Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Business Ethics Chapter 2

Terms in this set (52)

Normative theories
Propose some principle or principles for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions. There are two kinds: consequentialist and non-consequentialist
Consequentialist theories
the moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its results. If its consequences are good, then the act is right; if the consequences are bad, then the act is wrong.
Consequentialists
Moral theorists who follow consequentialism deterring what is right by weighing the ration of good and bad that an action will produce. The right act is the one that produces at least as great or greater a ratio of goodness.
Two most important consequentialist theories
Answer the question, "consequences for whom" includes egoism and utilitarianism.
Egoism
An act is morally right if and only if it best promotes the agent's own interests. Agrees that the rightness and wrongness are solely a function of the action's results.
Impersonal Egoist
Claim that everyone should let self-interest should guide his or her conduct.
Personal Egoist
Claim they should pursue their own best interests but they do not say what others should do.
Utilitarianism
Holds that one must take into account everyone affected by the action. We should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions. "Good" means happiness or pleasure. Agrees that the rightness and wrongness are solely a function of the action's results.
Non-consequentialist "dentological" theories
Also known as dentological theories contend that right and wrong are determined by more than the likely consequence of an action. They suggests that what makes an act is wrong is not just the consequences that it causes but the fact that some things are inherently wrong. Example: Kevin breaking his promise to Cindy is not wrong simply because it has bad results but because of the inherent character of the act itself.
Hedonism
All egoists do not endorse hedonism, the view that pleasure or happiness is the only thing that is good in itself, that it is the ultimate good, the one thing in life worth pursuing for its own sake. Greek philosopher, Epicurus said that other egoists have a broader view of what constitutes self-interest. Some of them identify good with knowledge or power, etc.
Note that egoists CAN act ethically. Sometime promoting out own best interest requires us to further the interest of others.
Psychological egoism
The idea that human beings are naturally selfish creatures. It asserts that all actions are selfishly motivated and that truly unselfish acts are therefore impossible.
Problems with Egoism
1. Psychological Egoism is not a sound theory - says that self-interest is the only thing that motivates anyone ever. Take the example of the trucker who saves someone from the scene of an accident and leaves before being recognized.
2. Ethical Egoism is not really a moral principle at all - egoism misunderstands the nature and point of morality. Morality serves to restrain our purely self-interested desires so we can all live together.
3. Ethical egoism condones blatant wrongs - deception, theft, or even murder can be morally right according to the standard of egoism if it advance the agents self-interest.
Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill
Believers of utilitarianism. Early things who had a strong interest in legal and social reform. They used the utilitarian standard to evaluate and criticize the social and political institutions of their day. As a result, utilitarianism has long been associated with social improvement. Both are hedonists in that they view pleasure is intrinsically good or worthwhile. They cared about happiness because the implicitly identified it with well-being, that is, with what is good for people.
Jeremy Bentham
The interests of the community are the sum of the interests of its members. Said that pains and pleasures are mere sensations. He offered a hedonic calculus of 6 criteria for evaluating pain and pleasure exclusively by their quantitative differences- specifically intensity and duration. Said that theres no difference between watching Jersey Shore or going to the opera the only issue is what creates the greatest happiness.
John Stuart Mill
Thought that Bentham's view of pleasure was too simple. He believed that the pleasures of intellect and imagination have a higher value than those of mere physical sensation. For mill the utility principle must take into consideration the relative quality of different pleasures and pains, not just their intensity and duration.
Act utilitarianism
states that we must act ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected.

According to act utilitarianism we have only one moral obligation, the maximization of happiness for everyone concern and every action is to be judged by that standard.

In contrast, rule utilitarianism says that the utilitarian standard should be applied not to individual actions but to moral codes as a whole.
Six Points about Utilitarianism
1. When deciding which action will produce the greatest happiness, we must consider unhappiness or pain as well as happiness.
2. Actions affect people to different degrees.
3. Because utilitarians evaluate actions according to their consequences and because actions produce different circumstances, almost anything might, be morally right in some situation.
4. Utilitarians want to maximize happiness not simply immediately but in the long run too.
5. Utilitarians acknowledge that we often do not know with certainty what the future consequences of our actions will be.
6. When choosing amount possible actions, utilitarianism does not require us to disregard our own pleasure. We must guard against being biased through.
Three features of utilitarianism that make it appealing in an organizational context
1. utilitarianism provides a clear and straightforward basis for formulating and testing policies
2. utilitarianism provides an objective and attractive way of resolving conflicts of self-interest.
3. utilitarianism provides a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision making.
Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism
1. Is utilitarianism really workable? It is very complex; in difficult situations is may be difficult to be certain about the other options open to us and it gets increasingly complex as the number of people increase.
2. Are some actions wrong, even if they produce good? Example of taking the $25,000 from a dying woman.
3. Is utilitarianism unjust? Its hard to judge how much happiness (units) will be brought to a person based on a specific action. Also here we see an illustration of eminent domain.
Eminent Domain
The idea that a government may appropriate private property for public use (after compensating the owner).
Interplay between self-interest and utility
Both self-interest and utility play important roles in organizational decisions, and the views of many businesspeople blend these two theories. To the extent that each business pursues its own interests and each businessperson tries to maximize personal success, business practice can be called egoistic.

But business practice is also utilitarian in that pursuing ones economic interests is through to benefit society as a whole, and playing by the established rules of the competitive game is seen as advancing the social good. ADAM SMITH believed in this.
Adam Smith
Argued that leaving business and businesspeople to pursue their self-interest will serve the good of society.
Business egoism
The view that it is morally acceptable (or even morally required) for individuals to pursue their economic interests when engaged in business is defended on utilitarian grounds.
Immanuel Kant
NONCONSEQUENTIALIST - He believed that moral rule can be known as a result of reason alone and are not based on observation. He holds that we do not have to know anything about the likely results of telling a lie, for example, to know that it is immoral. Believed that nothing is good in itself except for good will. This does not mean that intelligence, courage, self-control etc. are not good and desirable. Rather Kant believed that their goodness depends on the will that makes use of them. Intelligence, for example, is not good when exercised by en evil person.
Priori
Moral reasoning is not based on factual knowledge and that reason by itself can reveal the basic principles of morality.
Moral Worth
Kant said that only when we act from a sense of DUTY does our action have moral worth. When we act only out of feeling, inclination, or self-interest, our actions- although they may be otherwise identical with ones that spring from the sense of duty, have no true worth.
Categorical Imperative
For Kant, the moral law must hold in all circumstances.
Kant believed that there is just one command that is categorical and thus necessarily binding on all rational agents, regardless of any other considerations. From this one categorical imperative, aka universal command, we can derive all the specific commands of duty. Kant's categorical imperative says that we should always act in such a way that we can will the maxim (subjective principle of an action) to be a universal law. So, Kant's answer to "What determines whether an act is right?" is that AN ACT IS MORALLY RIGHT IF AND ONLY IF WE CAN WILL IT AS A UNIVERSAL LAW OF CONDUCT.

A categorical imperative takes the form of "do this" or "don't do that" - no its ands or buts.
Hypothetical Imperative
Tells us what we must do on the assumption that that we have some particular goal. For example: If you want to be a doctor you must go to medical school. In contrast, Kant's imperative is categorical meaning that it commands unconditionally.
Universal Acceptability
This is another way of looking at the categorical imperative. You can embrace something as a moral law only if all other rational beings can also embrace it. To see whether a rule or principle is a moral law, we can thus ask if what it commands would be acceptable to all rational beings. This requires that you look at things from other perspectives.
Humanity as an End, Never as Merely a Means
As rational creatures we should always treat other rational creatures as ends in themselves and ever as only means to our own ends. This underscores Kant's belief that every human being has an inherent worth resulting from the sheer possession of rationality. We must always act in a way that respects this humanity in others and in ourselves. This is essentially the Golden Rule.
Kant in an organizational context
Like utilitarianism, Kant's moral theory has application for organizations.
1. The categorical imperative gives us firm rules to follow in moral decision making, rules that do not depend on circumstances or results and that do not permit individual exceptions.
2. Kant introduces an important humanistic dimension into business decisions. Unlike egoism and utilitarianism, kana's ethics do not allow you to treat people as a means to ends.
3. Kant stressed the importance of motivation and of acting on principle. According to Kant, it is not enough to just do the right thing; an action has moral worth only if it is done from a sense of duty.
Critical inquiries of Kant's ethics
1. What has moral worth? Many theorists believe that Kant was to severe on the point that only if an act is done out of duty does it have moral worth. Is that really true? I think not.
2. Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of right? Critics say that Kant failed to distinguish between saying that a person should not except himself or herself from a rule and that the rule itself cannot specify exceptions.
3. What does it mean to treat people as means? It is not always clear when people are being treated as ends and when merely as means.
Other Nonconsequentialist Perspectives
Kant is not the only nonconsequentialist!!!

Other nonconsequentialists believe that a duty to assist others and to promote total happiness is only one of a number of duties incumbent upon us.
W.D. Ross
REJECTS KANTIANISM - arguing that we have many moral obligations.

Ross rejected utilitarianism as too simple and as untrue to the way were ordinarily think about morality and about our moral obligations. According to Ross, we see ourselves as being under various moral duties that cannot be reduced to the single obligation to maximize happiness. These obligations grow out of special obligations. Example: Wife, mother, accountant, sister, friend, etc. At any given time, we are likely to be under more than one obligation and sometimes these obligations conflict.

Ross's pluralistic ethical perspective differs from utilitarianism. Ross also rejected Kant's belief that our moral obligations are absolute and exception less.
Prima Facie Obligation
is an obligation that can be overridden by a more important obligation.
Nonconsequentialist and Assisting Others
Nonconsequentialists believe that utilitarianism presents too simple a picture of our moral world. In addition, they worry that utilitarianism risks making us all slaves to the maximization of total happiness.

Nonutilitarian philosophers believe that we have a stronger obligation to respect people's rights and avoid injuring them than we do to promote their happiness.

This concept alludes to the idea of supererogatory actions.
Supererogatory actions
Actions that would be good to do but not immoral not to do. I.E. You don't have to be mother teresa.
Legal right
a right that you are entitled to under the law.
Moral right
rights that derive from special relationships, roles, or circumstances in which we happen to be. Example: If I have agreed to water your plants while you are on vacation, you have a right to expect me to look after them in your absence.
Human rights
Moral rights that are not the result of particular roles, special relationships, or specific circumstance. Human rights have 4 characteristics

1. Human rights are universal.
2. Human rights are equal rights.
3. Human rights are not transferable, nor can they be relinquished.
4. Human rights are natural rights in the sense that they do not depend on human institutions the way legal rights do.
Negative Rights
Reflect the vital interests that human beings have in being free from outside interference. The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and so on fall within this category.
Positive Rights
Reflect the vital interests that human beings have in receiving certain benefits. Require others to to provide us with these rights. Positive rights include the right to education, medical care, equal job opportunity etc.
Nonconsequentialism (for non kantians) in an organizational context
1. In its non-Kantian forms nonconsequentialism stresses that moral decision making involves the weighing of different moral factors and considerations. It does not reduce morality solely to the calculation of utility rather it recognized that an organization must usually take into account other equally important moral concerns.
2. Nonconsequentialism acknowledges that the organization has its own legitimate goals tot pursue. There are limits to the demands of morality and an organization that fulfills its moral obligations and respects the relevant rights of individuals is morally free to advance whatever (morally permissible) ends it has.
3. The importance of moral rights, particularly human rights, are stressed.
Critical inquiries of nonconsequentialism
1. How well justified are these nonconsequentialist principles and moral rights? Even moral principles that seem obvious or a matter of common sense have to be examined critically
2. Can nonconsequentialists satisfactorily handle conflicting rights and principles? Nonconsequentialists should not rest content until they find a way of resolving disputes among conflicting prima facie principles or rights.
Rule Utiltarianism
Maintains that the utilitarian standard should be applied not to individual actions but to moral codes as a whole. The rule utilitarian asks what moral code a society should adopt to maximize happiness. RICHARD BRANT - defended this theory. He said, A rule-utilitarian thinks that right actions are the kind permitted by the moral code optimal for the society of which the agent is a member. An optimal code is one designed to maximize welfare or what is good (thus utility). This leaves open the possibility that a particular right act by itself may not maximize benefit...on the rule utilitarian view, then, to find what is morally right or wrong we need to find which actions would be permitted by a moral system that is "optimal" for the agents society.
Optimal Moral Code
The "optimal" moral code does NOT refer to the set of rules that would do the most good if everyone conformed to them all the time. It must take into account what rules can reasonably be taught and obeyed, as well as the costs of inculcating those rules in people. The "optimality" of a moral code encompasses both the benefits of eating people to act in certain ways and the costs of bringing that about. Perfect compliance is not a realistic goal.
What will the optimal code look like?
1. People will make mistakes if, before they act, they try to calculate the consequences of each and every thing they might possibly do.
2. If all of us were act utilitarians, practices such as keeping promises and telling the truth would be rather shaky because we could expect others to keep promises or tell the truth only when they believed that doing so would maximize happiness.
3. The act-utilitarian principle is too demanding, because it seems to imply that each person should continually be striving to promote total well-being.

For these reasons, rule utilitarians believe that more happiness will come from instilling in people a pluralistic moral code, one with a number of different principles. For example: You can't just have one rule for a traffic system such as, "Drive your car in a way that maximizes happiness." This would be counterproductive. You need to have many rules.

The principles of the optimal code would presumably be PRIMA FACIE in ROSS'S sense, that is, capable of being overridden by other principles.

The ideal code would acknowledge moral rights; teaching people to respect moral rights maximizes human welfare in the long run.

An action is not necessarily wrong if it fails to maximize happiness; it is wrong only if it conflicts with the ideal moral code.
Critics of Rule Utilitarianism
1. Act utilitarians maintain that a utilitarian who cares about happiness should be willing to violate rules in order to maximize happiness.
2. Nonconsequentialists, while presumably viewing rule utilitarianism more favorably than act utilitarianism, still balk at seeing moral principles determined by their consequences. They contend that rule utilitarians ultimately subordinate rights to utilitarian calculation and therefore fail to treat rights as fundamental and independent moral factors.
How to have a productive conversation about different morals?
1. Make sure participants agree about the relevant facts.
2. Once there is a general agreement on factual matters, try to spell out the moral principles to which different people are appealing.
Ideal
Is a morally significant goal, virtue, or notion of excellence worth striving for.
The approach moral decision making
A two-step approach to moral decision making is to identify the relevant obligations, ideals, and effects and then decide which consideration deserves the most emphasis.
Maxim (according to google)
Act only on those maxims (or rules of action) that you could at the same time will to be a universal law. The Categorical Imperative is a rule for testing rules. Basically it requires the following steps: Before you act, consider the maxim or principle on which you are acting.
Sets with similar terms