The responsibility of developing an ethical, technology-based society no longer lies exclusively in the hands of "experts," as technology today affects such a large percentage of a society's population. Input on the part of average citizens is vital.

Although, a thorough knowledge of the technology isn't always required on the part of the layperson, a basic knowledge of its potential applications, the ethics surrounding the applications, and an unselfish comprehension of one's own biases are essential to undertaking such responsibility in formulating a sound decision in ethical situations. Here, an examination is made of what is involved in the ethical decision-making process.

The psychological processes everyone depends upon can be summarized into four major components:

1. recognition of a moral situation (moral sensitivity);
2. reasoning which course of action is just or fair (moral reasoning);
3. deciding on a given course of action one intends to pursue; and
4. carrying out that action.

The failure to execute one of these four processes can result in failure to act ethically. When a person's moral sense seems to be misleading or insufficient, she may rely upon set codes of ethics, as many professionals choose to do as a first step. However, as mentioned earlier, ethics guidelines are quite limited, and care should be taken to interpret them according to given situations. At least five ethical principles should be considered in formulating an ethical decision in lieu of set codes of ethics. These basic principles stem from psychology: benefit others, do no harm, respect others' autonomy, be just for all, and be faithful.

Benefiting others is the main principle of psychology. It includes the promotion of others' welfare. The principle of doing no harm includes all physical, emotional, psychological and even social forms of harm. While not all harm can be avoided, the effect of the harm needs to be minimized. The freedom of thought and action of an individual defines their autonomy. Respecting others' autonomy is very important and will be considered later. Being just for all requires a balance between conflicting views and attitudes. Justice is a complex issue requiring much consideration beyond the scope of this paper. Lastly, being faithful requires the ability to keep promises and being loyal and committed to one's decision.[7]

Laypersons, and professionals alike, should take care to comprehend their own personal biases and angers when encountering ethical dilemmas. Attributing blame to a person or an organization for taking harmful action is the act of being angry. Thus, responding to an upsetting situation is a psychological process. Four "dimensions" of personal responsibility, based upon judicial sciences and psychological research, apparently underlie a person's psychological response of anger: Was harm caused? Could it have been avoided? Was harm deliberately intended? and Was the motive acceptable? (i.e. "causality," "avoidability," "intentionality," and "motive acceptability,"[8] respectively).

Should a person's ethical beliefs be challenged, they become angry. The effectiveness and level of responsibility of their response depends upon how well they are able to differentiate among the different dimensions of anger. The ability to differentiate among the various dimensions is evident in research conducted with children. Holding the causality factor constant (i.e. creating situations where it was obvious that harm was caused) early research demonstrated that three-year old children are able to use the dimension of motive-acceptability in their responses to various harmful situations. Further research showed that intentionality begins to play a role in the moral judgements of children at the age of seven and older while the dimension of avoidability isn't evident until the age of ten. Results of this research suggest that each dimension becomes more and more important in formulating moral judgements as people grow older.

More useful, however, is the fact that these dimensions can be taught through ethics education as further research suggested. As early as the age of five, children were able to make use of both the avoidability and intentionality dimensions in making moral judgements if they were provided with sufficient knowledge of these dimensions.[8]

A person able to understand and analyze these dimensions in their own decision-making process will be able to formulate an unbiased decision given the information they are provided with concerning various issues. To confront general issues responsibly, a free-flow of uncensored information needs to be created. No one, professional or otherwise, has the authority to suppress information that may possibly be true. Anyone who attempts to suppress relevant information chooses to ignore the truth and assumes their own infallibility, which is a fallacy. Such assumed authority figures are biased and therefore have not considered all the dimensions mentioned in this discussion. People are ends in themselves. The most important fact is that people are "autonomous, self-determining, rational agents. Restrictions on the transmission of information or ideas which interfere with the exercise of this rational autonomy are thus incompatible with the fundamental feature of human nature, and so are impermissible.”[3] Therefore, it is imperative that all options be considered in the decision-making process, and that no information is withheld.

A free-flow of uncensored information can be facilitated by diverse discussion groups and organizations. Thus, an individual's interactions with larger groups of people is discussed in the following section.

7. E. R. Welfel and K. S. Kitchener, "Introduction to the Special Section: Ethics Education – An Agenda for the '90s," Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(3) 179-181 (1992).
8. T. Olthof, T. J. Ferguson, and A. Luiten, "Personal Responsibility Antecedents of Anger and Blame Reactions in Children," Child Development, 60 1328-1336 (1989).