Ethical Theory Flashcards
Ethical absolutism vs ethical relativism
Ethical absolutism:
- Universal moral principles are applicable across all contexts
- These principles are rationally determined and do not depend on specific cultural or situational factors
Ethical relativism:
- Morality is subjective and varies based on context, traditions, and cultural practices
- It rejects universal principles, emphasising situational and societal influences.
Normative vs Descriptive Theories
Normative Ethical Theories:
- Prescriptive theories focus on how people should act to uphold morality
- Examples: Deontology, utilitarianism, Social contract theory
Descriptive Ethical Theories:
- Analytical theories describe how people do act in practice, reflecting societal norms
- Examples: Ethics of Care, Ubuntu
Deontology Ethics
Core Concepts:
- Duty-based ethics focus on rules and principles that define right and wrong, regardless of consequences.
- Immanuel Kant’s (1785) Categorical Imperative:
- “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become a universal law of nature.”
- Example: Breaking a promise is unethical because universalizing this behavior would render all promises meaningless.
Principles:
- Humanity must be treated as an end, not as a means to an end.
- Rules apply universally without exceptions (e.g., honesty, fairness, compassion).
- Moral principles are binding, regardless of the consequences. For example - some actions would be considered wrong even if the consequences of the actions were good
Criticisms:
- Dilemmas arise when duties conflict (e.g., loyalty to a friend vs. fairness to others).
- Consequences are ignored, potentially leading to impractical outcomes.
- Assumes humans are always rational and capable of following duties.
Consequentialism
Definition:
- Consequentialism is an ethical theory that determines the morality of an action based solely on its outcomes or consequences
- An action is considered morally right if it leads to the best possible results or minimises harm
Focus:
- The ends justify the means; the consequences of an action are more important than the action itself
- An action is right if it promotes the best consequences
- An ethical decision should maximise benefits to society and minimise harm
- What matters is the net balance of good consequences over bad for society overall
Key principle:
- Evaluate the balance of good vs harm produced by an action to determine its ethical value
Application:
- Utilitarianism is the dominant consequentialist theory
Types of Consequentialism:
Act consequentialism:
- Each individual act is based on its specific consequences
- Example: deciding to tell a lie if it will result in overall happiness
Rule Consequentialism:
- Rules are established based on their general consequences, and adherence to these rules determines morality
- Example: Always telling the truth because the rule produces better long-term societal outcomes
Strengths and Criticisms of Consequentialism:
Strenghs:
1. Outcome-focused: provides a clear, results-oriented framework for decision-making
2. Flexible: Adapts to different situations by focusing on actual consequences rather than rigid rules
3. Socially inclusive: Considers the impact of all stakeholers, encouraging a collective perspective
Criticisms:
1. Predictive Challenges:
- Difficult to foresee all consequences of an action
- Example: A short-term benefit might lead to long-term harm
2. Subjectivity:
- Deciding what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’ can vary between individuals or cultures
3. Overlooks individual rights:
- Consequentialism may justify harm to a minority if it benefits the majority
- Example: sacrificing individual freedoms for collective gains
4. Ignores intentions:
- Focuses only on outcomes, neglecting the motivations or intentions behind actions.
Consequentialism in Marketing
- Ethical product design: Companies should develop products that benefit the most consumers, even if it increases production costs
- Advertising: Ensure campaigns are truthful and lead to positive societal outcomes
- CSR initatives: Prioritise programmes that create widespread benefits, such as reducing environmental impacts or supporting community well-being
Consequentialism vs Utilitarianism
Consequentialism:
- A broad ethical framework that evaluates based on their outcomes, regardless of the specific nature of the ‘good’ achieved
- The concept of ‘good’ is not predefined - it could encompass various outcomes such as financial gain, safety, or preventing harm
Utilitarianism:
- A specific form of consequentialism that defines ‘goods’ as the maximisation of happiness and well-being
- Actions are deemed ethical if they promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people while minimising harm
Utilitarianism
Core concepts:
- Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their outcomes
- The greatest good for the greatest number’ (Jeremy Bentham, 1789)
- Determined by the net balance of benefits (pleasure) over harms (pain) for society as a whole
- Actions are ethical if they maximise overall happiness or well-being and minimise suffering
Key thinkers:
1. Jeremy Bentham:
- Developed the idea of the ‘utility principle’
- Advocated a quantitative approach to ethics, where the amount of pleasure or pain generated by actions can be measured
2. John Stuart Mill:
- Built on Bentham’s ideas but introduced a qualitative distinction between higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures
- Believed some pleasures (e.g., intellectual, moral) are inherently more valuable than others
Strengths of Utilitarianism
- Clear framework: Provides a structured, outcome-focussed way to evaluate decisions
- Social focus: Emphasises the collective welfare of society over individual self-interest
- Practical and flexible: Allows for contextual decision-making based on measurable outcomes
- Applicable across industries: Marketing decisions (e.g., ethical advertising, product safety) can be guided by the utilitarian principle of maximising benefits for consumers
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
- Subjectivity in assessing outcomes:
- How do you measure happiness or well-being?
- Whose perspective is prioritised in calculating benefits and harms? - Neglect of minority groups
- By focusing on the majority, utilitarianism can ignore the rights or needs of smaller groups
- Example: A policy benefiting 90% of consumers might harm the remaining 10% - Difficulty in prediction:
- It is often impossible to accurately predict all the consequences of a decision - Oversimplification:
- Reduces complex ethical dilemmas to a simple cost-benefit calculation - Conflict with moral rights: Utilitarianism may justify unethical actions if they result in a greater good. Example: lying to customers could be seen as acceptable if it benefits the majority
Utilitarianism in Marketing
Ethical advertising:
- Marketing campaigns should promote truthful information to benefit the majority of consumers
Product safety:
- Companies should prioritise consumer health and safety over cost savings
- Example: Recall defective products to minimise harm, even if financially costly
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
- CSR initiatives are often guided by utilitarian principles to benefit society at large, such as reducing carbon footprints or supporting local communities.
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
- Citizens voluntarily participate and give up certain freedoms for societal benefits
Key thinker: - John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971).
- Ethical actions ensure:
1. Basic freedoms are realized equally for everyone.
2. The least advantaged are better off than they would be without the decision.
- Criticisms:
- Assumes universal agreement, which may not exist in practice.
- Abstract and impractical for real-world decision-making.
Criticisms of these Western theories
- Abstract/theoretical/impractical – doesn’t help with decisions ‘in
practice’ - Narrow. Each focusing on one element
- Elitist – are the only people who can pronounce what is right and
wrong, the people who understand these theories? - Impersonal – assume individuals are islands – ignores our
relationships - Imperialist – can we claim these Western theories are relevant
everywhere?
Virtue ethics
- Looks to the character/integrity of the
decision maker, rather than the act - Origins of theory lie in the work of Aristotle
- Which traits are virtuous are up for debate
- Virtuous traits are acquired through
learning and our relationships with others - To be virtuous, need to display habitual
patterns, not just one off behaviours
Virtues and Character:
- Concerned with answering the question of how to live a
good life, or how to be a good person
- In business context, looks not only at whether successful
but how this success is achieved
- In virtue ethics, one’s character may be defined by a
relevant moral community, a community that holds you to
the highest ethical standards.
- It’s important to think about the community or
communities the decision maker operates within
Ethics of care
Carol Gilligan developed the Ethics of Care in 1982
Before the development of Gilligan’s work all studies and ethical theories had been developed based on research and data given by the male gender. In fact, when in an experiment it tried to rate how ethical a person was according to relevant ethical theories, girls scored substancially lower than boys because the previous ethical principles had never considered how girls make ethical decisions.
According to Carol’s ethics of care, the female gender and those who identify with more feminine traits, often view ethical decision making not as a rational mathematical equations that needs to be solved but as a serious of different relationships and interactions.
For example, when in an experiment boys were asked if a husband should steal medication for his wife who had cancer as he could not afford it the majority of boys agreed that he should steal it as the moral cost of stealing was lower than the moral cost of death. However, when girls were asked whether the husband should steal to save his wife’s life they had a very different approach. They answered that the husband should try and raise money or work longer hours to obtain the medication. When pressed further on why he should do this and not steal they stated concerns about the wife having the medication but then the husband going to jail for stealing and further concerns about the wife getting sick again but not being able to have any support because her husband is in jail.
Gilligan believes that ethics needs to consider the relations, interdependence and emotions alongside rationality.
More infor:
- We are not individual moral agents, guided by reason
- Considers role of emotion as well as rationality
- Moral problems arise from conflicts of responsibilities rather than conflicts of rights
- Caring relationships and the associated responsibilites inform how we analyse and resolve ethical dilemmas
- A feminist theory of ethics but an approach for all
- Focus is on maintaining healthy relationships and avoiding harm
Ethics of care states that we need to acknowledge:
- We have an emotional commitment and willingness to act on behalf of persons with whom one has a significant relationship
◦We are not autonomous with free choice and equal positions of power:
◦We are bound by circumstance, relations and position;
◦We have restricted information and
choices;
◦We are in positions of unequal power
According to ethics of care:
- The intention of caring for someone is not enough it must be executed well. For example, if a classroom needs a mathematics teacher and the school hires a new mathematics teacher for the class this is not sufficient if the teacher does not teach the class anything and instead goes on her mobile device. Unlike universal ethical principles, ethics of care stresses that ethical decisions are context-specific.The right action depends on the specific details of the situation and the relationships involved.
- She also states the importance of caring for people such as the elderly and sick.
Challenges and critiques of the ethic of care
- Oversimplified Gender Perspective:
- Care ethics theory often portrays a reductive and misleading view of women’s ethical decision-making.
- Limited Applicability:
- May not resonate with all socio-economic and ethnic groups.
- Overemphasis on maternal care can restrict its relevance to other ethical contexts.
- It has been criticized for being too narrowly focused on personal, close relationships (e.g., family and friends) and neglecting broader societal or global issues.
Critics say it is less applicable to large-scale dilemmas like climate change, systemic inequality, or international conflicts.
- Gender Stereotypes:
- Encourages unhelpful stereotypes by categorizing ethics into “masculine” (rational) and “feminine” (emotional) perspectives.
- Reinforces traditional, hierarchical gender roles, which are particularly problematic in business settings.
- Paternalistic Relationships:
- Depicts care as unequal and unidirectional, where the powerful care for the less powerful without consulting them.
- This fosters paternalistic/maternalistic approaches in stakeholder management, legitimizing authority relationships.
The value of care ethics
The value of care ethics
- Relevance in Social and Business Settings:
- Care ethics is valuable in environments where relationships and individual contributions are central, such as:
- Family businesses.
- Small businesses.
- Team-based work environments.
- Care ethics is valuable in environments where relationships and individual contributions are central, such as:
- Inclusive Approach:
- Care ethics should not be seen as uniquely female; it reflects the ethical inclinations of people across genders.
Checkpoints for business:
1. Amplifying Unheard Voices:
- Consider whose perspectives are excluded because they are not expressed in conventional “business language.”
2. Empowering Marginalized Groups:
- Introducing care ethics can give a platform to individuals whose voices might otherwise go unnoticed, offering a more inclusive and humane approach to decision-making.
Ubuntu ethics
Ubuntu:
An indigenous philosophy from southern sub-Saharan Africa emphasizing human interconnectedness.
- Key Phrase: “Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu” – “A person is a person through other persons.”
- Personhood is achieved through relationships, community, and mutual recognition.
Key Principles:
- Humaneness:
- Embodies a spirit of caring, community, harmony, hospitality, respect, and responsiveness.
- Interdependence:
- Individuals and the environment coexist through mutual reliance and co-agency.
- Rooted deeply in African history, folklore, and values, Ubuntu rejects isolation in favor of collective identity.
- Belonging to the Community:
- You are not just your family’s child but part of the community.
- Deviating from societal expectations can result in the loss of personhood.
Cultural Importance:
- Emerged as a response to colonialism, offering an African perspective and ways of knowing.
- Recognized as deeply embedded in Bantu traditions, varying across languages and communities.
Relationships with others in ubuntu ethics:
Relationships are reciprocal not instrumental. Treat others as your brother/sister individual predicated on belonging to collective. “I belong, therefore I am”
Stages in ethical decision-making (Jones, 1991)
- Recognise moral issues
- Make moral judegement (normative views)
- Establish moral intent
- Engage in moral behaviour
Example of deontology in Marketing
According to the AMA’s (American Marketing Association’s) codes of ethics (2021)
Marketing should
1. Do No Harm: Avoid causing harm; follow laws and act with integrity.
2. Foster Trust: Build confidence through fairness, transparency, and accountability.
3. Embrace Ethical Values: Uphold six key values:
- Honesty: Be truthful.
- Responsibility: Accept consequences of actions.
- Fairness: Ensure equity in practices.
- Respect: Recognize rights and dignity of stakeholders.
- Transparency: Disclose relevant information openly.
- Citizenship: Fulfill social and environmental responsibilities.
These laws are examples of deontology ethics applied in marketing as they do not depend on contexts or outcomes but on a rule-based determination of what is right or wrong based on rules and regulations.
Another example of deontological ethics in marketing is the case shared by Alison from Cotton Collect, where she faced a moral dilemma about whether to partner with a tobacco company. At the time, her business was experiencing lower profits, and the partnership presented a financial opportunity. Her company was committed to ensuring that its production chains operated ethically, responsibly, and in an environmentally friendly manner. The tobacco company sought her firm’s expertise to improve the sustainability of their supply chain. However, Alison decided against the partnership because, from a deontological perspective, she believed that the production and marketing of tobacco products were inherently unethical. Even though helping the tobacco company could have led to a more sustainable supply chain, benefiting many people, Alison felt it was morally wrong to contribute to an industry that promoted smoking. Her decision illustrates the principles of deontology, where moral actions are guided by rules and duties rather than potential outcomes.
