CPT-38306
Summary: Philosophy of Management & Consumption
1
,Lecture 1: Philosophy and Ethics of
Economics, Management and Consumer
Behaviour (Philosophy of Science)
Additional Literature: None
Philosophy is about:
o What can we know?
o How should we act?
o What is the nature of things?
Critical thinking is a key part of this:
o it concerns questions such as: what is….? about the concept
o Answers are beyond dictionary definitions; they also involve implications and
assumptions it’s never black or white!
Critical thinking – the Socratic Method:
o You can use the Socratic method to show someone that they are wrong, or at
least imprecise, by getting them to agree with statements that contradict
their original assertion. Socrates believed that the first step to knowledge was
recognition of one's ignorance.
o Accordingly, this method focuses not so much on proving your point but
on disproving the other person's point with a series of questions (elenchus),
resulting in their aporia (puzzlement). (Key)
o Start from common knowledge, or your intuitive grasp of the concept
think of examples
formulate a definition
> Ideally a definition specifies what is necessary and sufficient
for a thing to fall under the concept.
Question and test the definition with examples and other common
knowledge. Try to come up with examples that do not suit the
definitions per se!
o Critical thinking is about:
1. Making a problem definition
2. Assess to measure it
3. Come up with arguments as to why this would be the case
4. Create (implicit) values
> The core of Critical thinking is: not about disagreeing; proving
others wrong, but about gaining a better understanding!
Philosophy:
o Is more than ‘just; answering “what is questions and definitions”
thinking of definitions is not of utmost interest
2
, yet, it can help you in better understanding the nature of things (of
concepts)
o Philosophical questioning: can end up in confusion (Aporia):
Things appear not as clear and simple as one thought (which on itself
is an important insight!)
o Tendency to identify essential characteristics of the content of key concepts
(meaning of content)
What-is Essentia (what do we mean, what is it?)
How-is Existentia (how do we experience; how do we relate?)
Philosophy of Science:
o a critical reflection on the nature of science, and on what it means to obtain
reliable knowledge of the world
o e.g.
what makes science science?
Is there such thing as a scientific method?
Can theories ever be proven true?
can there be empirical laws about social life?
Can science be value-free and politically unbiased?
etc.
o These are questions related to the philosophy of science
Ethics:
o is a systematic reflection on moral questions (what is the right thing to do?)
and on relevant values, duties and virtues (Deugden).
it can be considered as a basis for justification of choices/policies and
for responsible practices.
o Ethical perspectives
Normative
Impartiality
Universal
Pretention
Argumentative
Engagement
o Examples of ethics in the market:
Do companies in a free market have a social responsibility towards
society?
3
,Lecture 2: Philosophy and Ethics of
Economics, Management and Consumer
Behaviour (Philosophy of Science)
Additional Literature: Sandel (2009) Doing the right thing
What is ethics?
o Thinking (reasoning/deliberating) about what is morally right thing to do
o implies systematic reflection on our moral practices, values and norms, and
the practical moral questions we encounter
o 2 levels:
1. Philosophical thinking
2. Practical reasoning about what one should do in specific situations
o Morality:
The norms and values that determine what is right and wrong in the
way how we act towards one another (what we owe to each other)
> morality is paramount (implicit necessary and often taken for
granted)
> Necessary for us to live together
> Many moral we just take for granted mutually expected to
comply to these norms in society (Logical)
> if not we ask questions and hold him/her responsible
Morality is not just about choices, also about how society functions
(LAW)
Differences with law:
> Many laws are crystallisation of oral values (laws reflect these!)
o many laws are morally indifferent
o Laws can be morally wrong
o ‘Morally right’ often can’t be legally enforced
> The usage of laws is limited to jurisdiction/country whereas this
does not count for moral values! (Logical)
o The 5 ethical perspectives:
1) Normative: what is desirable?
> Ethical reflection about a moral problem
> Not primary about what people think about the problem but
about what is right and good! to be determined by values
o About things we find desirable
o Focus on what we consider to be intrinsically
worthwhile: goof for its own sake.
o Basis for moral duties (obligations, requirements)
For example, bakery shop that is thinking about a low carb bread because the assumption is
that people will buy it since they believe it is healthy. Factual issue is about whether the
4
,bread will have the desired outcome where it is way more relevant to ask yourself the
question why that argument would be relevant. So in this case it could point oud deception.
So the factual matters are linked to a moral norm you should not deceive customers.
2) Impartiality: what is good from an impartial point of view!
> What is good and owed to others (from an impartial point of
view taken everyone into account)!!
o Not just only personal goals but also for others!
Empathy
o e.g. what would it mean for them if I would do this….
o What is good from an impartial point of view!
> There is a link to laws vrouwe Justitia with the scale and
blindfold
> Taking an impartial perspective is impossible because we
cannot look towards a problem from perspectives from all
human beings. But we can image being in the shoes of a
certain person and with our mind we can envision what it
would mean to us when something happens to that particular
person.
> Impartiality is an ideal, however, certain roles my involve
special duties (and thus room for partiality) example of the
parent who is more concerned for their own children and this
differs from our duty of taking care of someone in need
3) Universal: Basic moral claims aspire to universal validity (e.g. human
rights)
> Yet, is ethics not primarily related to culture?
> There are many cultural differences regarding e.g. what is
considered good food
> We also observe cultural differences regarding what people
consider morally right (e.g. what is right and wrong in how we
treat e.g. women in different cultures)
> There are many cultural differences regarding what people
believe morally right Moral Relativism states that:
o what is right or wrong depends on the cultural moral
code
o there is no moral code that is culture-independent!!
(Key)
> Problems:
o Logical problem: the fact that there is moral diversity
does not imply the norm that one ought to act
according to the local cultural moral code. it does
not mean that one from a certain culture will act
according to those moral principles of that culture!
5
, o Conceptual problem: people nowadays are part of a
variety of (sub)cultures; what code should I obey?
o A conceptual/normative problem: moral progress is
inconceivable, as this presupposes as universal
standard.
o A normative problem: some practices are immoral even
if they are accepted in some cultures! (Vrouwelijke
besnijdenis, Apartheid)
4) Reasonable (public reason):
> appeals to public reason – moral judgements must be
justifiable to others!
o We hold each other responsible being able to justify
specific choices to others
o “This is just wat I believe”, or “… feel” – that is
insufficient reasoning!!
o It has to be explained why one would feel like that so
that other will be able to understand your position!
(Logical)
5) Engagement:
> Being concerned about what matters to people, animals, etc.
and not be indifferent. Emotions will lead decision making!
o Ethics is not just about knowing what is right, but also
about being motivated to act accordingly, to care about
what is at stake
o Tension between head and heart? Cool reasoning vs.
strong engagement emotions may help us come up
with good arguments.
Moreover, Emotions help us to act accordingly
(e,g, someone hitting a child anger allows you
to act appropriately)
o Types of ethical reasoning:
Duty/rights-based reasons:
> Some actions are wrong because of the type of act they are,
irrespective of the consequences. They conflict with a fundamental
moral duty of violate someone’s rights
Consequence-based reasons: Looks at consequences for everyone
involved. An action is right if it has better consequences than
alternatives – e.g. in terms of happiness of all.
Character-based reasons: Focus on character and motives of agents
(persons, organizations). A virtuous agent is, e.g., trustworthy, loyal,
courageous, respectful. Good actions contribute to realising such good
qualities for an agent.
6
, o Ethical reasoning and relation with values:
The ethical right thing to do is to promote values (consequence-based
reasons)
The ethically right thing to do is honour a value in your actions and
way of living
> Duty/rights-based reasons: certain actions are intrinsically ‘due’ or
wrong.
> Character-based reasons: we should aim to live virtuously
o Three theories on ethical reasoning:
1. Utilitarianism: theory based on consequence-based reasoning with
welfare as central value (Jeremy Bentham)
looks at happiness or well-being (is the ultimate value)
impartial and egalitarian value:
‘Everyone to count for one, no one to count for more than one’
principle of utility:
We should always act so that we product most happiness – maximise
aggregate well-being!! (logical)
Utilitarian reasoning (high in efficiency):
1) What options are available?
a. Giving bottles of water away
b. Sell to the highest bidder
c. Set up a system to distribute bottles fairly
2) What are the expected consequences of those options?
3) Evaluate consequences in terms of aggregate
wellbeing/happiness
4) Choose the option that lead to the highest level of aggregate
wellbeing?
(= option with the highest utility) efficiency is key!
o Some problems with Utilitarianism:
> Calculating the best possible action is unfeasible?
> Is there a common scale for interpersonal comparison of
wellbeing? (how we can compare different levels of
wellbeing?)
> Utilitarians only look at aggregate welfare, not on how it is
distributed
> Some actions seem (are?) intrinsically wrong irrespective of
good consequences. (e.g. trolly problem as in literature!!)
o Other difficulties in Utilitarianism:
> Everyone’s happiness counts as much as yours – your
happiness is not more important in decision-making! (do
not put yourself central) sees it more black and white!
7
, > a less extreme version: Rule utilitarianism: one should
always act upon the moral rules that (if generally adhered
to) would result in maximum aggregate happiness. takes
into account more daily struggles, values and morals
> rule vs act: There is a difference between rule and act
utilitarianism. The act utilitarian considers only the results
or consequences of the single act while the rule utilitarian
considers the consequences that result of following
a rule of conduct .
>
2. Deontology: is duty/rights-based reasoning with freedom as central value
(Immanuel Kant)
o Deontology (libertarian) practical reason (moral dignity and
intrinsic value) also known as duty/right based reasoning. What is
right for me, using my reason, is right for everyone, using their
reason. Focus on individual rights and freedom
o Some actions are morally wrong irrespective of the circumstances
or consequences; their wrongness is based upon the nature of
such act! (e.g. lying, humiliating) (KEY)
Why is this wrong:
1. It is God’s will (General)
2. These actions are wrong according to moral rules
that we would all agree to if we were signing a
social contract (Immanuel Kant)
3. If follows from our nature as beings with practical
reason! (Immanuel Kant)
Human beings with practical reason can set goals,
determine their lives, and reason about how to live if
provides autonomy to human kind!
This is why human beings have dignity, or intrinsic value
(and not just instrumental value)
Treating one another as an autonomous being involves
respecting one another!
o Kant’s core idea in ethics:
If we acknowledge one another as rational beings that are
autonomous, then we should treat them as such (as ‘ends
in themselves’) and we should act according to
principles/rules that can be endorsed by each rational
being.
Can be explained by the ‘Categorial imperative’- Moral
obligations (most important principle in ethics):
1. One should always treat humanity in oneself or
others) as end in itself and never merely as means
(i.e. I should treat you as if you had goals and values
8
