Running head: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

An Ethical Analysis of the Ben Levin Case

Khadija Akbar and Avneet Sekhon

EDUC 525

November 9, 2018
AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

An Ethical Analysis of the Ben Levin Case

For the purpose of this assignment, we will be analyzing the actions of Professor

Ben Levin and whether he should be invited as a guest lecturer to the university. We will

also analyze whether or not his previous works should be referenced in publications.

Ben Levin is a highly respected professor of education and had a highly reputable

career in the Ministry of Education (University of Calgary, 2018). However, in May 2015

Levin “plead guilty to being a sadistic pedophile and was sentenced to a term of

imprisonment” (University of Calgary, 2018). Our committee is to write a balanced

ethical analysis of the ethical dilemma and make a decision based on the facts. In doing

so, we will analyze this case with the following schools of ethics: virtue ethics,

deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics, and the Alberta Teachers’ Association’s code of

conduct.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics relates to predispositions of the person’s character which have

developed over time and resulted in virtuous habits of action exemplifying a virtuous

character (Donlevy, 2018). Decisions made are because of a person’s character and

not because of the particular circumstances they are in (Donlevy, 2018). Ben’s actions

failed to meet the conditions of virtue ethics. Although Ben was perceived to be a

respectable figure in the faculty of education at the university, the fact that he plead

guilty to engaging in child pornography shows that his character cannot be deemed

respectable and virtuous (University of Calgary, 2018). His actions of exploiting minors

and stripping them of their self-respect and dignity show that he also lacked the concept

of practical wisdom. Ben was unable to wisely choose the right decision and did not
AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

take into effect the consequences that his decisions would have on the lives of others,

including himself (Donlevy, 2014). Another one of the four cardinal issues that Ben

lacked was self-control. Ben should have been able to control his perverted desires and

understand that exploiting minors in order to fulfill one’s own sexual desires is a deep

wrong and is extremely unacceptable.

With virtue ethics, it is important to ask oneself: “If I make the proposed decision,

how might that decision impact my view of myself and my ethical character?” (Donlevy,

2018). The decision to engage in child pornography shows Ben’s lack of ethical

character. Ben was extremely selfish in making his decisions and violated the rights of

innocent children to fulfill his deviated desires. Another question that virtue ethics poses

is “If I make the proposed decision, how might it affect others sense of their own ethical

awareness?” (Donlevy, 2018). Ben did not consider the impact that his decision would

have on others, especially the children that were affected by his actions and perverted

desires. In this manner, Ben violated the other two cardinal virtues of virtue ethics

because he did not behave in a just manner, nor did he have the courage to step up

and do the right thing. He violated the rights of minors and took advantage of them in a

way that will continue to negatively affect them for the rest of their lives. Virtue ethics

also poses the question of “If I make the proposed decision, would it be in accord with

those persons that I admire for their strength of character?” (Donlevy, 2018). Clearly,

Ben has a deeply flawed character which is why he did not question himself about

whether his actions were ethically appropriate or not. Therefore, he is not a suitable

person to be in the position of influencing young minds. Because of his past activities,

he is no longer someone students can look up to and desire to be like. If Ben had been
AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

a man of virtue and wisdom, he would have considered whether the decision he was

making “was in concert with his fundamental and true character” (Donlevy, 2018).

Deontological Ethics

The deontological approach to ethics is based on the concept of “do the right

thing” regardless of the consequences (Donlevy, 2014). Ben being a professional in the

faculty of education, had standards that he must live up to. Someone who has the

authority to influence young minds should always be mindful of all the decisions they

make throughout their life. In this case, the decision makers owe a duty to society and

its wellbeing. We cannot allow a man who has engaged in an extremely unethical act

and broken the law to be in a position of such great power. A man who has violated the

basic rights of children should not be allowed to influence other people’s understanding

of how they should educate children. This decision meets the Golden Rule condition

because it sets a basic standard for who is eligible to impact young minds. A sadistic

pedophile cannot instruct others on how they should interact with children. This rule can

be followed no matter what the circumstances. A person who has violated the rights of a

vulnerable group in society should never be able to set the standards for how others

interact with that group. “Doing his time” for the crime he committed, cannot ever justify

the decision he made to engage in child pornography in the first place (University of

Calgary, 2018). Anyone who may be a potential threat to children, cannot preach about

how one should teach children. This is the principle that must be adhered to regardless

of the consequences.
AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

Utilitarian Ethics

The utilitarian ethics is based on decisions that are of “high utility to the majority

of persons” (Donlevy, p. 21, 2014). Decisions in the utilitarian approach to ethics are

judged to be ethical “if it is made with the intention to create the greatest good or

happiness for the greatest number of people” (Donlevy, p. 21, 2014). Decisions made

through the utilitarian approach focus on the result or consequences of one’s action or

inaction. Using this approach with the ethical dilemma present in Ben Levin’s case it is

evident that Ben’s actions failed to meet the conditions of utilitarian ethics. Although

Ben’s engagement in child pornography dis not impact his intellectual ability, it does

however, impact those affected by his pedophilic actions. The victims of Ben’s sexual

predatory behaviour were impacted as they were prone to physical suffering and

resulted in the distress of the victims loved ones. As such, Ben’s actions do not promote

the “greatest good or happiness for the greatest number of people” (Donlevy, p. 21,

2014).

Utilitarian ethics also considers the immediate and long term consequences of

actions or decisions. In this case, as a pedophile, Ben’s actions have both immediate

and long term negative consequences for the victims. The victims in the long term may

suffer from physical and mental trauma and suffering. In terms of academia, Ben’s

actions impact his academic integrity because his actions do not reflect the actions that

promote the greater good. Ben’s writing has “been used in graduate schools of

education around the world” and Ben was a educational leader as he served as a

Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Education in Ontario (University of Calgary, 2018).

Since Ben’s work is being used to teach future teachers, this negatively impacts the
AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

public because his actions do not reflect the professional conduct expected of teachers.

His actions does not represent a positive role model of educational leadership for future

and pre-service teachers. The utilitarian approach to Ben Levin’s case reveals Ben’s

negative impact on the public, future teachers and children, which does not promote the

greater good.

ATA Code of Professional Conduct

The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) approach to ethical and professional

conduct is based on their Code of Professional Conduct. The ATA defines

unprofessional conduct as actions that are “detrimental to the best interests of students,

the public or the teaching profession” (ATA, 2018b). Ben’s actions are unprofessional

because his pedophilic nature poses a threat to the wellbeing of students and the

public, as young children are being targeted with malicious and predatory intent. The

ATA also further characterizes actions which “leads to a conviction on an indictable

offence” as unprofessional conduct (ATA, 2018b). In this case, Ben’s actions can be

characterized as unprofessional conduct as his actions led to him being convicted as a

pedophile and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment (University of Calgary,

2018). Furthermore, the ATA’s Code of Professional Conduct section 18 states that “the

teacher acts in a manner which maintains the honour and dignity of the profession”

(ATA, 2018a). Ben’s actions did not maintain the honour and dignity of the teaching

profession as his actions pose a threat to the safety and wellbeing of children and the

public. As part of the teaching profession, Ben was duty-bound to be professional in his

actions both in his professional and personal life. As such, using the ATA’s ethical

approach based on the ATA’s code of conduct, Ben is found to be unprofessional.

AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

Conclusion

Our analysis of the ethical dilemma regarding Ben Levin was based on virtues

ethics, deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics and the ATA’s code of conduct. Virtues

ethics considered whether Ben’s actions exemplified his character. Ben’s actions did not

hold up his reputation as a community leader. Deontological ethics looks at doing the

“right thing” and Ben did not consider his authority and professional reputation.Utilitarian

ethics considers making a decision that promotes the greater good of the public;

however, Ben’s actions did not promote the greater good of those victims that he

targeted. ATA’s definition of unprofessional conduct was applied to Ben as he did not

uphold a dignified and professional conduct as an educational leader. Ben’s actions

were unprofessional as he was convicted as a pedophile and posed a threat to the

wellbeing of children.

Based on these analyses, the committee has made the decision to not invite Ben

to any future speaker events because his actions did not reflect professional conduct.

Ben’s actions affected his reputation as a professional because he did not consider the

wellbeing of the children that he worked to provide good education. Ben did not promote

the dignity and honour of education and the teaching profession. He also did not provide

a good example for pre-service teachers to follow as a leader in education and

educational work. As such, the committee makes the decision to not invite Ben and no

longer reference Ben’s works in publications and courses.

AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BEN LEVIN CASE

References

Alberta’s Teachers’ Association (ATA). (2018a). Code of professional conduct.

Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/TheTeachingProfession/ProfessionalConduct/Page

s/CodeofProfessionalConduct.aspx

Alberta’s Teachers’ Association (ATA). (2018b). Professional Conduct. Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/TheTeachingProfession/ProfessionalConduct/Pag

es/CodeofProfessionalConduct.aspx

Donlevy, J.K. (2014). Ethics Handout [Class Handout]. “Werklund School of Education”,

University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

Donlevy, J.K. (2018). October 18 2018 Class #11 [Lecture Slides]. Personal Collection

of J.K. Donlevy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/234353/viewContent/3194155/View

University of Calgary. (2018). EDUC 525: Ethics and the Law course syllabus. Calgary,

Canada: Author. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/234353/viewContent/3116557/View