Lecture week 1: Nature of morality and ethics in
corporations and normative theories of ethics
In this course we will explore the workings of ethics in general business environments. We
will discuss what is the right thing to do following different ethical theories. There is a
theoretical component in the concepts and principles at place and an applied component
about how you can think about these issues and what you can do about them.
In ethics morality is concerned with the norms, values and beliefs embedded in our social
processes which will define what is right and wrong for an individual or a community. Ethics
studies this morality and the rules and principles that follow are ethical theories. In this
normative ethics prescribes the morally correct way of acting and descriptive ethics
describes how decisions are actually made in business. Moral standards are higher than
other standards as they concern behavior that can seriously affect human well-being.
Etiquette is the social norms governing conduct in a given society but these do generally not
hold much moral weight more of a status thing. Morality is not the same as the law as things
can be legal yet unethical and the other way around. Neither is an obligation one has a
choice.
Moral standards can rise from many different places. There is a big relation with morality and
religion and these principles are called the divine command theory. The issue here lies in its
starting point is an action morally right because god says or or does god say so because it is
right (chicken and egg). We do draw some moral beliefs from religions however philosophers
will ask the question if these are justified and often they are very vague.
Ethical relativism is the theory that ethics do not matter as everybody believes something
different and that we can not argue their beliefs. This wrong as ethical disagreement does
not imply that all opinions are equally correct. Moral progress is not of use either as we then
would believe what we believe and never challenge. In ethical relativism one could just
observe cultures and take their beliefs but not everything that is accepted is ethically right.
As a person you can break your moral standards which should then, based on the severity,
affect your conscience. Your conscience however is not always right to follow as sometimes
the beliefs and standards you have built through your upbringing can be ethically wrong. The
book gives the example of freeing slaves which is ethically right but the character feels
wrong about going against some former beliefs.
Ethical egoism is the theory that states that by sacrificing ourselves we deny our rights as
human beings as we can only be motivated by self interest. A continuous on this is
enlightened egoïsm that states that self-interested actions, under certain conditions, create
benefit for all. This was promoted by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Following this
theory companies will do ‘selfless’ activities, CSR, to have more satisfied customers,
satisfied employees or other benefits they might experience not from altruism. The issue with
ethical egoism is that human beings simply are not only motivated by self-interest. Even if all
actions we take are based on our own desires that does not mean every desire is self-
, interested. Ethical egoïsm will also state that if we could murder somebody and get away
with it we would not be affected however this is not the case for most people and will
therefore always clash with other moral convictions.
In an argument there are often premises and a conclusion. For an argument to be valid we
say if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. For an argument to be sound we say
the premises are true and so is the conclusion. In moral arguments we need to base our
arguments on moral standards and principles. When making a moral judgment this should
be logical, based on facts and on sound or defensible moral principles.
Lecture week 2: Normative theories on ethics and
justice and economic distribution
As stated in the last lecture when making ethical arguments one should base their
arguments on defensible moral principles. In this lecture existing moral principles will be
explained and how one can apply these.
Utilitarianism in its core utilitarians believe we should always act to what produces the
greatest amount of pleasure or happiness and the least amount of suffering for the greatest
people affected by our actions. This principle of utility allows us to calculate the morally right
thing to do. In this calculating we need to factor in three ingredients namely the
consequences, the happiness/utility and equality as all happiness is of equal importance
(one should be impartial). In conclusion we should avoid harm, promote good and weigh the
good and the bad equally so it is fair.
Critics of utilitarianism will say that it is impossible to be impartial when making these
decisions and even if one is impartial it is almost impossible to foresee all the consequences
of an action. It is also blamed for justifying certain actions which to others would be blatantly
wrong but in this case should be okay due to the overall increase in happiness. The last
comment on utilitarianism is that it does not care about the division of happiness and can
therefore be distributed unequally.
Ethics of duty/Kant is a normative theory that states you should act according to universal
and unchangeable duties which can be derived rationally. It is absolutist and unlike
consequential theories like utilitarianism it does not care about the consequences as it is
duty/principle based. One’s principles determine one’s moral worth, not the consequences of
one's actions.
Immanuel Kant is the great philosopher behind the ethics of duty. Kant believed that nothing
itself is good except good will. Will, according to Kant, is our humanly unique capability of
being able to act on principle. Our actions only have moral worth when we act on a sense of
duty in this principle. To determine what is our duty and what morality requires from us Kant
thought of the Categorical Imperative. Here Kant states that a categorical imperative
should be universal (if everybody does so is the world a better place). A categorical
imperative should also respect people’s autonomy (one should never treat people as means
to an end). If you can think of a world where everybody acts according to a principle and if
you believe that world to be a good one to live in you have a Maxim. A Maxim is Kant’s way
corporations and normative theories of ethics
In this course we will explore the workings of ethics in general business environments. We
will discuss what is the right thing to do following different ethical theories. There is a
theoretical component in the concepts and principles at place and an applied component
about how you can think about these issues and what you can do about them.
In ethics morality is concerned with the norms, values and beliefs embedded in our social
processes which will define what is right and wrong for an individual or a community. Ethics
studies this morality and the rules and principles that follow are ethical theories. In this
normative ethics prescribes the morally correct way of acting and descriptive ethics
describes how decisions are actually made in business. Moral standards are higher than
other standards as they concern behavior that can seriously affect human well-being.
Etiquette is the social norms governing conduct in a given society but these do generally not
hold much moral weight more of a status thing. Morality is not the same as the law as things
can be legal yet unethical and the other way around. Neither is an obligation one has a
choice.
Moral standards can rise from many different places. There is a big relation with morality and
religion and these principles are called the divine command theory. The issue here lies in its
starting point is an action morally right because god says or or does god say so because it is
right (chicken and egg). We do draw some moral beliefs from religions however philosophers
will ask the question if these are justified and often they are very vague.
Ethical relativism is the theory that ethics do not matter as everybody believes something
different and that we can not argue their beliefs. This wrong as ethical disagreement does
not imply that all opinions are equally correct. Moral progress is not of use either as we then
would believe what we believe and never challenge. In ethical relativism one could just
observe cultures and take their beliefs but not everything that is accepted is ethically right.
As a person you can break your moral standards which should then, based on the severity,
affect your conscience. Your conscience however is not always right to follow as sometimes
the beliefs and standards you have built through your upbringing can be ethically wrong. The
book gives the example of freeing slaves which is ethically right but the character feels
wrong about going against some former beliefs.
Ethical egoism is the theory that states that by sacrificing ourselves we deny our rights as
human beings as we can only be motivated by self interest. A continuous on this is
enlightened egoïsm that states that self-interested actions, under certain conditions, create
benefit for all. This was promoted by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Following this
theory companies will do ‘selfless’ activities, CSR, to have more satisfied customers,
satisfied employees or other benefits they might experience not from altruism. The issue with
ethical egoism is that human beings simply are not only motivated by self-interest. Even if all
actions we take are based on our own desires that does not mean every desire is self-
, interested. Ethical egoïsm will also state that if we could murder somebody and get away
with it we would not be affected however this is not the case for most people and will
therefore always clash with other moral convictions.
In an argument there are often premises and a conclusion. For an argument to be valid we
say if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. For an argument to be sound we say
the premises are true and so is the conclusion. In moral arguments we need to base our
arguments on moral standards and principles. When making a moral judgment this should
be logical, based on facts and on sound or defensible moral principles.
Lecture week 2: Normative theories on ethics and
justice and economic distribution
As stated in the last lecture when making ethical arguments one should base their
arguments on defensible moral principles. In this lecture existing moral principles will be
explained and how one can apply these.
Utilitarianism in its core utilitarians believe we should always act to what produces the
greatest amount of pleasure or happiness and the least amount of suffering for the greatest
people affected by our actions. This principle of utility allows us to calculate the morally right
thing to do. In this calculating we need to factor in three ingredients namely the
consequences, the happiness/utility and equality as all happiness is of equal importance
(one should be impartial). In conclusion we should avoid harm, promote good and weigh the
good and the bad equally so it is fair.
Critics of utilitarianism will say that it is impossible to be impartial when making these
decisions and even if one is impartial it is almost impossible to foresee all the consequences
of an action. It is also blamed for justifying certain actions which to others would be blatantly
wrong but in this case should be okay due to the overall increase in happiness. The last
comment on utilitarianism is that it does not care about the division of happiness and can
therefore be distributed unequally.
Ethics of duty/Kant is a normative theory that states you should act according to universal
and unchangeable duties which can be derived rationally. It is absolutist and unlike
consequential theories like utilitarianism it does not care about the consequences as it is
duty/principle based. One’s principles determine one’s moral worth, not the consequences of
one's actions.
Immanuel Kant is the great philosopher behind the ethics of duty. Kant believed that nothing
itself is good except good will. Will, according to Kant, is our humanly unique capability of
being able to act on principle. Our actions only have moral worth when we act on a sense of
duty in this principle. To determine what is our duty and what morality requires from us Kant
thought of the Categorical Imperative. Here Kant states that a categorical imperative
should be universal (if everybody does so is the world a better place). A categorical
imperative should also respect people’s autonomy (one should never treat people as means
to an end). If you can think of a world where everybody acts according to a principle and if
you believe that world to be a good one to live in you have a Maxim. A Maxim is Kant’s way
