Morality, Ethics and Ethical Theories Morality is concerned with the norms, values and beliefs embedded in social processes which define right and wrong for an individual or a community. Ethics is concerned with the study of morality and the application of reason to elucidate specific rules and principles that determine right and wrong for any given situation. These rules and principles are called ethical theories. Ethical frameworks Descriptive ethics describes the issue with no moral judgement, notes what is true and factual. Tends to result in decisions that will result in pleasure and/or avoidance of pain. Normative ethics creates and evaluates moral standards. Looks at what should/ought be done. Whilst observations of fact are noted, action is judged as either right or wrong. Tends to result in decisions that reduce suffering and enhance well-being. greatest good for the greatest number Meta-ethics considers the nature of morality as devoid of higher order intervention (religion) and uses social order as the barometer of right and wrong. Results in decisions that assist functioning of the social group and social order. Applied ethics investigates how normative and moral principles can be applied in difficult cases. In this perspective morality is foremost in the decision process and focuses on the arguments for and against the issue and not the individuals or emotions involved. The role of Ethical theory Two extreme positions Ethical absolutism claims there are eternal, universally applicable moral principles Right and wrong are objective qualities, can be rationally determined Typically traditional ethical theories Ethical relativism claims morality is context-dependent and subjective No universal right and wrongs that can be rationally determined; depends on person making the decision & culture in which they are located Typically contemporary ethical theories Page 1
Traditional Ethical theories Generally offer a certain rule or principle which one can apply to any given situation These theories generally can be differentiated into two groups Consequential Theories Moral judgment is fuelled by the underlying principles of the decision maker s motivation An action is right or wrong not because we like the consequences they produce but because the underlying principles are morally right Also called Deontological Theories (based on the Greek word for duty ) Look at the desirability of principles - deduce a 'duty' to act accordingly in a given situation - regardless of the desirability of the consequence Consequential Theories Moral judgment is the base for intended outcomes, aims or goals of a certain action Also called Teleological Theories (based on the Greek word for goal ) If these outcomes are desirable then the action in question is morally right If the outcomes of the action are not desirable, the action is morally wrong Major Normative Theories 1. Theory of egoism - an action is morally right if the decision-maker freely decides an action to pursue either their (short-term) desires or their (long-term) interests. a. Adam Smith (1793): pursuit of individual interest morally acceptable as invisible hand of market creates benefit for all b. Relies on free competition and good information c. Enlightened egoism d. However, markets do not function perfectly i. Anti-globalisation movement ii. Sustainability debate 2. According to utilitarianism, an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action a. Also called the greatest happiness principle b. Based on cost-benefit analysis c. But is based on subjectivity and issues around quantification and distribution of utility d. This has led to refinement of theory Page 2
i. Act utilitarianism - looks to single actions and bases the moral judgement on the amount of pleasure and the amount of pain this single action causes. ii. Rule utilitarianism - looks at classes of action and ask whether the underlying principles of an action produce more pleasure than pain for society in the long run. Ethics of duties Categorical Imperative (Kant) Maxim 1: Consistency Act only according to that maxim as if it were a universal law. Maxim 2: Human Dignity Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of Maxim 3: Universality another, always as an end and never as a means only. Act only so that the will through its maxims could regard itself at the same time as universally lawgiving (would others agree? Would you be happy to see your decision reported in the press?) BUT need to consider complexity and perspectives. Ethics of rights and justice Natural rights Certain basic, important, unalienable entitlements that should be respected and protected in every single action. Based on consensus about nature of human dignity Strongly based in western view of morality Justice The simultaneously fair treatment of individuals in a given situation with the result that everybody gets what they deserve Fair procedures (procedural justice) Fair outcomes (distributive justice) Limits of Traditional theories Too abstract Too reductionist Too objective and elitist Too impersonal Too rational and codified Too imperialist Page 3
Approaches based on character and integrity Virtue ethics Contends that morally correct actions are those undertaken by actors with virtuous characters. Therefore, the formation of a virtuous character is the first step towards morally correct behaviour Acquired traits Intellectual virtues Moral virtues Developing Moral Judgement External Sources of a Manager s Values Internal Sources of a Manager s Values Religious values Respect for the authority structure Philosophical values Loyalty Cultural values Conformity Legal values Performance Professional values Results An approach to identify moral and ethical concerns in scenarios 12 questions PROBLEM 1. What is the problem? define it accurately. 2. How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence? Would anything change? SITUATION 3. How did this situation occur in the first place? 4. To whom and to what do you give your loyalties as a person or a group and as a member of the organisation? INTENTION 5. What is your intention in making this decision? 6. How does this intention compare with the likely result? CONSEQUENCE OF DECISION 7. Whom could your decision or action injure? 8. Can you engage the affected parties in a discussion of the problem before you make your decision? 9. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now? 10. Could you disclose without a qualm your decision or action to your boss, your CEO, the board, your family or society as a whole? 11. What is the symbolic potential of your action is understood? Misunderstood? 12. Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand? Page 4
Four Important Ethical Questions What is? What ought to be? How do we get from what is to what ought to be? What is our motivation for acting ethically? Page 5