Background
Over the last decade, several prominent museums (e.g., the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the British Museum, and the Louvre) faced pressure to sever ties with the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin. While the Sacklers had donated hundreds of millions to cultural institutions, their wealth came from opioids that contributed to the U.S. opioid crisis. Museums had to decide: Should they accept, retain, or reject donations from the Sacklers, given the moral cost?
Step 1: Identifying the Ethical Dilemma
Competing goods: Financial resources for cultural preservation vs. moral integrity and public trust. Central question: Does accepting Sackler money compromise the mission and credibility of cultural institutions?
Step 2: Applying Critical Moral Reasoning Framework
• Principles-Based Reasoning
• Utilitarian View: Donations fund art access for millions; net benefit may outweigh the harm. • Deontological View: Accepting money tainted by harm violates duties of honesty and integrity. • Libertarian View: As long as donations are voluntary and transparent, institutions should be free to accept them. • Care Ethics View: Museums have responsibilities to communities harmed by the
opioid crisis; acceptance may signal disregard for their suffering.
• Moral Psychology Insights (Haidt’s Moral Foundations)
• Fairness/Justice: Communities demand fairness; profiting from addiction feels unjust. • Loyalty/Betrayal: Museums risk betraying their communities if they align with controversial donors. •
Authority/Respect: Institutions traditionally respect donor contracts; breaking ties may appear dishonorable. • Care/Harm: Central foundation—do donations perpetuate harm or acknowledge it?
Step 3: Structured Analysis
Using the Critical Moral Reasoning approach: 1. Clarify the values in conflict (financial sustainability vs. moral legitimacy). 2. Examine stakeholder perspectives (donors, staff, public, survivors of opioid abuse, future patrons). 3. Weigh empirical realities (public trust erosion, protest actions, reputational harm). 4. Seek morally justifiable compromises (e.g., refusing new donations but contextualizing past ones).
Step 4: Resolution Options
• Option A: Continue Accepting Donations Pros: Preserves funding. Cons: Severe reputational risk; aligns the museum with perceived moral
complicity.
• Option B: Refuse Future Donations, Keep Past Ones Pros: Balances financial stability with public accountability. Cons: Critics may still demand removal
of past ties.
• Option C: Refuse All Donations and Remove Sackler Name Pros: Strong moral stance; restores public trust. Cons: Financial loss, potential legal/contractual
disputes.
Step 5: Outcome
Several museums chose Option C—the Louvre removed the Sackler name in 2019, followed by the Met and others. Public trust was seen as more valuable than financial gain.
Consultant’s Insight
This case demonstrates how Critical Moral Reasoning can: • Provide structured frameworks for boards facing reputational dilemmas. • Highlight how different ethical theories lead to divergent conclusions. • Incorporate moral psychology to explain why stakeholders react differently. • Guide institutions toward defensible, transparent policies for future donations.
Case Study: The Sackler Family Donations and Museum Ethics
Background
Over the last decade, several prominent museums (e.g., the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York,the British Museum, and the Louvre) faced pressure to sever ties with the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, makers of OxyContin. While the Sacklers had donated hundreds of millions to culturalinstitutions, their wealth came from opioids that contributed to the U.S. opioid crisis. Museums had to decide: Should they accept, retain, or reject donations from the Sacklers, given the moral cost?
Step 1: Identifying the Ethical Dilemma
Competing goods: Financial resources for cultural preservation vs. moral integrity and public trust. Central question: Does accepting Sackler money compromise the mission and credibility of cultural institutions? Research: Research the Sackler family and the degree of their involvement with the opioid crisis.
Step 2: Applying Critical Moral Reasoning Framework
• Moral Psychology Insights (Haidt’s Moral Foundations)
Exercise: What moral intuitions do you hold about this case?
• Principles-Based Reasoning
Exercise: Formulate an argument utilizing each of the following frameworks
Utilitarian View:
Deontological View:
Libertarian View:
Care Ethics View:
Fairness/Justice:
Step 3: Structured Analysis
Using the Critical Moral Reasoning approach:
1. Clarify the values in conflict (financial sustainability vs. moral trustworthiness).
2. Examine stakeholder perspectives (donors, staff, public, survivors of opioid abuse, future patrons).
3. Weigh empirical realities (public trust erosion, protest actions, reputational harm).
4. Seek morally justifiable compromises (e.g., refusing new donations but contextualizing past ones).
Step 4: Resolution Options
Exercise: Weigh the pros and cons of each of the following conflict resolution options.
• Option A: Continue Accepting Donations
• Option B: Refuse Future Donations, Keep Past Ones
• Option C: Refuse All Donations and Remove Sackler Name
Step 5: Outcome
Exercise: First, explain the option you think is best from the Resolution Options. Second, research the option(s) selected by the various museums and cultural institutions. Briefly describe their reasoning. Third, explain the points of agreement and disagreement with your decision.
Real-world Application
This case demonstrates how the Critical Moral Reasoning approach can:
• Provide structured frameworks for boards facing reputational dilemmas.
• Highlight how different ethical theories lead to divergent conclusions.
• Incorporate moral psychology to explain why stakeholders react differently.
• Guide institutions toward defensible, transparent policies for future donations.