Did Ignoring the Colombian Plebiscite Decrease Public Approval of the Peace Process?

Introduction

The 2016 Colombian Peace Treaty is one of the most studied events in modern political science. After countless decades of conflict between the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC ) and the government, there was finally a realistic shot at a peace treaty. When it was time to ratify the peace treaty, President Juan Manuel Santos proposed a plebiscite to gage the public’s reaction to the treaty. The final verdict from the general was that they did NOT support the treaty as it was and wanted the government to do something else. Nevertheless, President Santos changed some points from the existing treaty and went ahead and implemented it. This paper aims to examine the actions of the Colombian government in 2016 (guided by President Santos) through the ethical lenses of Utilitarianism, Justice, and Virtue in order to come to a conclusion regarding the actions of the government. To support the investigation, different interviews were made to different members of the Colombian society to get first-hand information about what happened during the time of the plebiscite. The topic of this specific plebiscite is very important to study because it seeks to explain and evaluate the actions of a government when faced with concrete input from the general public. The actions made by the government may even set a precedent for future governments; so, it is imperative to analyze them and weigh them.

Historical Context

The FARC-EP (“Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo” or Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces-People’s Army) began during a very violent time in Colombia during the 1960s (2019). This organization focused on representing people from rural areas and tried to overthrow the government. The armed group would fund its activities through kidnappings, extortions, assassinations, bombings, and eventually through the drug trade^[1]. This group reached peak activity during the 1990s when they were sending “guerrilleros”  all throughout the country while continuously gaining more land for the drug trade. Although this organization initially began as an armed revolutionary force that wanted to fight imperialistic tendencies through Colombian society, it quickly evolved into a terrorist organization that focused on the drug trade and on controlling certain rural towns. Although the FARC’s political views shifted, they always maintained that they were a group interested in “freeing” the masses of the wrongful doings of the government.

Throughout the FARC’s history, the Colombian government tried various attempts to make peace with them through different means (such as creating a political party, disarmament, etc...)^[2]; but the situation only got worse. Starting in 2002, President Alvaro Uribe pushed back against the FARC through a militaristic approach with the help of the US through the “Plan Colombia”^[3] but it didn't stop the group all together. In 2012, President Juan Manuel Santos proposed new negotiations that would consist of a special jurisdiction being made for the guerrilla members in order to incentivize them to stand down (2024). When the peace accords were finished in 2016, Santos proposed a Plebiscite so that the Colombians would decide if they agreed with the Peace treaty. The question that Colombians would have to answer was the following: “"Do you support the final agreement to end the conflict and build a stable and lasting peace?"^[4] in which they could answer “Yes” or "No". Depending on whether the result was positive or negative, Santos promised that he would follow what the general public decided. In the end, the NO side won by 0.43%, which meant that the public did not accept the peace accords^[5] and Santos was supposed to not follow through with implementation. Nevertheless, Santos renegotiated a few of the points in the accords and went ahead to implement it.^[6]

Methodology

The methodology of this paper included a thorough background research on the history of the conflict and the plebiscite itself. It was important to understand what was happening at the time in order to move on with the investigation in a manner that was true and fair. After the initial research, I conducted five investigations to different people in different positions within the Colombian Social structure in order to get information about their personal experiences with the plebiscite, the overall conflict, and how it affected their perception of their reality regarding the peace treaty. The questions asked to the interviewees consisted of how they reacted to the notion of the plebiscite itself, how the government organized the plebiscite itself, and what they thought about the actions of the government after the results of the plebiscite. These questions seek to determine how different people lived out this momentous occasion so that a complete conclusion can be made about the ethics of the government regarding this plebiscite.  

The Plebiscite

The plebiscite was held on October 2, 2016 in all of the national poll places. Around 13 million people voted, which translates to 37.43% of everyone registered to vote. The question that was asked in the ballot was the following: “¿Apoya usted el acuerdo final para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una paz estable y duradera?” (Do you support the final agreement to end the conflict and build a stable and lasting peace?). Each person could vote YES or NO and slip their vote into the ballot box. When all of the votes were counted, the NO won with 50.23% of the votes and the YES lost with 49.76% of the votes. This meant that the difference was less than 1% (0.47% to be exact)^[7].

Before looking at the results, it is important to understand what people thought about the plebiscite itself. Out of the interviewees, there seemed to be different opinions. An individual who was involved in politics at the time said that the notion of a plebiscite was not needed at all. After countless attempts for peace, now that the FARC actually wanted to sign, what use was there for the Colombian people to get in the way? This person believes that it was a big media stunt created by the government in order to gain attention from the international audience instead of simply solving the domestic problems. On the other hand, a businessman says that making a plebiscite was a very good idea because it was a way to ask the general public what they actually thought about the peace treaty that was being made. Through this democratic exercise, it would be easier to implement the accords with support from the public. In a sense the fact that there are opposing views in such a small sample size indicates structural issues that were present with the plebiscite. What exactly did the government hope to gain from this? Was it actually necessary?      

When asked about the efforts of the Colombian government to inform the people about the accords themselves, there seemed to be an agreement among all of the interviews that I conducted. The person involved in politics says that the peace accords turned into a media event where people from other countries came to watch what was surely a “step forward” for peace. In this new event, the Colombian government focused too much on its perceived success that it disregarded some of its duties to actually inform the public about the information in the accords. One of the interviewees agreed with the previous idea and noted that there were lots of international observers that came to show support for the peace treaty and to ensure that the democratic process was respected. The person states: “Never before had I seen so much international attention that pushed for peace. But while they wanted peace, I am not sure they actually knew what the treaty actually said”. I think that this is a very important point. Although the foreign press was very invested in the results of the plebiscite, the interviewees don’t believe that they were informed adequately. This means that both the Colombian people and the international public were not informed enough about what was actually written in the treaty. It is easy enough to say “yes” to peace, but it is something totally different to actually know the cost of said peace. A person with military knowledge agrees and says that the information was mostly skewed so that people were more prone to agree with the plebiscite. The person states: “There was a campaign for the “Yes” which was based on scaring people in “hot” zones by making them believe that if the accords failed, the FARC would retaliate against the civilian population”. This is extremely alarming to hear. Not only does it mean that people were made to vote for a certain thing but it also means that the democratic process in itself was affected. In a democracy, people need to be safe to vote what they want in the polls; and this was not the case. It is very interesting to note that all of the interviewees emphasize that the government failed in informing the general public. Although each person focuses on certain areas in which they failed and why, it is safe to conclude that their perceptions align by saying that the government did not do what they were supposed to do.

Consequences

Although the result of the plebiscite was “NO”, President Santos renegotiated some of the points in the accords and went through with applying them. When asked if these renegotiations were enough to acknowledge the results in the polls, the responses from the interviewees varied. On the one hand, some argue that the NO meant that the peace accords had to be scrapped altogether and start anew. One person who supports this side says that the plebiscite asked people to support the accord in its totality, not certain parts, which would mean that when the public did not support the treaty, it meant the treaty as a whole. Another person says that the public was increasingly alarmed that the accords were too lenient on the members of the FARC and that it was not binding enough (the extent to which the accords were “successful” or not will not be examined in this paper). On the other hand, there are very interesting points that justify the government going through with the accords. One of the interviewees said that since the difference between “yes” and “no” was smaller than 1%, it did not call for the complete restructuring of the accords. It simply meant that there were some points that needed to be adjusted in order to be acceptable for the public. This person states: “When dealing with politics, it is impossible to look at extremes. Since the difference was so small, it is fair that Santos changed some things and still implemented the accords because it meant he listened to the opposition.  There was never going to be a perfect treaty, so the fact he changed some things should be considered a success”. This is a really interesting point because it takes into account the context of what actually happened in the polls. This person also mentioned that the treaty was never going to be perfect, which I tend to agree with. It is not possible to make a document that 50 million people completely agree with, so whatever the outcome of the plebiscite there were some people that were bound to be upset. The fact that this person says that Santos actually changing some of the things is a success speaks more about the level of trust in the president rather than if the treaty was going to be perfect.

Those who say that the government did not accept the people’s opinion seem to be a little more focused on the theory of support, others who support the government’s actions argue that the accords changed just enough in order to be acceptable.

Before moving on to the effects that the government’s actions had on public approval, I think it is important to understand the public perception on why the government went ahead with the plebiscite itself. Although the answers were completely different, they all argue that the government went ahead with the process due to unethical reasons. One person argues that President Santos already had made some backroom deals and that he had to keep going forward in order to maintain a sense of control on the situation. Another person says that Santos aspired to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his actions which prompted him to strive forward. Most of the answers to this question were very similar in nature because they all thought that Santos wanted to push the accords for his own personal gain. There was only one point of view offered during the interviews which stated that if the government rejected the deal, it would mean that the political effort would be wasted and that the trust between both parties (government and FARC) would also be lost. This person states: “Santos knew that accepting the result of the Plebiscite meant going back to the beginning of negotiations in the 80s and it meant losing the level of trust gained between the government and the FARC”. This point is very important because it highlights that this has not been the only time where peace has been considered. This person went on to explain how the negotiators from both sides had sacrificed many of their demands in order to get to a common ground where both parties could be relatively happy and that a flat-out rejection of the treaty would be similar to a “slap in the face” to the negotiators. Nevertheless, even the person who stated the last point argued that Santos was to gain significant political power if the accords were successful in the polls. All of this goes to show that the public perception of why the government went ahead with the peace treaty is inherently negative. They all think that powerful people (especially Santos) ignored the results of the plebiscite because he wanted personal gain.

Near the end of the interviews, I asked if they thought that the actions of the government had affected the Colombians’ trust in their political institutions. This question turned out to be extremely informative because in every single case, the person interviewed started by stating what they thought about the state of democracy in Colombia. Only then did they talk about the (possible) change in trust. All the interviewees talked extensively about the current affairs of Colombian democracy. None of them believe that the systems are fair nor just, important standards to assess the ethics of the system. One person argued that since Colombia is so poor, the vote is led by “hunger” (in the sense that people buy votes by giving out food). He states: “At the end of the day, corruption buys consciences and the person with the most money always wins”. This point is extremely important because it speaks about the minds of the voters. If people are easily bought (sometimes through literal food), then it would not be a stretch to say that the results in the polls are not representative of what the overall public thinks. They are skewed by the forces of corruption and money. Although this person explained that he thought that the NO would have a higher percentage if people actually voted what they thought instead of being coerced by monetary means, it is just speculation. Another person talked about how corruption in the government is so rampant that when there are whistleblowers in the government, it is not surprising. The high level of corruption has become normalized to a point where people automatically believe that the government is operating for their own personal benefits.

After this segment where all points of view seemed to converge, the “trust” part of the question went in all sorts of directions. One person said that Colombians still have inherent trust in political institutions: especially in the military. This person went on to say that although there might be some trust lost in the executive branch and its leaders, the fact that these accords were so reliant on Santos meant that people only associated them with this branch of government. I think that this person is talking about an issue that has not been addressed before which is the fact that Santos was the one leading this treaty. Interestingly enough, almost all of the interviewees would answer the questions as if president Santos had all of the power to do whatever he wanted instead of having to work with the senate. When this person mentions that people associated the accords with Santos instead of the government, he may be talking about how the influence of one person damaged the level of “trust”. In contrast, another person said that the trust in government was completely lost. This caused the country to completely polarize into two factions that won't side with each other. Finally, other points of view mentioned that they had so little trust in the government from the beginning that these actions had no effect on their level of trust.

At the end of the interview, I asked each person if the result of the plebiscite had affected their perception of the peace process. I initially expected the interviewees to explain why they did/did not have their perception changed, but the answers I got went further than that. One person said that what the result of the plebiscite actually showed was the rejection of Santos rather than the peace accords themselves. Right-wing groups hated Santos because they thought that he had “betrayed” them and tried to hurt him through the rejection of his “project”. This theme has been very prevalent throughout the entire investigation. At some point or another, all of the interviewees talked about how Santos himself did something (be it good or bad). There distinction between the president and the government as a whole seems to blur when it relates to Santos.

Another person said that the rejection of the government's actions was so massive that only 3 days later there was a huge strike against the ongoing negotiations. This person states: “It is important to note that on October 5^th, there was a national strike organized by various sectors, especially students, to protest the fact that the government did not listen to the results of the plebiscite”. There is a lot to digest here. Firstly, the fact that students were leading the strike is surprising. Historically, students have always been more prone to support peace, which is why it is interesting that they were striking against the peace accords. This person’s second point may hint at the explanation. The strike (although also directed at the treaty itself) was mostly due to the fact that Santos did not listen to what the people wanted. The public was not angry about the outcome per ser, but rather angry that Santos did not stick to it. This points to how people rejected the actions of the government and how it affected their perception on the matter of peace.

Another person said that their perception did not change at all. This person said that it was more of the same things that had been done previously; and that this person did not have any faith that it was going to be successful from the start. In fact, this person said that there was not going to be a direct impact in signing a paper (this person did vote) which in the end was not going to solve decades of violence and struggle. The answers that I got from this question really intrigued me. It seems like the actual context of the plebiscite might have more (or at least some) impact on the result rather than what was written on the accords. Achieving peace in Colombia has always been a difficult subject, and even now that the accords have been implemented, do Colombians feel like there is peace? Or is it nothing more than a stepping stone towards an impossible ideal?

Assessing the Peace Accord from Ethical Lenses

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical standard that seeks what is best for the most people. According to Markkula Center for Applied Ethics): “So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion.”^[8] I believe that looking at the government’s actions through this ethical lens is imperative. On the one hand, it could be argued that the government was acting for the greater good when they kept going with the peace treaty even though the people had voted “NO” because they thought that it was the best course of action. This could be backed by the idea that it would prevent suffering for 49% of the people who voted for “yes”, plus the other 51% (who would also benefit from peace), plus the future generations that would not have to face violence. This argument might imply that the greater good was to ignore the people’s opinion in order to do what was considered necessary. On the other hand, the interviewees all seemed to think that this “operation” was being heavily influenced by Santos’s personal gains. If this is true, then the argument for utilitarianism immediately fails. In fact, it is one man’s ego that goes against the possible better good. Another argument could imply that the best would come out of respecting the outcome of the plebiscite. The argument could say that the greater good was respecting what the majority chose because it respected the democracy in which the Colombian institutions stand. Through these actions, even though there would not be immediate peace, it would still count as greater good because the trust that Colombians have on their institutions might increase and unite them against a common foe.

Justice

According to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: “Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due.”^[9] In this case, justice is very tricky. I must clarify that I will not talk about the justice of the accords themselves but rather the actions of the government with the results of the plebiscite. We must first understand the mechanism of a plebiscite. In theory, plebiscites are not legally binding^[10]. This means that governments can be influenced by the results of a plebiscite but at the end of the day they can also ignore them. In the Colombian case, this meant that the government could do whatever they wanted, and it would still be just. Nevertheless, Santos promised that he would comply with the result of the polls. The polls said no to the accords, Santos adjusted them, and then he applied them. Is this just? The majority of people from my interviews would say no. If the “no” wins, then the accords have to be scratched. On the other hand, since the difference between “yes” and “no” was so small, were the adjustments enough to comply with the people’s wishes? I do not believe I am qualified to answer that question, but I think that it is just to stand by what you say. If Santos said something, he should stand by it.

Virtue

According to the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: “there are certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity.”^[11] In this case, one of the most important ethical virtues that a government must have is trust. In almost all of the interviews, trust in the government is extremely low. Some of the interviewees have had this low trust in the government for many years due to their perceived inefficacies dealing with the armed conflict or with other political issues. Nevertheless, almost all of the interviewees report that their trust in the government fell after their actions following the plebiscite. From a general view, the Colombian government is failing. The general public supports their institutions because they think that they are doing what is best and they “trust” their elected officials to do the right thing. But when this “trust” is lost, then the general structure of the government and its role in the social contract with its citizens is put into question. In other words, when people lose trust in the government, social outbreaks start. The Colombian government might have thought that although they were going to lose trust from their people, it would still be better to act the way they did. Although this point of view is valid, it fails to recognize that in a democratic country (such like Colombia), politicians represent what the general public wants. If that means re-doing the peace treaty, then the politicians must have followed the people that they represent. I think that people have lost trust in the government because they do not feel represented or heard. They may feel like politicians are following their own agenda which prompts the public to lose faith (and trust) in the people that are supposed to fight for them and start to take a (possible) stance against the same government that was in charge of protecting them.

Conclusion:

All in all, the peace process in Colombia is very complex. Although there were opposing views from a lot of the interviewees, there were some things that they all agreed on. Firstly, all of them agreed that the government was (and still is) very corrupt and that it failed in the treaty and plebiscite. The government did not inform the citizens well and they did not behave in the way in which an esteemed institution should have in a critical moment. The interviewees feel like the government failed them which meant that some of them lost their trust in the institution. Another thing that the interviewees agreed on was that the politicians were acting for the benefit of their own interests rather than the common good. This was deeply troubling because I felt that the interviewees did not feel accurately represented by the elected officials and sometimes outright betrayed by the government. These acts of egoism by the officials made people feel neglected and they felt the officials failed them. Something that is very important is that all five interviewees wanted the armed conflict to be solved. Although some of them were critical of the way that was being “pushed” by the government, all interviewees recognized that the problem had to be dealt with in one way or another. To me, this was one of the biggest revelations because it meant that although the interviewees did not like the 2016 peace process, they were still open for other ideas. The final pattern that I identified from all the interviews was the importance of Santos. In reality, the actual power of a president is limited and balanced through the entire government system (think of the judicial and legislative branches). Nevertheless, almost all of the interviewees had negative feelings towards the treaty because of Santos. In a sense, they thought that this was his doing and because of that it was a bad thing to do. I am not one to judge, but it is safe to assume that this may have skewed their opinions. One could also go as far as to say it might have changed their ethical views! What if instead of Santos spearheading the treaty, it was someone else? What if it had been another president?

On the grounds of ethics, this paper highlights certain issues  through the actions of the government. Firstly, through a Utilitarian perspective, the government’s actions could potentially be seen as maximizing benefits for everyone by searching for peace even though the “No” won. Nevertheless, this view can be challenged by the perception of individual gain from political leaders. From the Justice perspective, the government’s actions challenge what it means to make promises to the general public and the act of going through with them. Finally, from the Virtue perspective, the government’s actions have affected the trust of the people in the institutions. It also raises questions about democracy and how politicians represent (or should represent) their constituents.

 If I could expand on my research, I would tackle the issue of trust in other branches of the government and possibly look at other specific moments in history where the government either gained or lost a significant amount of trust from the public. I would also like to look into the theme of corruption within the government and how citizens feel (or don’t feel) represented by their elected officials. I would also like to explore other ethical questions such as if it is even ethical to subject peace to a vote? Is peace worth losing trust? To what point is it valid to do “unethical” things in order to achieve peace? Are there other similar examples to the Colombian case that can be contrasted? I would also like to look into how specific persons in power affect the perception of a project. In other words, how the involvement of certain people in political projects help or hinder the public opinion of a project only due to involvement. Finally, I would like to get a bigger sample size in order to get more points of view and to get more information that would help the investigation.

Looking at the actions taken by the government after the plebiscite, it is still difficult to decide whether they were right or wrong. At some level, it depends on where you stand regarding the question itself. For some, it was right to keep up the negotiations while others condemned it. For some it is just while others deem it egotistical. At the end of the day, only time will tell.

 

Bibliography:

Alvarez, J.E. et al. (2020) Colombian peace agreement 2016, SpringerLink. Available at: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5\_128-1

Botero, S. (2017) The 2016 plebiscite and the political challenges of consolidating a negotiated peace in Colombia, Revista de ciencia política (Santiago). Available at: https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci\_arttext&pid=S0718-090X2017000200369&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

Calculating consequences: the utilitarian approach to ethics (no date) Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/

Cosoy, N. (2016) ¿Es tendenciosa la pregunta del plebiscito en Colombia sobre los acuerdos de paz con Las FARC?, BBC News Mundo. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-37239265

Ethics and virtue (no date) Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethics-and-virtue/ (Accessed: 16 June 2024).

FARC (2024) Encyclopædia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/FARC

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (no date) Calculating consequences: the utilitarian approach to ethics, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/

McDermott, J. (2023) The FARC and the drug trade: Siamese twins?, InSight Crime. Available at: https://insightcrime.org/investigations/farc-and-drug-trade-siamese-twins/)

Molano, A. (2000) The Evolution Of The Farc: A Guerrilla Group's Long History. NACLA Report on the Americas, 34(2), 23–31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2000.11722627)

Plan Colombia: A Development Success Story (no date). Available at: https://www.usglc.org/media/2017/04/USGLC-Plan-Columbia.pdf

Polarización del País, Reflejada en resultados del escrutinio (2016) El Tiempo. Available at: https://www.eltiempo.com/politica/proceso-de-paz/resultados-plebiscito-2016-42861

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army (2019) Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People's Army | Mapping Militants Project. Available at: https://mappingmilitants.org/profiles/revolutionary-armed-forces-of-colombia-peoples-army#organization

What are plebiscites and referendums? (no date). Available at: https://teachers.plea.org/uploads/content/DD-What-are-Plebiscites-and-Referendums.pdf

 

Footnotes:

[1] McDermott, J. (2023) The FARC and the drug trade: Siamese twins? InSight Crime. Available at: https://insightcrime.org/investigations/farc-and-drug-trade-siamese-twins/)

[2] Molano, A. (2000). The Evolution of The Farc: A Guerrilla Group's Long History. NACLA Report on the Americas, 34(2), 23–31.https://doi.org/10.1080/10714839.2000.11722627)

[3] (no date) Plan Colombia: A Development Success Story. Available at: https://www.usglc.org/media/2017/04/USGLC-Plan-Columbia.pdf

[4] Cosoy, N. (2016) ¿Es tendenciosa la pregunta del plebiscito en Colombia sobre los acuerdos de paz con Las FARC?, BBC News Mundo. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-37239265

[5] Botero, S. (2017) The 2016 plebiscite and the political challenges of consolidating a negotiated peace in Colombia, Revista de ciencia política (Santiago). Available at: https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci\_arttext&pid=S0718-090X2017000200369&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

[6] Alvarez, J.E. et al. (2020) Colombian peace agreement 2016, SpringerLink. Available at: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5\_128-1

[7] Polarización del País, reflejada en resultados del escrutinio (2016) El Tiempo. Available at: https://www.eltiempo.com/politica/proceso-de-paz/resultados-plebiscito-2016-42861 (Accessed: June 2024).

[8] Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (no date) Calculating consequences: the utilitarian approach to ethics, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/

[9] Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (no date) Calculating consequences: the utilitarian approach to ethics, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/

[10] (No date) What are plebiscites and referendums? Available at: https://teachers.plea.org/uploads/content/DD-What-are-Plebiscites-and-Referendums.pdf

[11] Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (no date) Ethics and virtue. Available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethics-and-virtue/ (Accessed: 16 June 2024).