Session 1: Morals & Ethics
“This first session introduces us to morality, ethics and ethical theories. We focus on normative ethical theories which aim to
provide us guidance on how we should behave. During the session we review some of the classic Western theories and briefly
present alternative perspectives. We illustrate these theories through the example of the autonomous vehicle.
1.1 Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S. & Spence, L. 2019. Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability
in the age of globalization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Chapter 3 - Evaluating Business Ethics (Pages 85-135).
This is the latest edition of a classic text book in business ethics, providing an excellent albeit brief overview of some
Western modernist theories of ethics. Compare and contrast the basic premises of each theory and think about how they can be
used together in a pluralistic way to support our decision-making.
Key Concepts:
- Normative ethical theory
- Ethical Egoism
- Utilitarianism
- Ethics Of Duty
- Categorical imperative
- Human rights
- Justice
- Social contract
- Virtue ethics
- Ethic Of Care
- Discourse ethics
- Postmodern ethics
Introduction
Normative ethical theories: Rules, guidelines, principles, and approaches that determine right and wrong. Ethical theories that
aim to prescribe the morally correct way of acting; that is, how we ought to behave. code of conduct that all rational beings
would adhere to.
Descriptive morality = applies to a code of conduct adopted by a particular group or society; it may be the guidelines of a
religion, for instance
The Role of Ethical Theory
● Ethical absolutism. On one side of the spectrum would be a position of ethical absolut- ism, which claims that there are
eternal, universally applicable moral principles. Accord- ing to this view, right and wrong are objective qualities that
can be rationally determined, irrespective of the circumstances.
● Ethical relativism. The other extreme would be a position of relativism, which claims that morality is context-
dependent and subjective. there are no universal right and wrongs that can be rationally determined- it simply depends
on the traditions, convictions, or practices of those making the decision. Still a normative theory.
Most traditional Western modernist ethical theories tend to be absolutist in nature. They seek to set out universal rules
or principles that can be applied to any situation to provide the answer as to what is right or wrong. Contemporary ethical theories
provide us with some alternative perspectives on ethical theory. They often tend towards a more relativistic position.
ethical pluralism: This is something of an alternative approach to abso- lutism and relativism. A pluralist approach accepts that
we ought to recognize that incompat- ible values can be equally legitimate and tolerate them as such
Normative Ethical Theories and Religion
● Source of rules and principles. Religions typically invoke a deity or an organized system of belief (e.g. the teachings in
the Qu'ran or the Talmud) as the source of determining right and wrong. Faith is considered the critical requisite for
acting ethically. Philosophi- cal theories, on the other hand, are based on the belief that human reason should drive
ethics. Thus according to philosophical perspectives, rationality is the critical requisite for acting ethically.
● Consequences of morality and immorality. In religious teaching, there is an important element of spiritual consequence
for the decision-maker. These consequences might in- clude salvation, enlightenment, reincarnation, or damnation.
Western Modernist Ethical Theories
Consequentialist: theories that base moral judgement on the outcomes of a certain action- they are goal orientated. 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. The moral judgment in these theories is thus based on the intended outcomes, the aims, or the goals of a certain
action. Consequentialist ethics is often also referred to by the term teleological, based on the Greek word for 'goal'.
Principle-based: those theories that base moral judgements on the derivation of principles and the procedure by which they are
arrived at. These principle-based theories' prioritize what is right, rather than what is desirable. These philosophical theories,
,also called deontological (based on the Greek word for 'duty'), look at the desirability of principles, and based on these
principles, deduce a 'duty' to act accordingly in a given situation, regardless of the desirability of the consequences.
Consequentialist Theories
● Ethical egoism: Focusing on the outcomes and self-interest for the individual decision-maker
● Utilitarianism: Focusing on the wider social outcomes within a community.
Ethics of self-interest: ethical egoism
Ethical egoism: A theory that suggests that an action is morally right if in a given situation all decision-makers freely decide to
pursue either their (short-term) desires of their (long-term) interests.
Idea of interests based on the pursuit of one’s long-term well-being enables us to distinguish between the life of the hard-drinking
student and that of the hard-working student. A gap opens up between desire (or longing) and what is in one’s ultimate interests,
such that it is not the interest of the drinking student to give in to immediate desires.
Enlightened self-interest: Corporations might invest in the social environment, for instance, by supporting schools or sponsoring
a new ambulance for the local health service, because an improved level of social services is in the interest of workforce retention
and satisfaction
- Weaknesses in egoist ethics: this theory works fine if there is a mechanism in society that makes sure that no individual
egoist pursues their own interests at other egoists' expense. In Adam Smith's thinking, this mechanism would be the
free market. Although we can see that the market usually works quite well, there are numerous situations of 'market
failure', where this does not seem to be the case, and where the egoism of single actors leads to unfavourable results.
Example: Sustainability debate, growing income inequality.
Egoism, it is argued, cannot be a moral theory because it is internally inconsistent, since each person pursues their own self-
interest and must accept that others do too, despite the fact that this is not in their own self-interest.
Ethics of outcomes: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism: “Greatest happiness principle”.it focuses solely on the consequences of an action, weighs good outcomes against
bad outcomes, and encourages the action that results in the greatest amount of good for everyone involved. Unlike egoism, it
does not only look at each individual involved, and ask whether their individual desires and interests are met, but it focuses on the
collective welfare that is produced by a certain decision. A theory which states that an action is morally right if it results in the
greatest amount of good for the greates amount of people affected by the action.
Humans are viewed as hedonists, whose purpose in life is to maximize pleas- ure and minimize pain. In this hedonistic rendition
of utilitarianism, utility is measured in terms of pleasure and pain (the 'hedonistic' view)
Ultimately, utilitarianism comes close to a pain-pleasure version of what we know as cost-benefit analysis.
,Problems with utilitarianism:
● Subjectivity: as- sessing such consequences as pleasure or pain might depend heavily on the subjective perspective of
the person who carries out the analysis. the subjective question of who/what is incorporated into the calculation is just
as important as the decision about what the consequence is likely to be for them. If it is hard to make these choices for
humans, imagine the challenges of doing so for non-human species.
● Equal weighting.While there are subjective choices to be made in applying utilitarian- ism, according to the principle of
universalism, all must be included and equal weight needs to be given to all concerned. Thus we must neither exclude
nor prioritize ourselves: our own pain or pleasure- or that of those nearest to us- has equal weight to everyone else's.
This means that a business manager has equal responsibility to include the welfare of distant community members of
their suppliers as they do their employee's welfare or even their own employment.
● Problems of quantification and calculation. Similarly, it is quite difficult to assign costs and benefits to every situation,
and in business terms, apply monetary values. What monetary value is the right one to put on the experience of
childhood?
● Distribution of utility . Finally, it would appear that by assessing the greatest good for the greatest number, the interests
of minorities are overlooked. In our example, a minority of children might suffer so that the majority might benefit
from greater utility. We might also think about the distribution over the long and short term. A decision to pollute
might maximize short-term utility for current generations but if future generations are taken into account, the outcome
would be completely different.
Act utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism looks to single actions and bases the moraljudgement on the amount of pleasure and the
amount of pain this single action causes.
Rule utilitarianism: Rule utilitarianism looks at classes of action and asks whether the underlying principles of an action
produce more pleasure than pain for society in the long run.
Principle-Based Theories
- Ethics of duties: Ethics of duties begin with assigning of the duty to act in a certain way.
- Ethics of rights and justice
Ethics of duties: Kantianism
Ethics of Duty: Ethical theories that consist of abstract, unchangeable obligations, defined by a set of rationally deduced a priori
moral rules, which should be applied to all relevant ethical problems.
Kant argued that morality and decisions about right and wrong were not dependent on a particular situation, let alone
on the consequences of one's action. For Kant, morality was a question of certain abstract and unchangeable obligations- defined
by a set of a priori moral rules- that humans should apply to all relevant ethical problems.Kant was convinced that human beings
do not need God, the church, or some other superior authority to identify these principles for ethical behaviour.he saw humans as
rational actors who had f ree will to make their own choices and could decide these principles for themselves. Hence, humans
could also be regarded as independent moral actors who made their own rational decisions regarding right and wrong.
Categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim (principle or rule) by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. That must be obeyed in all circumstances. By this, he meant that this theoretical framework
should be applied to every moral issue regardless of who is involved, who profits, and who is harmed by the princi- ples once
they have been applied in specific situations.
, Problems with Kantianism:
- Undervaluing motivation. Kant's emphasis that the only morally acceptable motivation for a certain act is to do one's
duty for its own sake, as defined by the categorical impera- tive, is a little extreme. Imagine a business manager who
agrees to pay a new minimum wage because they know employees are struggling financially versus a business manager
who agrees to pay the same minimum wage because she uses her free will to reason that it is her duty according to the
categorical imperative (and she always does her duty for its own sake). The result is exactly the same in each case, but
the first business manager is not considered morally worthy whereas the second one is.
- Undervaluing outcomes.given that this approach is based on duty, not outcomes, Kant does not allow for cases where a
little rule-bending might be for the best. In a business context, is it acceptable for a new start-up business to cut a few
corners on what is ethical and use their family members as a means of free labour to help them get their business off the
ground? If the business is successful, a utilitarian would say using others as a means to your own ends in this way is
justifiable, on the basis that many people will ultimately benefit.
- Assumption of rationality. Kant's theory is quite optimistic: his view of humans as ra- tional beings who act according
to self-imposed duties seems more of an ideal than a real- ity with regard to fast-paced contemporary lifestyles.
Ethics of rights: human rights
John Locke. He conceptualized the notion of 'natural rights', or moral claims, that humans were entitled to, and which should be
respected and protected (at that time, primarily by the state).
Human rights: Basic, inalienable, and unconditional entitlements that are inherent to all human be- ings, without exception.
Rights and duties are frequently seen as two sides of the same coin.
Although there are crossover responsibilities (e.g. the state takes responsibility for ensuring judicial systems, businesses should
be prepared to engage in non-judicial remedies), the responsibilities are primarily directed at:
- State: The state duty to protect human rights
- BUSINESS: The corporate responsibility to respect human rights
- • JUDICIARY: Access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses
Ethics of rights: justice
Justice: The simultaneous fair treatment of individuals in a given situation with the result that eve- rybody gets what they
deserve. Justice is all about how fairly individuals are treated so that they get what they deserve.
The crucial moral issues here are what exactly 'fairness' should mean in a particular situation and by which standards we can
decide what a person might reasonably deserve. According to Boatright (2014), useful ways to view justice see fairness in two
main ways:
1. Fair procedures. Fairness is determined according to whether everyone has been free to acquire rewards for their
efforts.
2. Fair outcomes. Fairness is"determined according to whether the consequences (positive and negative) are
distributed in a just manner, according to some underlying principle such as need or merit.
Social contract theory
Social contract: A hypothetical agreement between members of a society and those who govern it that establishes the inter-
relationships, rights, and responsibilities on a fair basis.
