Chapter 2 Flashcards
Ethical Dilemmas
2 ways to solve ethical dilemmas
Situations involving conflict between ethical principles or normative priorities.
- Dilemmas have deep impact on the evolution of ethical reflection.
Solving ethical dilemmas involves:
1) Appeal to theoretical constructs.
2) Reevaluation of established moral standards and inherited intuitions
Consequentialist theories vs. Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) theories
Consequentialist theories: Those that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action’s consequences or results.
Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) theories: Those that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action’s intrinsic features or character.
Egoism:
Egoists
Egoism: The view that morality coincides with the self-interest of an individual or an organization.
Egoists: Those who determine the moral value of an action based on the principle of personal advantage.
- An action is morally right if it promotes one’s long-term interest.
- An action is morally wrong if it undermines it.
Personal egoists vs. Impersonal egoists
Personal egoists: Pursue their own self-interest but do not make the universal claim that all individuals should do the same.
Impersonal egoists: Claim that the pursuit of one’s self-interest should motivate everyone’s behavior.
- Egoists do not necessarily care only about pursuing pleasure (hedonism) or behave dishonestly and maliciously toward others.
- Egoists can assist others if doing so promotes their own advantage.
Psychological egoism:
Psychological egoism: The theory of ethical egoism is often justified on the ground that human beings are essentially selfish.
Even acts of self-sacrifice are inherently self-regarding insofar as they are motivated by a conscious or unconscious concern with one’s own advantage.
3 Objections to egoism
1) The theory is not sound - not all human acts are selfish by nature, and some are truly altruistic.
2) Egoism is not a moral theory at all: Egoism misses the whole point of morality, which is to restrain our selfish desires for the sake of peaceful coexistence with others.
3) Egoism ignores blatant wrongs: All patently wrong actions are morally neutral unless they conflict with one’s advantage.
Utilitarianism
2 Main representatives
The moral theory that we should act in ways that produce the most pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people affected by our actions.
Main representatives: Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
The principle of utility
Actions are morally praiseworthy if they promote the greatest human welfare, and blameworthy if they do not.
Six points concerning utilitarianism:
1) consider net worth of each action.
2) equal individual preferences, then net worth
3) Anything can be morally praiseworthy
4) seek to maximize happiness now and in the long run.
5) avoid choosing actions when consequences are uncertain.
6) guard against bias when own interests are at stake.
Utilitarianism in an organizational context: 3 benefits
Utilitarianism in an organizational context:
1) Provides a clear and straightforward standard for formulating and testing policies.
2) Offers an objective way for resolving conflicts of self-interest.
3) Suggests a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision making
3 Criticisms of utilitarianism:
1) The practical application of the principle of utility involves considerable difficulties.
2) Some actions seem to be intrinsically immoral, though performing them can maximize happiness.
3) Utilitarianism is concerned with the amount of happiness produced, not how the amount is distributed, so the theory can run counter to principles of justice.
Utility and self-interest:
Businesses are concerned with increasing profit and can be viewed as egoistic, but pursuing one’s own economic advantage can increase the well-being of society as a whole.
Adam Smith (1723–1790):
The main promoter of classical capitalism who argued that society can flourish if businesses are left to freely pursue their self-interests
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804):
A German philosopher with a nonconsequentialist approach to ethics.
- Said the moral worth of an action is determined on the basis of its intrinsic features or character, not results or consequences.
- Believed in good will, that good actions proceed from right intentions, those inspired by a sense of duty.
Kant’s Philosophy of the Categorical Imperative
Morality as a system of laws analogous to the laws of physics in terms of their universal applicability.
The morality of an action depends on whether the maxim (or subjective principle) behind it can be willed as a universal law without committing a logical contradiction.
An example of the categorical imperative:
A building contractor promises to install a sprinkler system in a project.
But he is willing to break that promise to suit his purposes.
His maxim can be expressed as: “I’ll make promises that I’ll break whenever keeping them no longer suits my purposes.”
By willing the maxim to become a universal law, the contractor undermines promises in general.
Kant’s Ethics of perfect and Imperfect duty
Perfect Duty To oneself - Not to commit suicide To others - To keep one’s promises Imperfect Duty To oneself - To cultivate one’s talents To others - To help others in need
Kant’s 2 Formulations of the categorical imperative:
1) Universal acceptability: To determine whether a principle is a moral law, we need to ask whether the command expressed through it is acceptable to all rational agents.
2) Humanity as an end, never as a means: We must always act in a way that respects human rationality in others and in ourselves.
Kant’s in an organizational context:(3)
1) The categorical imperative provides a solid standard for the formulation of rules applicable to any business circumstances.
2) Kant emphasizes the absolute value and dignity of individuals.
3) Kant stresses the importance of acting on the basis of right intentions.
Criticisms of Kant’s ethics:
1) too extreme as it excludes emotion from moral decision making and makes duty paramount.
2) fails to distinguish between excepting oneself from a rule and qualifying a rule on the basis of exceptions.
3) not always clear when people are treated as ends and merely as means
W. D. Ross (1877–1971) and his 3 beliefs
held that our moral experiences are too complex to be reduced to the principle of utility or the categorical imperative. His beliefs:
1) We have various duties that oftentimes come into conflict with each other.
2) There are no universal rules for the resolution of conflicts of duties.
3) Different situations generate different priority orders of duties
Prima facie obligation:
Can be overridden by a more important duty in specific circumstances. Example:
- We are in conflict over the duty to keep our promise to a friend and the duty to help a person in need.
- We may have to override the promise and favor the more important duty to help the person.
- But in some other circumstances we ought to do the opposite.
7 Basic prima facie obligation:
1) Duties of fidelity.
2) Duties of reparation.
3) Duties of gratitude.
4) Duties of justice.
5) Duties of beneficence.
6) Duties of self-improvement.
7) Duties not to injure others.
Assisting others:
Nonconsequentialists believe -
Moral philosophers argue -
Nonconsequentialists believe that we have a much stronger obligation to refrain from violating people’s rights than to promote their happiness or well-being.
Moral philosophers argue that utilitarianism fails to distinguish between morally required acts and supererogatory acts (i.e., those acts that exceed the call of duty).
