Thesis

16 Chapter 1 cannot learn from experiences without the art of asking questions. Gadamer mentions the value of knowing what you do not know since you lack insights or experiences that others might have (Gadamer, 2014, p. 345). MCD builds on this, since dialogue and asking questions – while postponing judgment – are crucial elements to learn from each other’s perspectives during MCD. Participants speak without there being a hierarchy during MCD; all participants and their views are considered worthwhile to listen to (Hartman et al., 2016, pp. 79–80). Not surprisingly, MCD is based on dialogical ethics. In this approach, establishing what is good cannot be done in advance or in general terms. Rudnick (2002, 2007) states that using general principles would not work sufficiently for professional ethics. Instead, determining what is good should be done through ‘a procedure enacted by the parties involved’, and this procedure is necessarily in the form of a dialogue (Rudnick, 2002). During MCD, professionals deliberate with peers based on their experiences with moral doubts or disagreements instead of leaving the moral judgments to experts or committees (Abma et al., 2009). The facilitators foster the dialogical process of participants and thereby stimulate a learning process and the moral reflection of participants (Stolper et al., 2016). A dialogue between stakeholders is ‘key to sound moral decision-making’ (Rudnick, 2007). Dialogical ethics does not provide a framework for deciding; instead, it provides guidelines for conducting dialogue (Koehn, 1998). The purpose of a joint dialogue is to expand the perspective of the participants by confronting them with the insights of others (Molewijk et al., 2008; Weidema, 2014). This can only be of value if all involved are willing to be anti-dogmatic (Inguaggiato, Porz, et al., 2019) and to be critical of themselves and others (Widdershoven et al., 2009). MCD embodies also a pragmatist approach since it: a) focuses on facts, actions, and considerations within the specific situation in order to understand why a situation is morally troublesome, b) facilitates participants to share their values and beliefs and stimulates them to share and explore considerations in an anti-dogmatic way, c) urges them to explore the value of those considerations and values in a particular context, and d) fosters a shared process of moral inquiry focused on what actually works in practice for the involved stakeholders (Inguaggiato, Porz, et al., 2019). The dilemma method for MCD focuses on moral experiences concerning a concrete dilemma in practice. During MCD sessions with the use of the dilemma method, participants not only develop knowledge, but also skills, attitude and character (Stolper et al., 2016). This learning process concerning in-depth insights regarding practices, works best in a context where

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw