Ethics often confronts us with tensions between competing duties, where every available course of action violates some core principle. Through the years, the International Transactional Analysis Association (ITAA) has faced such a dilemma regarding whether—or how—to comment on global atrocities and political crises.

On one hand, one of our core values encourages members to “resist and interrupt systems of oppression”. Remaining silent in the face of systemic oppression or grave injustice may conflict with this value and create the impression of tacit acceptance. In other words, it seems quite straightforward that, ethically, we should speak out.

On the other hand, speaking out often involves taking a position, implicitly or explicitly assigning blame, and potentially alienating members with differing perspectives. For example, in the Israeli attacks on Palestine, there are deeply opposing narratives, and any public statement risks being perceived as partial or unfair. It would appear, then, that ethically, we should refrain from speaking out.

The dilemma is intensified by the fact that it is easy—and safe—for organizations to issue general statements such as “we are against all war” or “we abhor violence.” Yet, in the face of extreme atrocities, such statements can feel shallow, cowardly, and morally inadequate.

Such moral generalities allow an appearance of ethical positioning without the discomfort of ethical consequence. While they may preserve neutrality, they also risk emptying moral language of its meaning, particularly when silence or vagueness functions as a way of avoiding the very ethical tension the situation demands we confront.

Consequences and Member Sensitivities

A further layer of the dilemma concerns the consequences of speaking versus remaining silent. If the ITAA speaks out, it risks alienating or even losing members, resulting in the loss of revenue needed to serve our members effectively. Here, the dilemma becomes not just moral but practical and consequentialist: do we risk financial stability on principle, or do we remain quiet to ensure we have the resources to continue our mission?

Another critical factor involves member sensitivities, for example, in conflicts like the Russian war against Ukraine. If the ITAA publicly criticizes Russia, some Russian members—many of whom oppose the war and are not personally involved—may feel guilt, offense, or alienation. Should these feelings constrain the Association from speaking out?

Under Apartheid, international condemnation was not tempered to protect the sensitivities of white South Africans—and, in my view, rightly so. I was one of those white South Africans who opposed Apartheid, and I fully supported that condemnation, myself included. It was imperative that we be called out and compelled to act. Yet, some now argue that, in the name of “I’m OK – You’re OK,” we should temper such critique out of sensitivity to those in comparable positions. Here, ethical tension meets human psychology: respecting members’ feelings aligns with Transactional Analysis's (TA) emphasis on empathy, but moral integrity may sometimes call for an ethical challenge.

Other Ethical Frameworks

While consequentialist ethics considers the outcomes of actions, other frameworks further illuminate the dilemma. Deontological (duty-based) ethics emphasizes the ITAA’s moral duties. Virtue ethics evaluates decisions based on the character and integrity of the organization—acting courageously, with moral honesty and consistency. Principle-based (rights-based) ethics focuses on adherence to fundamental human rights and justice, which may suggest that silence in the face of atrocities is itself ethically problematic.

One possible approach is to delegate this responsibility to members themselves through newsletters or community platforms. Members could express views, analyze situations, and raise awareness without the Association taking an official position.

However, this solution is not without risk. In the past, when the ITAA provided such platforms, discussions quickly degenerated, ultimately leading to the closure of the forum. This experience highlights the challenge of trusting even a highly trained, professional TA community to self-moderate complex ethical and political discussions.

A Multi-Layered Dilemma

Thus, the ITAA confronts a multi-layered ethical dilemma. It includes the duty to uphold human dignity and oppose atrocities, the duty to maintain fairness and inclusivity, the tension between moral generalizations and the reality of complex conflicts, and the consequences of speaking out versus remaining silent, including financial sustainability. It also involves member sensitivities, the obligation to uphold the core value of social justice, and the practical challenges of allowing members to voice opinions through organizational platforms without causing harm or division.

No choice perfectly satisfies all these obligations. Ultimately, this dilemma illustrates a universal truth about ethics: moral action is not always straightforward, which is what makes this a genuine ethical dilemma. From a purely ethical standpoint, the most responsible approach is not to seek a perfect solution but to navigate the tension consciously, transparently, and thoughtfully, acknowledging the complexity and striving for integrity even when no option is flawless.

A Call for a Response

This is not a dilemma for the ITAA Board to consider on its own. Yet, when we have asked members for input on this subject in the past, we have received no responses. Nevertheless, the Association continually faces criticism whether we speak out or remain silent. This passivity and possible psychological Game puts the Board in an impossible position.

We want to hear from you. How can the ITAA uphold our values while responding responsibly to global crises? Perhaps this is a question best brought to the full membership at the next Annual General Meeting (AGM) for a vote—fair, transparent, and inclusive. What do you think of that? What other suggestions do you have?

Your ideas, perspectives, and guidance are essential. Help us find a way forward—together.