Dangerous Questions at the Reference Desk: <i>A Virtue Ethics Approach</i>

Abstract

The study of ethical dilemmas (even if they are only hypothetical) is an effective way of identifying the potential contrast between individual interests, moral commitments, and professional expectations. Once such competing directives are brought to light, the student of such dilemmas can begin the uncomfortable but (it is to be hoped) edifying work of adopting plan for bringing such divergent claims to satisfactory resolution should she ever find herself in similar situation.For reference librarians, the granddaddy of such dilemmas was posed by Robert Hauptman. He approached the desk staff at thirteen different libraries and asked for information on the construction of an explosive device of sufficient power to destroy a normal suburban house (1976, p.626).1 Hauptman provided no further indication of how he intended to use this information. None of the librarians refused to comply with Hauptman's request on moral grounds, nor did they make serious attempts at further probing of Hauptman's intentions, although two found unrelated excuses for being less than helpful. It is very likely that these helpful librarians understood themselves to be fulfilling professional expectations of how librarians are supposed to respond to patron requests. Such expectations find expression in the American Library Association's statements on intellectual (http://www.ala. org/Template.cfm?Section=censorship). These statements can be interpreted to mean that it is the librarian's duty to help the inquiring patron find any information that is available on any subject. To refuse service amounts to an unwarranted restriction of the patron's freedom to read. Hauptman criticizes the philosophy that lies behind such policies as an abdication of responsibility on the part of the librarian with regard to whom they help and to what extent. The response of the librarians in this study shows disturbing lack of concern for the consequences of their actions.2 If library policies and training are such that library employees consistently value providing helpful reference service over refusing to cooperate in the endangerment of others, something is seriously amiss with such policies and training.Whether one agrees with Hauptman's criticisms or not, it is apparent that the situation he has constructed brings many divergent ethical considerations to the fore. Should conformity to library policy be the primary concern in librarians' interactions with patrons who ask questions? Should the librarian refuse service on the grounds that assisting the patron may result in harm to the patron and to others? Should the patron's freedom to read be protected or promoted no matter what the cost? What should the librarian do when his appraisal of the situation differs from that encouraged by his ors and by policies that they set forth?If one turns to theoretical ethics for guidance in understanding and resolving the situation, one's choice of theories will determine which aspects of the situation will appear most morally salient. For consequentialists, the potential harm accompanying each possible course of action will figure most prominently. For formalist deontologists, selecting course of action consistent with universally applicable moral rules will be most crucial. The Kantian imperative to treat others as ends in themselves rather than as means to one's own ends springs to mind, but what precisely would that entail in this situation? For For social contract theorists, the central issue will be observing those social conventions deemed essential for peaceful, mutually beneficial coexistence with one another. To have librarians dispense information liberally is beneficial social convention, but so is refraining from the destruction of property and the endangerment of others. For students of virtue ethics, the quality of the traits of character exhibited by one's actions will be of foremost concern.If one had to select single approach from among the choices above,3 virtue ethics would be the best candidate, since it is sufficiently flexible to accommodate each of the moral demands presented when patrons approach the reference desk with dangerous questions. …