Moral and Non-moral Standard

Moral standards pertain to the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally
right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good
and morally bad.

Moral Standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they believe are morally right
and wrong, as well as the values they place on the kinds of objects they believe are morally good and
morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral values and moral principles.

ETHICS

Non-moral standards, on the other hand, are the rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical
considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical
sense.
A non-moral standard is presumably a standard which is not based on “right versus wrong” and those
actions devoid of moral quality and thus excluded from the scope of moral judgment.Non-moral
standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards
are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of non-moral
standards include rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in games, and various house rules.

Dillema
Dilemma is a Greek word that means “double proposition,” or “perplexing situation,” which presents two
different possibilities, both of which seem practically acceptable. Dilemma is a rhetorical device in which
a conflicting situation arises for a person to choose between right and wrong, where both seem of equal
worth. Often times, dilemma involves an ethically wrong decision that may produce desirable outcomes,
but which could have moral consequences. Or it involves a decision in which a person needs to choose one
of the two options, both of which are equally good or bad.
Heinz dilemma

A dilemma that psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma:
Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe.

This theory holds that moral reasoning, which is the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable
developmental stages. He followed the development of moral judgment beyond the ages originally studied
by Piaget, who claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages. Kohlberg expanded
considerably on this groundwork, determining that the process of moral development was principally
concerned with justice and that its development continued throughout the lifespan, even spawning dialog
of philosophical implications of his research.

Kohlberg used stories about moral dilemmas in his studies, and was interested in how people would act if
they were put in a similar moral crux. He would then categorize and classify evoked responses into one of
six distinct stages. These six stages where broken into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and
post-conventional. His theory is based on constructive developmental stages; each stage and level is more
adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than the last.

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
( What's in it for me?)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
( The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
( Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
( Principled conscience)

Pre-Conventional

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also
exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by
its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral
development, and are purely concerned with the self (egocentric).

Conventional

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a
conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and
expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development.

Post-Conventional

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, consists of stages five and six of moral
development. Realization that individuals are separate entities from society now becomes salient. One's
own perspective should be viewed before the society's. It is due to this 'nature of self before others'
that the post-conventional level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken for pre-conventional
behaviors.

In Stage five, individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values, and it is paramount that
they be respected and honored impartially. Issues that are not regarded as relative like life and choice
should never be withheld or inhibited. In fact, no single choice is correct or absolute – 'who are you to
judge if they are or not'? Along a similar vein, laws are regarded as social contracts rather than rigid
dictums. Those that do not promote general social welfare should be changed when necessary to meet
the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is attained through majority decision, and
inevitably compromise. In this way democratic government is ostensibly based on stage five reasoning.

In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are
valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an
obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary as social contracts are not essential for deontic
moral action. Decisions are met categorically in an absolute way rather than hypothetically in a
conditional way. This can be done by imagining what one would do being in anyone's shoes, who imagined
what anyone would do thinking the same. The resulting consensus is the action taken.

Responses to the Heinz dilemma:

● Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because he will consequently be put in
prison.
● Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine, because he will be much happier if he
saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
● Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine, because his wife expects it; he wants
to be a good husband.
● Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the law prohibits
stealing making it illegal.
 ● Stage five (human rights): Heinz should steal the medicine, because everyone has a right to
choose life, regardless of the law. Or: Heinz should not steal the medicine, because the scientist
has a right to fair compensation.
● Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is
a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. Or: Heinz should not steal
the medicine, because others may need the medicine just as badly, a

Ethical vs. Legal Standards in Finance: What’s the Difference?

Ethical vs. legal standards: what’s the difference? Making decisions that are both ethical and respectful
of laws is something that investment professionals around the world are constantly mindful of. Such
decisions stem from knowledge of the legal system, having the interests of all parties at heart and an
individual’s own professional judgment. Nonetheless, there exist situations where possible actions violate
either professional ethics or the law. In this article, we will explore the differences between both and
guide decision making in such scenarios.

Defining Ethical Standards

Ethics refers to the moral course of action that takes into account and strives to benefit all
stakeholders in a given situation. Prior to making an ethical decision, an individual must be able to
identify the possible unethical course of action and label it as such. Ethical conduct also involves striving
to create the best outcomes for the investment professional, the client and the firm.

For example, an investment fund may explain the risks of investing in different asset classes prior to
creating a portfolio or promising clients a certain expected return. While such a disclosure may dissuade
some potential new clients, it will improve the firm’s long-term profitability since this action may reduce
the chance of dissatisfied clients pursuing legal action against the firm. An investment firm is not
necessarily obligated to make such a disclosure but may do so in a bid to be perceived as ethical.

Defining Legal Standards

Within the investment industry, defining legal standards is much easier than ethical standards. Acting
legally means respecting the applicable bodies of law in the firm’s jurisdiction. For example, a company
may be required to have accounting practices that adhere to the GAAP or IFRS standards.

Such laws have been put into place by regulators after considering all impacts that new legislation will
have. Laws are usually reactive, meaning that they are implemented after major scandals and aim to
remedy an unhealthy environment; such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The best laws are proactive and aim
to prevent scandals by requiring preventative, best-practice actions.

S UMMARY OF M ORAL F OUNDATION T HEORY

Haidt presents moral foundation theory not as a revolutionary change, but as a more nuanced version of
previous moral theories.14 ThisPart will first outline each of the five moral foundations and discuss their
evolutionary purposes. I will then look at Professor Haidt’s research on how the moral foundations
correlate to political leanings. Lastly, this Part will address the role that morality plays more generally in
legal de-bate by touching on Haidt’s theory of moral intuition

Professor Haidt identifies five moral foundations: (1) harm/care, (2)fairness/reciprocity, (3)
ngroup/loyalty, (4) authority/respect, and (5) purity/sanctity.15 These foundations are, essentially, an
umbrella covering the entire realm of moral concerns. Each foundation has its
own evolutionary history, its own virtue system, and its own limitation.

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and
an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and
nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It

generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included
concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we
reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by
everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form
shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active
anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social
interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate
authority and respect for traditions.

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It
underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the
widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and
contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

We think there are several other very good candidates for “foundationhood,” especially:

6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel
toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those
of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in
solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

NATURAL LAW
In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature, meaning the order which
governs the activities of the material universe. Among the Roman jurists natural law designated those
instincts and emotions common to man and the lower animals, such as the instinct of self-preservation
and love of offspring. In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the
natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the
nature with which He has endowed us.
Natural law is a philosophical theory that states that humans have certain rights, moral values, and
responsibilities that are inherent in human nature. Natural law theory is based on the idea that natural
laws are universal concepts and are not based on any culture or customs. Still, it is a way society acts
naturally and inherently as human beings.
The first example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted and understood
that killing a human being is wrong. However, it is also universally accepted that punishing someone for
killing that person is right. The idea demonstrates that without the requirement of legislation, such
beliefs are something that human beings understand inherently as wrong, without the requirement of
law.
Eternal Law
According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's
participation in the eternal law" (I-II.91.2). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the
directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to
ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in
the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man is
destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a
character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is
master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or
abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very
constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of
all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in
our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are
thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.

Moral Courage
Different Types of Courage
Many of us express an admiration for those who exhibit moral courage by standing up for what they
think is right. We may even post quotes like the one attributed to Nelson Mandela: "Stand up for what
you believe in, even if it means standing alone."At the same time, our experience is that most people we
work with in organizations have an aversion to taking risks. They “go along to get along” and leave
unchallenged the prevailing practices and the current “wisdom” found in the workplace. They avoid
disturbing the ethical peace of their peers and supervisors.

Morally Courageous Actions

In ethics education, the point is often made that a commitment to good ethics has two implications: (1)
good ethics means
avoiding unethical behavior and contributing to an environment that diminishes the likelihood that others
will engage in
unethical behavior; (2) good ethics means contributing to the effort to find the best answers and the
best practices in regard to ethically difficult issues, where it is not (yet) clear what is the right or best
thing to do.
Type 1 Moral Courage is demonstrated by calling attention to a practice that is occurring in the
workplace that is contrary
to policy, regulations, or clearly established ethical or professional standards – and which is being
ignored or tolerated.
Something wrong is being done and no corrective actions are being taken.

Type 2 Moral Courage that does not receive as much attention but is also of great importance for
organizations striving for
ethical excellence. Many of us have seen situations in which individuals who have given much
consideration to what should be done about a particular issue are reluctant to voice their opinions.