Humans are normally good at logic reasoning and taking appropriate decisions. But in situations of crisis this is not always the case. Moral aspects are an important part of crisis management, which can be difficult to manage in complex and stressful situations. Several studies indicate that humans under stress better should be facilitated by decisions making system. (Robert & Lajtha, 2002; Keramitsoglou et al., 2004) 

This study presents a model that is based on the ethical theory of consequentialism. Consequentialism states that moral decisions can be calculated by the actions expected outcomes (Kymlicka, 2002:13;Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003; Mill, 2007:457). However, a known issue with consequentialism is how to deal with prediction in complex situations (Singer, 1982; Norcross 1990; Simons 1999; Lenman 2000;Hansson, 2007). The calculations in the model are inspired by Hookers (2000:32) suggestions of how potential long term, short term, positive and negative outcomes should weigh against each other. 

The suggested model should be flexible enough to be used in both real crisis situations and crisis management exercises. However, before testing the model in real life crisis situations there is a need for further evaluation in table top exercises. These table top exercises should preferably include the concept of scripted collaboration. A specialisation of scripted collaboration is to present conflicts of interests to the participants, something that resembles moral dilemmas in philosophy. 

Keywords: Computational moral support, Crisis management ethics, Consequentialism, Decision support system, Moral dilemmas 

References

Hansson, S. O. (2007). Philosophical problems in cost–benefit analysis. Economics & Philosophy, 23(2), 163-183.

Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal code, real world: A rule-consequentialist theory of morality. Oxford University Press. 

Keramitsoglou, I., Kiranoudis, C. T., Sarimvels, H., & Sifakis, N. (2004). A multidisciplinary decision support system for forest fire crisis management. Environmental management, 33(2), 212-225.

Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Second Edition. Oxford University Press.

Lenman, J. (2000). Consequentialism and cluelessness. Philosophy & public affairs, 29(4), 342-370.

Mill, J. S. (2007). Utilitarianism. In: Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2007). Ethical theory: an anthology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 

Norcross, A. 1990. Consequentialism and the unforeseen future. Analysis 50:253–56.

Robert, B., & Lajtha, C. (2002). A new approach to crisis management. Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 10(4), 181-191.

Simons, K.W. 1999. Negligence. In Responsibility, ed. E.F. Paul, F. D. Miller Jr, and J. Paul, 52–93. Cambridge University Press. 

Singer, M. (1982). Incoherence, inconsistency, and moral theory: more on actual consequence utilitarianism. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 20(3), 375-391.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003). Consequentialism.