Ethics is “the study of morality.
”
Morality- The standards that an individual or a group has about what is right and wrong
or good and evil.
-moral standards: The norms about the kinds of actions believed to be morally right
and wrong as well as the values placed on what we believe to be morally good and
morally bad.( experience, learning, and intellectual development)
-nonmoral standards: The standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right
or wrong in a nonmoral way. (eg - manners, rules, language, etc)
Six Characteristics of Moral Standards
1. Involve serious wrongs or significant benefits (murder, fraud, lawbreaking)
2. Should be preferred to other values including self-interest (others before u)
3. Not established by authority figures (no authority can rule)
4. Felt to be universal
5. Based on impartial considerations
6. Associated with special emotions and vocabulary
Moral standards, then, are standards that deal with matters that we think are of serious
consequence, are based on good reasons and not on authority, override self interest,
are based on impartial considerations, and are associated with special feelings such as
guilt and shame, and with a special moral vocabulary such as “obligation,” or
“responsibility.” We learn these standards as children from a variety of influences and
revise them as we go through our lives
Business ethics, in other words, is a form of applied ethics. It not only includes the
analysis of moral norms and moral values, but also tries to apply the conclusions of this
analysis to that assortment of institutions, organizations, and activities that we call
business
Moral Reasoning is the branch of philosophy that attempts to answer questions with
moral dimensions.
Moral reasoning definition is thinking about actions in terms of whether they are right or
wrong. Generally, this involves thinking about the general principle underlying the
action. By contrast, a person who does not think much about what they are doing and
performs only those actions that they want to do is not thinking about general principles.
Instead, they are thinking about the particular objects or outcomes they want. In sum,
moral reasoning is thinking about actions from the perspective of general principles,
duty, or right.
Moral Reasoning Involves
• The moral standards by which we evaluate things
• Information about what is being evaluated
• A moral judgment about what is being evaluated
Analyzing Moral Reasoning
1) First, moral reasoning must be logical
2) Second, the factual evidence the person cites in support of his or her moral judgment
must be accurate, relevant, and complete.
3) Third, the moral standards involved in a person’s moral reasoning must be
consistent.
Four main processes precede ethical action:
(1) recognizing or becoming aware that we are faced with an ethical issue or situation,
i.e., an issue or situation to which we can respond ethically or unethically,
(2) making a judgment about what the ethical course of action is,
(3) forming an intention or decision to do or not do what we judge is right, and
(4) carrying out or acting on the intention or decision we have made.
Morals Vs. Ethics vs. Values –
The difference Morals are the standards of the behavior or principle of beliefs of an
individual to judge what is right and wrong…… So, a person who chooses between right
and wrong and chooses right is moral.
A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even it is
difficult, hard or dangerous / with seemingly adversity – is ethical.
‘Values’ on the other hand is the learned belief system where an individual motivates
himself/ herself to do several things. Values change with age.
Kohlberg’s Theory
LEVEL ONE: PRECONVENTIONAL STAGES
At these first two stages, the child can apply the labels good, bad, right, and wrong. But
good and bad, and right and wrong are seen in terms of the pleasant or painful
consequences of actions or what authority figures demand. If you were to ask a 4- or 5-
yearold child, for example, whether stealing is wrong, he will say it is. But when you ask
the child why it’s wrong, his answer will be something like, “Because Mommy puts me in
time-out if I steal.” The child at this level can see situations mainly from his own point of
view and so his primary motivations are self-centered.
Stage One: Punishment and Obedience Orientation At this stage, the demands of
authority figures or the pleasant or painful consequences of an act define right and
wrong. The child’s reason for doing the right thing is to avoid punishment or defer to the
power of authorities. There’s little awareness that others have needs and desires like
one’s own.
Stage Two: Instrumental and Relative Orientation At this stage, right actions become
those through which the child satisfies his own needs. The child is now aware that
others have needs and desires like he does and uses this knowledge to get what he
wants. The child behaves in the right way toward others, so others later will do the same
toward him.
LEVEL TWO: CONVENTIONAL STAGES
At these next two stages, the older child or younger adolescent sees moral right and
wrong in terms of living up to the conventional norms of his or her family, peer group, or
society. The young person at these stages is loyal to these groups and their norms. He
sees right or wrong in terms of “what my friends think,” “what my family taught me,”
“what we Americans believe,” or even “what the law says.” The person has the ability to
take the point of view of other similar people in his groups.
Stage Three: Interpersonal Concordance Orientation Good behavior at this early
conventional stage is living up to the expectations of those for whom the person feels
loyalty, affection, and trust, such as family and friends. Right action is conforming to
what’s expected in one’s role as a good son, good daughter, good friend, and so on. At
this stage, the young person wants to be liked and thought well of.
Stage Four: Law and Order Orientation Right and wrong at this more mature
conventional stage are based on loyalty to one’s nation or society. The laws and norms
of society should be followed so society will continue to function well. The person can
see other people as parts of a larger social system that defines individual roles and
obligations, and he can distinguish these obligations from what his personal
relationships require.
LEVEL THREE: POSTCONVENTIONAL STAGES
At these next two stages, the person no longer simply accepts the values and norms of
her group. Instead, the person tries to see right and wrong from an impartial point of
view that takes everyone’s interests into account. The person can question the laws and
values of her society and judge them in terms of moral principles that she believes can
be justified to any reasonable person. When an adult at this stage is asked why
something is right or wrong, the person can respond in terms of what’s “fair for
everyone” or in terms of “justice,” or “human rights,” or “society’s wellbeing.”
Stage Five: Social Contract Orientation At this first postconventional stage, the
person becomes aware that people have conflicting moral views, but believes there are
fair ways of reaching consensus about them. The person believes that all moral values
and moral norms are relative and that, apart from a democratic consensus, all moral
views should be tolerated.
Stage Six: Universal Moral Principles Orientation At this second postconventional
stage, right action comes to be defined in terms of moral principles chosen because of
their reasonableness, universality, and consistency. These are general moral principles
that deal, for example, with justice, social welfare, human rights, respect for human
dignity, or treating people as ends in themselves. The person sees these principles as
the criteria for evaluating all socially accepted norms and values.
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
1) Beneficence
The principle of beneficence guides the decision maker to do what is right and good.
This priority to “do good” makes an ethical perspective and possible solution to an
ethical dilemma acceptable. This principle is also related to the principle of utility, which
states that we should attempt to generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in
the world.
This principle stipulates that ethical theories should strive to achieve the greatest
amount of good because people benefit from the most good.
This principle is mainly associated with the utilitarian ethical theory.
2) Least Harm
Similar to beneficence, least harm deals with situations in which no choice appears
beneficial. In such cases, decision makers seek to choose to do the least harm possible
and to do harm to the fewest people.
Students might argue that people have a greater responsibility to “do no harm” than to
take steps to benefit others.
3) Respect for Autonomy
This principle states that decision making should focus on allowing people to be
autonomous—to be able to make decisions that apply to their lives.
Thus, people should have control over their lives as much as possible because they are
the only people who completely understand their chosen type of lifestyle. Ask students if
they agree. Are there limits to autonomy? Each individual deserves respect because
only he/she has had those exact life experiences and understands his emotions,
motivations, and physical capabilities in such an intimate manner.
In essence, this ethical principle is an extension of the ethical principle of beneficence
because a person who is independent usually prefers to have control over his life
experiences in order to obtain the lifestyle that he/she enjoys.
4) Justice
For individuals, the ethical theory they employ for decision making guidance
emphasizes aspects of an ethical dilemma important to them and leads them to the
most ethically correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory
itself. Four broad categories of ethical theory include
➢ deontology,
➢ utilitarianism,
➢ rights, and
➢ virtues.
Deontology (Non-Consequentialism)
The deontological class of ethical theories states that people should adhere to their
obligations and duties when engaged in decision making when ethics are in play. This
means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society
because upholding one’s duty is what is considered ethically correct.
For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the
law. A person who adheres to deontological theory will produce very consistent
decisions since they will be based on the individual’s set duties.
Deontology contains many positive attributes, but it also contains flaws. One flaw is that
there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual’s duties. For instance, a
businessperson may decide that it is his/her duty to always be on time to meetings.
Although this appears to be something good, we do not know why the person chose to
make this his duty. If it happens that the person is running late due to traffic, he’ll start
breaking traffic rule just to uphold not being late.
Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)
Utilitarian ethical theories are based on one’s ability to predict the consequences of an
action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is
the one that is ethically correct. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism
and rule utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism subscribes precisely to the definition of utilitarianism—a person
performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the
societal constraints such as laws.
Rule utilitarianism takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness. A rule
utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means
available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and
includes beneficence at the same time.
Both act and rule utilitarianism have disadvantages. Although people can use their life
experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no one can be certain that his/her
predictions will be accurate. Uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the
utilitarian decision maker appear unethical as time passes, as the choice made did not
benefit the most people as predicted.
Another assumption that a utilitarian decision maker must make concerns his/her ability
to compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale.
But, comparing material gains, such as money, against intangible gains, such as
happiness, is very difficult since their qualities differ to such a large extent.
An act utilitarian decision maker is concerned with achieving the maximum good. Thus,
one individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater number of
people. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice,
beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the
solution that benefits a majority of people.
Still another source of challenge with act utilitarian decision makers occurs when an
individual faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences changes
in those conditions. The change in conditions may lead to a change in the original
decision—being be nice to someone one moment and then dislike them the next
moment because the situation has changed, and liking the person is no longer
beneficial to the most people.
In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Recall the example of
the business person running late for a meeting. Suppose the business person happens
to be the CEO, who may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important
meetings on time as the members of the company will benefit from this decision
The Utilitarian Theory
Philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill moved to the opposite end of
ethical egoism and argued that resolution of ethical dilemmas requires a balancing effort
in which we minimize the harms that result from a decision even as we maximize the
benefits. Mill is known for his greatest happiness principle, which provides that we
should resolve ethical dilemmas by bringing the greatest good to the greatest number of
people.
There will always be a few disgruntled souls in every ethical dilemma solution, so we
just do the most good that we can. Some of the issues to which we have applied
utilitarianism include providing health care even as costs escalate; protecting the
environment even as we generate electricity, drive cars, and operate factories; and
outsourcing manufacturing of clothing to developing countries. Utilitarianism is a theory
of balancing that requires us to look at the impact of our proposed solutions to ethical
dilemmas from the viewpoints of all those who are affected.
Rights
• In ethical theories based on rights, the rights established by a society are protected
and given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid
since a large population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others
if they have the ability and resources to do so.
For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow her laptop for the afternoon.
The friend who was given the ability to borrow the laptop now has a right to the laptop in
the afternoon.
A major complication of this theory on a larger scale is that one must decipher what the
characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it
wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it
wants to enact, it must decide what the society’s goals and ethical priorities are.
Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with
another ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society.
For example in America people have the right to choose their religion because this right
is upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the Founding Fathers’ of America was
to uphold this right to freedom of religion.
Virtue
The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his/her character rather than by an action
that may deviate from his/her normal behavior. It takes the person’s morals, reputation,
and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is
considered unethical.
For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by a peer, the
peer who knows the person well will understand the person’s character and will judge
the friend accordingly. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good
standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage
may be able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night
and simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who
has a reputation for academic misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for
plagiarizing because of his/her consistent past of unethical behavior.
One weakness of virtue ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a
person’s change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made
mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in
good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still
committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to
immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up
against him/her.
