EIB 1 Ch. 1, 2
42 flashcards · Other · by Daniel F.
Ethics
the study of right and wrong, duty and obligation, moral norms, individual character and responsibility
Types of Ethical Theory
Normative ethics prescribes morally correct way of acting Descriptive ethics describes how ethics decisions are actually made in business
Business ethics
the study of what constitutes right and wrong or good/bad in a business context
Moral standards
they concern behavior that is of serious consequence to human welfare, that can injure or benefit people Moral issues in business situations: Product harm/help, work conditions, hiring policies, privacy etc
Ethics vs. etiquettes
Etiquettes refer to the social norms of conduct in a given society Nonmoral rules are meant to serve as guidelines for socially acceptable behavior The business has its etiquettes Violations of etiquette can sometimes have moral implications
Professional codes of ethics
the rules that are supposed to govern the conduct of members of a given profession
Why morality is not based on religion
We act morally out of habit, our personality, out of concern for others, approval of peers, need to appease our conscience, desire to avoid earthly punishment Even believers need to engage in moral philosophy to have answers for difficult issues — you don't have to believe to figure that out Divine command theory: something is wrong because God commands us not to do it. The fact that things are wrong is independent of God's decrees. There is no right or wrong, it is just God's will
Ethical relativism vs absolutism
Relativism: what is right is determined by what a culture or society says is right What is right in one place may be wrong in another — as the only ethical standard for judging an action is the moral system of the society There can be non-ethnocentric standard by which to judge actions Some believe that the fundamental differences in values are not differing much, but the different factual beliefs and circumstances Ethical disagreements do not imply that all opinions are equally correct Absolut…
Implications of ethical relativism
Undermines moral criticism of practices of other societies as long as their actions conform to their own standards, e.g. slavery They say that there is no ethical progress — moralities change, but they don't get better or worse — cannot say that moral standards are more enlightened that in the middle ages Does not make sense to criticize principles accepted by their own society because whatever society sees as right is really right. Those who campaign against it are only encouraging people to b…
Relativism and the game of business
Carr's Argument Business is like a game with its own ethical rules, separate from broader societal morality. Actions considered wrong in other contexts (lying, deception) are permissible in business. Uses poker analogy: deception is acceptable within the rules of the game. Critique of Carr's Argument: Ethical Relativism: Just because an activity has its own rules doesn't make it exempt from moral scrutiny (e.g., the Mafia). Flawed Analogy: Business isn't a game with willing participants; it imp…
Having moral principles
When person accepts moral principle, it is part of their moral code, then the person believes in the principle is important and justified Person will act in that way and avoid acting differently will feel guilty when own conduct violates that principle and disapprove others whose behavior conflicts it involves desire to follow it for its own sake, likelihood of feeling guilty to not to so and tendency to evaluate the conduct of others according to principle in question
Conscience
internalized moral instructions of parents or other authority figures who raised us Limits of conscience Conscience is not helpful when needing to make decisions Conscience might not even appear in moments it should Don’t ignore conscience but examine it critically
Conflict of moral actions and self-interest
Morality serves to restrain our our self-interested desires so that we can all live together moral standards of society provide basic guidelines for cooperative social existence & allow conflicts to be resolved
Paradox of hedonism
Individuals who only are about their own happiness are generally less happy than those who care about others
Morality and personal values (morality in a narrow vs broad sense)
Morality in a narrow sense: code of conduct of individual or society Morality in a broad sense: values, ides and aspirations that shape our lives
Individual integrity and responsibility in a group setting organizational norms, conformity, groupthink, diffusion of responsibility, bystander apathy
Organizational norms: Pressure to meet corporate objectives, be a team player and to conform to organizational norms can sometimes lead people to act unethical Conformity: individuals can be easily induced to behave as those around them Groupthink: when pressure for unanimity within a cohesive group overwhelms its members desire or ability to appraise the situation Diffusion of responsibility: Leads individuals to have diminished sense of their own personal moral responsibilities because they s…
moral arguments
arguments (1 or more premises -> conclusion) whose conclusions are moral judgments Valid argument: premises logically entail itsconclusion Invalid argument: premises do not entail its conclusion
Defensible moral judgements
Moral judgements need to be supported by moral standards and relevant facts Moral judgements should be logical Moral judgements should be based on facts Moral judgements should be based on acceptable moral principles
Consequentialist vs nonconsequentialist theories of ethics
Consequentialist theories: Moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its results. If consequences are good, then the act is right, if bad, the act is wrong The right act is the one that produces great ratio of good to evil as any other course of action Nonconsequentialist theories: Consequences are morally significant but other factors are also important to assess morality of action Matter is the nature of the act in question, not just result
Egoism
Act is only morally right if it best promotes agent’s own interests The action which produces most good for the agent should be chosen
Personal vs impoersonal egoism
Personal Egoists: Pursue own interest, but not saying what others should do Impersonal egoists: Everyone should let self-interest guide his or her conduct
Misconceptions about egoism
Egoists only do what they like?? -> they need to sacrifice to advance long-term interest All egoists endorse hedonism, the view that pleasure or happiness is the only thing that is good in itself?? -> egoists actually hold any theory of what is good Egoists can’t act honest, gracious, helpful?? -> egoism requires us to do whatever will best further own interests -> requires sometimes to advance interests of others
Psychological egoism
all actions are selfishly motivated, unselfish actions are impossible
Problems with egoism
Psychological egoism is not a sound theory Acts which might also be driven by self-interests, are not always completely selfish Ethical egoism is not really a moral principle at all: many critics of egoism as an ethical standard contend that it misunderstands the nature and point of morality Ethical egoism condones blatant wrong: it condones actions that are immoral (murder), clashes with firmest moral convictions
Utilitarianism
Tells us to bring about the most happiness (utility) for everyone affected by our actions When deciding, which action will produce the greatest happiness, we must consider unhappiness or pain as well as happiness Actions affect people to different degrees. We should add up the various pleasures and pains, however small or large, and go with the action that brings about the greatest net amount of happiness Utilitarian's evaluate according to consequences and because action produce different resu…
Roots of utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were important early utilitarians. Both considered pleasure the ultimate value -> they are hedonists: Pleasure, in their view, is the one thing that is intrinsically good or worthwhile. Anything that is good is good only because it brings about pleasure (or happiness), directly or indirect. They cared about happiness because they identified it with well-being —what is good for people
Critical inquiries of utilitarianism
Is utilitarianism really workable? Uncertainty occurs about likely results of alternative courses of action open to us. Comparing your level of happiness or unhappiness to others is almost impossible -> difficult to calculate all of this Are some actions wrong, even if they produce good? Focus on result of an action not the character: some actions can be immoral even if it would maximize happiness Is utilitarianism unjust? Distribution is not important. Critics say that it may even require that…
hedonism
view that pleasure (or happiness) is the only thing that is good in itself, that it is the ultimate good, the one thing in life worth pursuing for its own sake
Utilitarianism in an organizational context
Clear Policy Basis: Good policies promote general welfare more than any alternative. Easy to test and modify based on outcomes. Objective Conflict Resolution: Provides a standard outside self-interest (unlike egoism) to resolve disputes and promote the general good. Flexible & Results-Oriented: No inherently right/wrong actions. Focuses on results and allows for tailored decisions based on specific situations.
Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives
Hypothetical: Commands conditional on specific desires or goals (e.g., "If you want to go to medical school, take biology"). Categorical: Unconditional commands binding on everyone, regardless of their desires or the consequences (e.g., "Do not lie").
Kant’s Ethics - good will and categorical imperative
moral reasoning is not based on factual knowledge and that the results of our actions do not determine whether they are right or wrong Humans in the eyes of Kant Only they have “intrinsic worth” or “dignity” that makes them valuable above all Motives are all that matters in ethics Good will - motives are all that matters Good will is the only inherently good thing. Other qualities (intelligence, courage, etc.) are only good when coupled with good will. Good will means acting from a sense of dut…
Kant in an organizational context
Rules to follow in moral decision making Do not depend on circumstances or results & do not permit individual exceptions. No matter what the consequences, some actions are always wrong. Kant forbids to use people as means to ends. He pits the emphasis of organizational decision making where it belongs -> individuals Importance of motivation and acting on principle. An action has only moral worth when it is done from a sense of duty.
Critical inquiries of Kant’s ethics
Moral Worth: Doing things out of sympathy could also be moral Self-Interest and Moral Worth: Kant argues that actions motivated by self-interest or sympathy do not have moral worth; only actions done from a sense of duty do. Criticism: Many moral theorists find this too severe, arguing that actions motivated by compassion or habit can also possess moral worth (e.g., giving to famine relief out of sympathy). Adequacy of the Categorical Imperative: Exceptionlessness: Kant insists moral rules must…
Prima facie obligation
Ross: an obligation that can be overridden by a more important obligation, e.g. situation of having obligation A, keeping a promise to a friend, and obligation B, helping someone out who is in danger
utilitarianism vs prima facie vs Kant
Prima facie obligations and perspective is pluralistic in recognizing variety of obligations – unlike utilitarianism. Obligations are not absolute and exceptionless – unlike Kant’s perspective
Ross vs Kant
In a prima facie situation, Kant would still choose the absolute/categorical obligation and not a prima facie one, e.g. someone wants to murder your friend, he/she is hiding in the closet, but you would tell the murderer the truth about where the friend is because you must always tell the truth
Moral rights -> human rights
Moral right -> derived from special relationships, roles, circumstances, e.g. bringing a friends car back. Human right -> rights that are not result of roles, relationships, circumstances - rights of lige, free speech, religion They are universal — everyone, everywhere and at all times humans have the right to live Equality of rights — free speech is allowed equally for everyone 3 They are not transferable or relinquished — cannot give or lend it to someone They are natural rights — they do not…
Critical inquiries of nonconsequentialism
Vague right/wrong without consequences; unclear principle identification, duty conflict resolution. Arbitrary, dogma-based rules absent consequentialist justification. Rules over harm; impracticality of ignoring outcomes. Theoretical flaws: Kantianism (universalizability), Divine Command (moral source), Rights-based (conflicting rights). Unexplained moral motivation, emotion's role without consequentialist frameworks.
Law and ethics
Action can be legal, but not ethical Action can be ethical, but not legal Legal doesn't mean you must do it Ethical doesn't mean you must do it A right isn't an obligation You have a choice
interplay between self-interest and utility (enlightened egoism)
Adam Smith's Perspective, enlightened egoism: Individuals pursuing their own economic advantage unintentionally benefit society as a whole ("invisible hand"). This self-interest is the driving force of a successful economy. Intentional acts of altruism are less effective than pursuing self-interest within the rules of the market. Modern Interpretation: "Business egoism" argues that pursuing economic self-interest in business is morally acceptable, even required. This is justified on utilitarian…
two alternative formulations of the categorical imperative
Universal acceptability An action is right if and only if its underlying principle is universally acceptable, so to all rational parties whether the action is done by them or to them You can only embrace something as a moral law if all other beings also embrace it Respect for Autonomy Humans are never a means to and end One must always act so as to treat other people as ends in themselves
Rule utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism: Judges individual actions based on maximizing happiness. Rule Utilitarianism: Focuses on creating an optimal moral code (set of rules) for society that maximizes overall happiness. Benefits of Rule Utilitarianism Pluralistic Moral Code: Advocates for a set of rules with various principles rather than a single maximization command. Traffic Analogy: A system with multiple traffic rules (e.g., stop signs, yielding) is more effective than one rule to maximize happiness. Prima Fa…