Day 1 session 4 Ethical Theories

Session 4

THEORIES OF ETHICS

CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

Normative theories propose some principles for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions.

Consequentialist and Non- consequentialist

2 most important consequentialist theories are:

Egoism Utilitarianism

CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

According to them, the moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its results. If the results are good, the act is good. They determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. The right act is the one that produces (or will probably produce) at least as great a ratio of good to evil as any other course of action open to the agent.

CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES

The question here is consequences for whom?

Egoism and Utilitarianism differ on the answer to the question.

Egoism: individual self interest

Utilitarianism: one must take into account everyone affected by the action

1. EGOISM Egoism can be of an individual or an institution/ company.

Two types of egoism: personal and impersonal:

personal egoists claim that they should pursue their own self interests, but they don’t say anything about what others should do.

The impersonal egoists hold that everyone has to act for one’s own self interest.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT EGOISM

Egoists do only what they like: “let us eat, drink, make merry”. Not so.

Undergoing unpleasant and painful experiences also is part of egoism provided they yield good results.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT EGOISM

All egoists endorse hedonism (pleasure or happiness is the only thing that is good in itself). Some do, like Epicurus (341-270 BCE).

Others think in a broader way, as to what constitutes self-interest: knowledge, power, “self-actualization”. They may hold any theory of what is good.

Egoist cannot act honestly, be gracious or helpful (this too is a myth).

Relate this with business/public world

PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM

Egoism says that we don’t have any moral duty to assist others. The only moral obligation is to ourselves.

We should work for others if that is the best way to promote our self interest.

Egoists believe that human beings are by nature selfish creatures, so we have to act selfishly, according to that nature. They say that truly unselfish acts are impossible. This is called psychological egoism.

EGOISM: CRITIQUE a. It is not a sound theory, because it is our experience that people can act without self interest.

Eg: a man who helps a baby from a burning car, disregarding his safety.

CRITIQUE b. Ethical egoism is not a moral theory at all

In some cases to act with self interest necessarily involves cheating others, and in that case this cannot be a moral theory at all

Eg: taxi in Mubai – takes the long route

Greece experience

EGOISM: CRITIQUE

c. Ethical egoism condones blatant wrongs

it promotes sometimes actions that are blatantly immoral: deception, theft and even murder.

2. UTILITARIANISM Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and J. S. Mill (1806-1873) were important early Utilitarians. These had very strong interest in legal and social reform. So utilitarianism has long been associated with social improvement.

UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism maintains that the morally right action is the one that provides the most happiness for all those affected. After assessing as best we can, the likely results of each action, not just in the short term, but in the long run as well, we are to choose the course of conduct that brings about the greatest net happiness.

The interests of the community are simply the sum of the interests of its members.

CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM

1.It does not really work

because it is impossible to know the likely results of alternative courses of action.

Secondly, to compare your level of happiness or unhappiness to others’ is at best tricky and at worst impossible.

CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM

2.Are some actions wrong even if they produce good?

A dying woman entrusts you with her $25000 to hand over to her nephew, and she dies. You alone know about this promise of yours to the woman and of the money.

You know that the nephew is a spendthrift and he will waste the money.

And you know an orphanage that needs this amount to increase their recreation facilities. In comparison, far greater good is produced by giving the money to the orphanage, but is it morally right?

CRITIQUE

Are some actions wrong even if they produce good? We can judge it

morally wrong, but Utilitarians won’t agree with that.

CRITIQUE OF UTILITARIANISM In organizational context, Utilitarianism provides an objective way to resolve conflicts of self interest

Encourages a realistic and result oriented approach to moral decision making.

CRITIQUE … But critics contend that: (1) Utilitarianism is not really workable. We don’t know often what are the likely results of alternative courses of action

(2) some actions are wrong even if they produce good results.

CRITIQUE…

(3) it incorrectly overlooks considerations of justice and the distribution of happiness. It may require to sacrifice the happiness of some people, to achieve the greatest overall amount of happiness

NONCONSEQUENTIALIST (DEONTOLOGICAL) THEORIES

They hold that along with results of an action other factors are also to be taken into account. The inherent

nature of the act is an important point to determine if it is right or wrong.

NON-CONSEQUENTIALISM Non-consequentialists do not deny that consequences are important, but other factors are also considered.

Eg: Kevin broke his promise to Cindy. That is wrong, not just because it has bad results (Cindy’s hurt feelings, Kevin’s damaged reputation), but because of the inherent character of the act itself.

NON-CONSEQUENTIALISM Even if more good from the act comes from the breaking, non-consequentialist might see it as still wrong.

What matters is the nature of the act in question.

1. EMMANUEL KANT’S ETHICS A purely non-consequentialist theory. Kant believed that:

1. Moral reasoning is not based on factual knowledge

2. The results of our actions do not determine whether they are right or wrong.

3. Only when we act from duty does our action have moral worth.

4. Good will is the only thing that is good in itself.

KANT’S ETHICS Kant’s categorical imperative says that we should always act in such a way that we can will the maxim of our action to become a universal law.

So, for Kant, an action is right only if we can will it as a universal law of conduct.

Maxim = objective principle of an action

KANT’S ETHICS Eg: A person makes a promise with an intention to break it. Then it cannot be regarded as a universal law.

Kant believed that the categorical imperative is binding on all rational creatures regardless of their specific goals or desires and regardless of the consequences.

KANT’S ETHICS: CRITIQUE Positive aspects: Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results

It injects a humanistic element into moral decision making

It stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty.

KANT’S ETHICS: DRAWBACKS Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive (absolute universalizable principles)

Categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong (eg: “do not steal except while starving – a qualified principle also can be made universal. Then what is the relevance of speaking about unqualified universalizable principles?)

KANT’S ETHICS: DRAWBACKS Distinguishing between treating people as means and

respecting them as ends may be difficult in practice (e.g.: prostitution is wrong because they sell themselves as a means to get money.

Counter argument: But an employee hired by the employer sells their expertise for money. Is that too morally wrong?

If we say that we agree to work, the same argument can be put forward in the case of prostitute too.

3. PRIMA FACIE OBLIGATIONS (W.D.ROSS) Ross rejected utilitarianism as well as Kant.

Moral obligations depend on different kinds of relationships human have. Mother, wife, daughter, lover, neighbor, citizen, human being, etc.

One obligation or promise may be broken for a higher or more important obligation.

This is pluralistic ethical perspective.

PRIMA FACIE OBLIGATIONS (W.D.ROSS) Non-utilitarian philosophers think that we have a stronger obligation to respect people’s rights and to avoid injuring them than we do to promote their happiness.

3. HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED ETHICS A right is an entitlement to act or have others act in a certain way.

The connection between rights and duties is that, if you have a right to do something, then someone else has a correlative duty to act in a certain way.

HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED ETHICS Characteristics

Human Rights

Universal

EqualNon

transferable

Natural

2 CATEGORIES OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human Rights

Negative

Speech, assembly,

religion, etc

Positive

Certain Goods, services,

opportunities, etc

HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED ETHICS In an organizational context non-consequentialism (in its non-Kantian forms) stresses various moral considerations are to be weighed and compared.

While emphasizing the importance of respecting moral rights it acknowledges that morality has limits and that organizations have legitimate goals to pursue.

HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED ETHICS

Critics question: (1) whether non-consequentialist principles are adequately justified

(2) whether Non-consequentialism can satisfactorily handle conflicting rights and principles.

4. VIRTUE ETHICS Based on character of a person

Ethics not evaluated based on individual acts

Human person adequately considered.