISSP Survey Data Criteria and Weights Explained Based on the research of Reamer, Gilman, and Brennan, I determined, broadly, that social ethics help to explain the call to action, so to speak, that an individual might feel to improve the lives of those around them. More specifically, though, there are three elements that signify how an individual conceives of his or her social ethic. These include the role an individual believes the should have in the creation of the welfare state, religious beliefs, and the degree to which individuals are able to recognize and identify social inequality. In this section I will explain why the research questions I selected adequately represent these criteria based on three assumptions I make. First, Reamer s (1999) Social Work Values and Ethics argues that many social policies rais[e] ethical questions about the role of in communities lives. That is, there is an ethical component that reiterates the social duty element of the aforementioned social ethic definition. In particular, social ethics posit a framework for ensuring the protection of all members of the community. In this way, I believe that the role of is a function of social ethics under the assumption that stronger conceptions of the role that the should have in one s life correlate with stronger conceptions of social ethics. Operating under this assumption, the role of the is adequately measured by the question: On the whole, do you think it should or should not

8 Virginia Policy Review 103 be the s responsibility to reduce income differences between the rich and poor? Indeed, because this question inquires about redistribution a feature of almost all social policies it gives us access to information about the role individuals believe the should have. Therefore, if an individual agrees that the should reduce income differences between the rich and the poor, I will assume a stronger social ethic. Further, because my quantification aims at the creation of better policymaking, I weighted the role of variable most heavily with a weight of three. Second, Gilman offers an insightful look at the convoluted relationship between religion and individual conceptions of social ethics. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have very specific ethical requirements for how individuals should relate to one another, demonstrating a potential fount for social ethic conceptions. Because of this historical basis, religion is an important factor in social ethics under the assumption that stronger religious convictions correlate with a stronger conception of social ethics. Operating under this assumption, religion is adequately measured by the question: How much confidence do you have in churches and religious organizations? I make another assumption that individuals who place strong confidence in churches and religious organizations are more likely to be religious, and, thus, have stronger social ethic conceptions. Further, because religious beliefs, convictions, and praxes may not be consistent within a single nation, I weighted this criterion with a value of one, implying that while I believe it is a criterion of import, it is not, relative to the other criteria, the most reliable indicator of social ethics at the national level, or in policymaking.

9 104 Virginia Policy Review Third, in attempting to establish a framework for thinking about social inequality and its implications for social ethics, Brennan s Social, Ethical and Policy Implications of Information Technology tacitly highlights an interesting point. The degree to which social inequality is present in a society existing in material or systemic inequality signals a perversion in a nation s social ethic. That is, inequality may be a firm indicator of how strongly individuals conceive of social ethics. Great degrees of inequality may signal weak social ethics in a nation, and smaller intervals of inequality may signal stronger social ethics. However, I argue that the degree to which an individual recognizes social inequality not the actual measure of inequality is the important factor to consider because it helps us capture individuals desired response to inequality. In this way, the inequality is an indicator of an individual s social ethics under the assumption that more awareness of inequality correlates with a stronger conception of social ethics. Operating under this assumption, the awareness of inequality is adequately measured by the question: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Differences in income in [one s own country] are too large. The question asks the survey-taker to first think about inequality using income differences as an indicator. The question then asks the survey-taker to make a definitive statement about that inequality yes, it is too large, or, no, it is not a cause for concern. Because of this, the question helps individuals to confront the status quo and respond positively or negatively. Therefore, the question does a good job capturing opinions of social inequality and implies certain social ethic conceptions. Further, I weighted this criterion with a value of two because, relative to the other criteria, it has some implication for policymaking in democratic

10 Virginia Policy Review 105 countries, but not as many implications as the role of. To summarize my variable terms and weights: 1. Role of Government Weight: 3 2. Religion Weight: 1 3. Social Inequality Weight: 2 Using the survey data, I took the average response score for each question and applied the weights discussed above by category. The scoring system is explained on the following page. Scoring United France Sweden (score*weight) States Role of Government 2.4 x 3 = x 3 = x 3 = 6.0 Religion 2.9 x 1 = x 1 = x 1 = 3.4 Social Inequality 2.2 x 2 = x 2 = x 2 = 4.2 Social Ethic Measure INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS Based on the phrasing and scoring of each question, smaller measures imply stronger social ethics. The strongest SEM, therefore, would be comprised of an average score of one for each evaluative criterion (pre-weight).

11 106 Virginia Policy Review Evaluative Criteria Score: 1-2 Score: 2-3 Score: 3-4 Score: 4-5 Score: <5 Social Inequality Weight: 2 Religion Weight: 1 Individuals tend to agree strongly that there is a level of social inequality in his or her nation. Individuals tend to have complete confidence in churches and religious organizations. Individuals tend to agree that there is a level of social inequality in his or her nation. Individuals tend to have a great deal of confidence in churches and religious organizations. Individuals are relatively indifferent to the level of social inequality in his or her nation. Individuals tend to have some confidence in churches and religious organizations. Individuals tend to disagree that there is a level of social inequality in his or her nation. Individuals tend to have very little confidence in churches religious organizations. Individuals tend to disagree strongly that there is a level of social inequality in his or her nation. Individuals tend to have no confidence at all in churches and religious organizations. Quantification: Outcomes Matrices Role of Government Weight: 3 Individuals tend to believe that the definitely should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. Individuals tend to believe that the should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. Individuals tend to believe that the should not be involved social welfare in some capacity. Individuals tend to believe that the definitely should not be involved in social welfare in some capacity. N/A

12 Observed Outcomes Virginia Policy Review 107 Evaluation United States France Sweden Role of Govt. Religion Social Inequality US citizens tend to agree that the should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. US citizens tend to have a great deal of confidence in churches and religious organizations. US citizens tend to agree that there is a level of social inequality in the US. French to agree that the definitely should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. French to have some confidence in churches and religious organizations. French to agree strongly that there is a level of social inequality in France. Swedish to agree that the should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. Swedish to have some confidence in churches and religious organizations. Swedish to agree that there is a level of social inequality in Sweden.

13 108 Virginia Policy Review France has the lowest SEM and the strongest social ethic according to my analysis, scoring most strongly in the two heavily weighted criteria. The United States and Sweden only differed significantly in their religious scores, though Sweden scored more strongly in the most significant role of criteria, contributing to Sweden s more moderate SEM. Based on these scores, policymakers will be better able to gauge the ethical temperature of the society in which the policy is being created. Much in the same way that the main purpose of cost-benefit analysis is to identify and elucidate the consequences of alternative measures prior to making a decision on which measure to implement (Cost Benefit Analysis, n.d.), so too does the SEM give policymakers a way to identify and elucidate existing ethical standards, as enumerated by individual citizens. Quantification would allow for ethical considerations to be included in Cost-Benefit Analysis prior to adoption policies. Further, the score gives another way to discuss and interpret existing ideologies. France demonstrates one example of this. In my analysis, France has the smallest score of the three sample countries, reflecting the strongest relative social ethic. Throughout the social policy course I took at the University of Virginia, the class discussed the concept of solidarity that permeates the formation of the French welfare state. However, I discussed in the introduction of this paper that, as a class, we often had trouble articulating why solidarity functioned for the country in an ethical sense. We could use historical lenses to parse out party and union formation; we could use economic lenses to see how the ideology affects spending. But France s SEM also helps to explain the concept of solidarity. Béland and Hansen (2000) point out that the most striking feature of French political debate and discourse surrounding social

14 Virginia Policy Review 109 policy is the legitimacy enjoyed by the concept of welfare itself. In the run-up to the 1995 presidential election, all candidates, from the Communist Party to the far right, affirmed their commitment to social solidarity and social protection. This reiterates the results found in the Evaluation table. French to agree that the definitely should be involved in social welfare, and based on Béland and Hansen s statement, they agree on this across party lines. They also tend to be acutely aware of the existence of social inequality. These factors illuminate the concept further and can clarify why solidaristic thinking is sustainable in French culture. Therefore, this analysis is best used comparatively. It enunciates what the individuals of one country think relative to other countries and puts ethical considerations into perspective on a global scale. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS In order to glean a more robust understanding of the measure and get a clearer sense of the outcome, I have selected several alternate variables from the surveys that attempt to coalesce similar notions of social ethics. Having chosen several alternate questions to represent the variables, I examine the impact of the alternate questions on the SEM by taking the average scores and varying the weight system in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of how a robust measure would rank France, Sweden, and the United States. Variable 1: Role of Government For reasons similar to those of the original Role of Government variable, I chose two alternate survey questions that roughly encapsulate and explicate the same themes as the

15 110 Virginia Policy Review original question. The alternate questions condense broad notions of how the people believe the should be involved in the daily lives of citizens, the welfare state, and morality. Alternate Question 2 (Q2): On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the s responsibility to provide health care for the sick (ISSP, 2006)? Alternate Question 3 (Q3): On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the s responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed (ISSP, 2006)? Scoring United States France Sweden Role of Government Q Role of Government Q Role of Government Q Average Without taking the weighting system into account, averaging the three Role of Government survey questions demonstrates a distinct consistency within each country s answering pattern. Indeed, for two of the three questions, every country answered within the same scoring bracket. That is, the US answered in the 2-3 score for Q3 and Q1; France answered in the 1-2 score for Q2 and Q1; and Sweden answered in the 1-2

16 Responses to Role of Government Questions Virginia Policy Review 111 Evaluation Role of Government Q2 Role of Government Q3 Role of Government Q1 United States US citizens tend to believe that the definitely should provide health care for the sick. US citizens tend to believe that the should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed. US citizens tend to agree that the should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. France French to believe that the definitely should provide health care for the sick. French to believe that the should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed. French to agree that the definitely should be involved in social welfare in some capacity. Sweden Swedish to believe that the definitely should provide health care for the sick. Swedish to believe that the definitely should provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed. Swedish to agree that the should be involved in social welfare in some capacity.

17 112 Virginia Policy Review score for Q2 and Q3. This signifies that the questions are fungible and that the nature national opinion is persistent. Variable 2: Religion The alternate Religion variable questions are altered slightly to reflect more general confidence in the stability of society. While this slightly reduces the ability to test the relationship between religiosity and social ethics, using questions that generically inquire about an individual s faith and confidence in their social setting will allow the Religion variable to prevail. The extent to which a citizen believes the courts and legal system are uncorrupted, and the extent to which he or she believes the educational system is strong, may have implications for how strongly the citizen conceives of social ethics because each institution religion, the courts, and education reflects a dynamic relational process. Alternate Question 2 (Q2): How much confidence do you have in the courts and legal system (ISSP, 2008)? Alternate Question 3 (Q3): How much confidence do you have in schools and the educational system (ISSP, 2008)? Scoring United States France Sweden Religion Q Religion Q Religion Q Average Similar to the Role of Government scoring analysis, the average answers to each question highlight durability among

18 Virginia Policy Review 113 the variables and consistency among the opinions of citizens in each country. The US scored in the 2-3 scoring bracket for Q3 and Q1; France answered in the 3-4 bracket for each question; and Sweden answered in the 2-3 bracket for Q2 and Q3. Further, the average of the three questions maintains the SEM order provided Q1 analysis for the Religion category: the US is the most trusting of religious organizations, the legal sector, and educational institutions. France is the least trusting of these institutions, while Sweden is more moderate. Responses to Religion Questions Evaluation United States France Sweden Religion Q2 Religion Q3 Religion Q1 US citizens tend to have some confidence in the courts and legal system. US citizens tend to have a great deal of confidence in schools and the educational system. US citizens tend to have a great deal of confidence in churches and religious organizations. French citizens tend to have some confidence in the courts and legal system. French citizens tend to have some confidence in schools and the educational system. French citizens tend to have some confidence in churches and religious organizations. Swedish to have a great deal of confidence in the courts and legal system. Swedish to have a great deal of confidence in schools and the educational system. Swedish to have some confidence in churches and religious organizations.

19 114 Virginia Policy Review Variable 3: Social Inequality I chose two alternate survey questions that more deeply probe views on social inequality. The alternate questions pointedly ask citizens to identify whether or not social inequality is a problem in his or her country, implicitly helping us to understand how strong or weak conceptions of social ethics are. Alternate Question 2 (Q2): To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? It is the responsibility of the to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes (ISSP, 2009)? Alternate Question 3 (Q3): In all countries, there are differences or even conflicts between different social groups. In your opinion, in [your country] how much conflict is there between people at the top of society and people at the bottom (ISSP, 2009)? Scoring United States France Sweden Social Inequality Q Social Inequality Q Social Inequality Q Average In keeping with the findings of the previous two variables, the answers provided to Q2, and Q3 in the Social Inequality category validate the findings of Q1. Answers were mostly

20 Responses to Social Inequality Questions Virginia Policy Review 115 Evaluation United States France Sweden Social Inequality Q2 Social Inequality Q3 Social Inequality Q1 US citizens are relatively indifferent to the responsibility of the to reduce income differences between the rich and poor. US citizens tend to believe that there are strong conflicts between people at the top and bottom of society. US citizens tend to agree that there is a level of social inequality in the US. French to agree strongly that it is the responsibility of the to reduce income differences between the rich and poor. French to believe that there are strong conflicts between people at the top and bottom of society. French to agree strongly that there is a level of social inequality in France. Swedish to agree that it is the responsibility of the to reduce income differences between the rich and poor. Swedish to believe that there are strong conflicts between people at the top and bottom of society. Swedish to agree that there is a level of social inequality in Sweden.

21 116 Virginia Policy Review consistent across scoring brackets: the US scored within the 2-3 bracket for Q3 and Q1; France scored in the 1-2 bracket for Q2 and Q1; and Sweden scored in the 2-3 bracket for each question. Further, the average answers maintain the original ranking found in Q1. The US scored the highest numerical value (representing the weakest ethical conception); France scored the lowest numerical value (representing the strongest ethical conception). Varying the Weighting After selecting questions and taking the average scores by category, I applied a weight to each question category based on its importance to the SEM. Using the averages for all three questions in each category, we see no change in relative ranking using the original weighting system. i While the countries absolute SEM and the distance between scores changes using different weighting systems, the United States finishes with the highest score each time and France finishes with the lowest score in five of the six scenarios. In other words, increasing the number of questions and varying question weights does not change the final relative rankings of these three nations in terms of social ethic. The only time Sweden finishes with a lower SEM score is when religion is rated double the other two criteria; as discussed above, religiosity is probably the weakest of the three SEM components. ADDRESSING LIMITATIONS AND CONCERNS Snapshot of a Country Because the score is based on survey data that is collected repeatedly, the score is bound to time and must be updated as new data is available. The data and subsequent score will vary

22 Virginia Policy Review 117 over the course of time, and if policy is based on this score, then policy has the potential to become outdated. However, I argue that while quantifying social ethics complicates the policy process, it does not inherently detract from the value of the measure. The score provides a window into the citizens of the nation and their shifting values, and in this way, the score can be a pedagogic tool that highlights why old policies might need to change. That is, it can help individuals advocate for updating policies. For example, using data from earlier versions of the same surveys (ISSP, 1985; 1987; 1991) provides very different answers: Scoring (score*weight) United States Role of Government 2.8x 3 = 8.4 Religion 2.7 x 1 = 2.7 Social Inequality 2.3 x 2 = 4.6 Social Ethic Score 15.7 By this measure, we can argue that the United States social ethic has gotten stronger, because the score has decreased from older data to newer data, over the last twenty to thirty years. (Data were only available for the US in the earliest waves.) This would give grounds for older social policies created during the time period of the older surveys to be revisited and updated in order to more accurately reflect the changing people. Necessary Further Research While the measure is only a rough compilation of average survey data responses, the questions chosen were purposeful and meaningful, as I addressed in my explanation of the variables. Because of this, the score captures a basic conception of the composition of social ethics and offers a fair

23 118 Virginia Policy Review attempt to coalesce otherwise seemingly unrelated data and utilize it in policymaking. The robustness of results to sensitivity analysis indicates the measurements consistency and usefulness. Understanding that this measure is presently isolated is important. While I believe that I have created a tool that can be used immediately for policy analysis, in order for the SEM to be used in generative policy processes, there must be more contextualization. In particular, creation of an index that combines scores with possible policy options that are meaningful to the SEM is ideal. However, the purpose of my current research is to formulate and espouse the SEM, not index the data to be used in policy creation. Conclusions: Usefulness, Awareness, and Precision Quantifying social ethics has three positive consequences for their application to policymaking: legitimization, identification, and measurement. First, quantifying social ethics aids in their legitimization. Social ethics is predominantly a philosophical discipline that gives us descriptive aphorisms for discussing and analyzing culture, time, and, often, policy outcomes. However, quantification makes social ethics tactile, putting them in a language that is understood by policymakers and adding to their legitimate value in. Quantification, further, shifts their purpose away from post-implementation and analysis, and toward early-stage generative policymaking. Legitimization, therefore, ultimately makes social ethics more useful in the discipline of policymaking. Second, quantifying ethics allows us to identify them more clearly. Again, it moves us away from descriptive terminology and affords us the opportunity to succinctly pinpoint a larger, abstract ideology in a way that is meaningful to policymakers. When we are able to identify

24 Virginia Policy Review 119 these ideas and conceptions that compose social ethics, we are able to become more aware of their presence and subsequent impact. Having access to one succinct figure will ultimately enable easier conceptions of complicated ideas and facilitate new understanding of the matter. Third, quantifying ethics gives us a crude measure that will ultimately generate more precise policy. To the extent that quantification makes social ethics more useful and increases policymakers awareness of them, countries will benefit from more exact policymaking. There is genuine need for ethical discussion in generative stages of policymaking. Quantifying a nation s social ethic derived from individual conceptions of the role the should have, religious ideology, and ability to acknowledge inequality makes this possible and allows policymakers to more easily incorporate ethical thoughtprocesses and implications prior to the implementation stage of policy. It will allow us to take abstract conceptions of social ethics and associate them with tactile social policy initiatives. Rhody E. Mastin is a fourth-year undergraduate student at the University of Virginia s Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy i Further calculations and tables may be found in the Spring Issue 2015 appendix online at