Copyright © 2003 by South- Western, a division of Thomson Learning1 Ethical Principles...
-
Upload
ariana-mcnamara -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Copyright © 2003 by South- Western, a division of Thomson Learning1 Ethical Principles...
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
1
Ethical Principles Utilitarianism, Universalism, Rights, Justice, Quick Tests, And Decision-Making Guidelines
Adapted by Jeffrey M. Wachtel, Ph. D.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
2
Chapter Topics
1. Decision criteria for ethical reasoning2. Ethical relativism: A self-interest approach3. Utilitarianism: A consequentialist (results-
based) approach4. Universalism: A deontological (duty-based)
approach5. Rights: An entitlement-based approach6. Justice: Procedures, compensation,
retribution7. Immoral, amoral, and moral management8. Four social responsibility roles9. Individual ethical decision-making styles10. Quick ethical tests11. Concluding comments
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
3
Decision Criteria for Ethical Reasoning
According to your textbook, what 3 criteria should be used in ethical reasoning (p. 76)?
From our first weekend, what are two additional criteria for judging if an action is ethical or moral?
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
4
3 Decision Criteria for Ethical Reasoning and a
Question Moral reasoning logical Facts evidence used to
support your judgment must be accurate, relevant, and complete.
Ethical standards used in your reasoning should be consistent
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
5
Two Criteria for Fulfilling a Minimum Conception of Morality
1. Reason: a moral decision must be based on reasons acceptable to other rational persons.
2. Impartiality: this criteria is fulfilled when the interests of all those affected by a moral decision are taken into account.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
6
Ethical Reasoning Self Question A simple but powerful question:
What is my motivation for choosing this course of action?
Did I make this decision because it enhanced my self-interest or because it was ethical/moral (i.e., considered my self-interest and also other people’s interest)?
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
7
People are morally responsible for the
harmful effects of their actions when:
1. A person knew their action was morally wrong and hurtful to others and acted anyway.
2. A person knew they could prevent a harmful act and did not.
Morality Wrong Act: Physical or emotional harm is done to another person. The degree of harm is considered.
Two conditions that eliminate a person’s moral responsibility for causing harm are:
Ignorance Inability
Mitigating circumstances that excuse or lessen a person’s moral responsibility include:
A low level of or lack of seriousness to cause harm Uncertainty about knowledge of wrongdoing The degree to which a harmful injury was caused or
averted
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
8
Ethical Relativism: Barrier to Ethical
Thinking Ethical relativism holds that no
universal standards or rules can be used to guide or evaluate the morality of an act.
This view argues that people set their own moral standards for judging their actions.
Individually: known as naïve relativism or ethical subjectivism.
Group/Culture: known as…cultural relativism.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
9
Ethical Relativism: A Self-Interest
Approach Benefits include:
Ability to recognize the distinction between individual and social values, customs, and moral standards
Problems include: Whose relativism is right? May pay a price for using this theory Just because some practices are
acceptable in certain cultures are they ethical/moral?
What about cultural imperialism…does cultural relativism provide an argument against cultural imperialism?
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
10
Utilitarianism: A Consequentialist (Results-
Based) Approach The basic view holds that an
action is judged as right, good, or wrong on the basis of its consequences.
Widely practiced by governments, economists and business professionals.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
11
Tenets of Utilitarianism 1. act morally right if ends are
greatest good for greatest number of people.
2. act right if the net benefits over costs are greatest for all affected compared with the net benevits ofall other possible choices considered.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
12
3. An action is morally right if its immediate and future direct and indirect benefits are greatest for each individual and if these benefits outweigh the cost and benefits of the other alternatives.
Tenets of Utilitarianism: (Continued)
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
13
Utilitarianism: Bentham, 1832 and Mill, 1873
Problems with utilitarianism include: No agreement exists about the definition
of the “good” to be maximized No agreement exists about who decides
what is good for whom? How are the costs and benefits of
nonmonetary stakes measured? Does not consider the individual Principles of individual rights and justice
are ignored Utilitarianism and stakeholder
analysis (see p. 81).
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
14
Universalism: A Deontological (Duty-Based)
Approach: Kant, 1804 Also known as deontological
ethics (Greek for “duty”) or nonconsequentialist ethics and holds that the means justify the ends of an action, not the consequences.
Act responsibly and respectfully toward all individuals in a situation. Human welfare is a primary stake in any decision.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
15
Universalism: Kant’s Categorical Imperative
1. A person should chose to act if and only if she or he would be willing to have every person on earth, in that same situation, act exactly that way.
2. A person should act in a way that respects and treats all others involved as ends as well as means to an end.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
16
Universalism: A Deontological (Duty-Based)
Approach Weaknesses of universalism and
Kant’s categorical imperative include: It is difficult to think of all humanity each
time one must make a decision. Hard to resolve conflicts when the theory
states that all individuals must be treated equally.
Does not allow for prioritizing one’s duties towards others as in stakeholder analysis.
Universalism and stakeholder analysis.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
17
Rights: An Entitlement-Based Approach
Moral rights are based on legal rights and the principle of duty.
Rights can override utilitarian principles.
The limitations of rights include: Can be used to disguise and manipulate
selfish, unjust political interests and claims
Protection of rights can be at the expense of others
Limits of rights come into question Rights and stakeholder analysis.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
18
Justice: Procedures, Compensation,
Retribution The principle of justice deals with
fairness and equality. Two recognized principles of fairness
that represent the principle of justice include:
Equal rights compatible with similar liberties for others
Social and economic inequality arrangement
Four types of justice include (p. 85): Compensatory Retributive Distributive Procedural
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
19
Justice: Procedures, Compensation,
Retribution Problems using the principle of justice
include: Who decides who is right and who is
wrong? Who has moral authority to punish? Can opportunities and burdens be fairly
distributed? Justice, rights, and power are really
intertwined. Two steps in transforming justice:
Be aware of your rights and power Establish legitimate power for obtaining
rights Justice and stakeholder analysis.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
20
Immoral, Amoral, Or Moral Management
Immoral management means intentionally going against ethical principles of justice and of fair and equitable treatment of other stakeholders.
Amoral management happens when others are treated negligently without concern for the consequences of actions or policies.
Moral management places value on equitable, fair, and just concern of others involved.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
21
Immoral Managers:Managers whose decisions, actions
and behavior suggest an active opposition to what is deemed to be right and ethical.
These managers care only about their or their organization’s profitability or success.
Legal issues are there to be circumvented and loopholes in the law actively sought.
Strategy is to exploit opportunities for personal or organizational gain at any cost.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
22
Amoral Managers:Amoral Managers are neither immoral nor
moral but are not sensitive to the fact that their everyday business decisions may have a deleterious effect on others.
These managers may lack an ethical perspective in their organizational lives.
Typically their orientation is to the ‘letter of the law’ as their ethical guide.
Sometimes we can have a sub category - the unintentional amoral manager.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
23
Un-intentional Amoral Manager: These managers are un-intentionally
amoral in their behavior. They tend to see ethical issues are for their private lives and for not their business lives, where different rules apply.
They tend to believe that business activity resides outside the sphere to which moral judgments may apply.
Amoral managers may not consider a role for ethics in business.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
24
The Moral Manager:
In moral management, ethical norms that adhere to a high standard of right behavior are employed.
Moral managers not only conform to accepted and high levels of professional conduct, they also lead on issues of ethical behavior.
The law is seen as giving a minimal guide to ethical behavior. The ‘spirit of the law’ in more important than the ‘letter of the law’. The objective is to operate well above what the law mandates the firm to do.
Moral managers want to be profitable and ethical. Moral managers will use ethical principles to base
their judgments upon - justice, rights, the Golden Rule, utilitarianism universalism, etc.
When ethical dilemmas arise, moral managers and moral companies will tend to assume leadership in their companies and industries.
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
25
Individual Ethical Decision-Making Styles Stanley Krolick developed a
survey that interprets individual primary and secondary ethical decision-making styles, that include:
Individualism Altruism Pragmatism Idealism
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
26
Quick Ethical Tests Bentley College suggests six
questions to be asked before making a decision (p. 95).
Classical ethical tests (p. 95) The Intuition Ethic The Means-End Ethic Test of Common Sense Test of One’s Best Self Test of Ventilation Test of Purified Idea
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
27
Decision Criteria for Ethical Reasoning: 12
Questions Problem Identified Correctly? Identified as if by other party Background of situation? Your loyalty is to whom? Intention in making decision? Intention compared with
result?
Copyright © 2003 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning
28
Decision Criteria for Ethical Reasoning: 12
Questions p.2 Who could decision injure? Can problem be discussed with
people affected? Decision valid over a long
period? Can you tell all others decision? Symbolic potential if
understood or misunderstood? Under what would you allow
exceptions to your stand?