• Teleological Frameworks (aim,end)

• Ethical Egoism
• Utilitarianism
• Sidgwick’s Dualism

• Deontological Frameworks (duty, obligation)

• Existentialism
• Contractarianism (Rawls Justice Theory)
• Kantian Ethics

• Mixed Frameworks
• Intuitionism and Agapism
• Divine Command Theory
• Ethical Frameworks and Discipline
• The Administrative Point of View
• From Thought to Action
Ethics and Decision Making
• One view is situational (perception)- seek out the facts of the case and rely upon gut feeling or
inspiration as the test of right or wrong
• Second view is that the test of right or wrong should come from some sort of community
consensus. According to this view there are certain ethical generalizations- stemming from
something like convention or received wisdom
• Third view, rejects both above views of perception and convention.
• Holds that there are certain basic frameworks or principles from which these other tests derive
their validity
• Perception is unstable and convention is no more than cultural bias.
• Corporate manager needs to be more critical than either gut feelings or accepted norms permit.
• A set of “steering principles is needed to help decide when feelings and norms are themselves to
be challenged
 Ethical Egoism
 Ethical egoism (Thomas Hobbes) is the radical idea that the principle of self-
interest accounts for all of one’s moral obligations.
 According to ethical egoism, however, we have no duties to others; in fact,
each person ought to pursue his or her own selfish interests exclusively.
 Sometimes one’s interests may happen to coincide with the interests of others
—in that by helping oneself, one will coincidentally help them, too.
• The benefit to others is not what makes an action
right, however. An action is right only insofar as it is
to one’s own ‘advantage.’
 Ayn Rand’s Argument
Ethical egoism is associated with Ayn Rand (1905-1982) more than with any
other 20th century writer.
 Altruism, according to Rand, leads to a denial of the value of the individual
(and his projects and goods).
o “If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to
live his life, but how to sacrifice it.”
 Ayn Rand’s Argument
The argument is that since:
o each person has one life to live, AND
o altruism rejects the value of the individual, WHEREAS
o ethical egoism views the individual’s life as having supreme
value,
\ then ethical egoism is the moral
philosophy we ought to accept.
Psychological Egoism- Is altruism
possible?
• Though few of us have saved lives, acts of altruism appear to be common.
 People do favors for one another.
 They give blood.
 They build homeless shelters.
 They volunteer in hospitals.

• In reality, we only care for ourselves.

• The life you can save (video)
 Compatible with Commonsense Morality
 Ethical egoism claims that all our commonsense moral views regarding
duties are ultimately derived from the one fundamental principle of
self-interest.
• It is to our own advantage to avoid harming others. Otherwise, they might harm
us.
• It is to our own advantage to be truthful. Otherwise, others may be dishonest to
us.
• It is to our own advantage to keep our promises.
Otherwise, others may break their promises to us.
 Utilitarinism
• Main Proponents: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
• “The ends justify the means.” “All’s well that ends well.”
Basic Tenets:
• The moral worth of an action is to be judged by its consequences or utility;
intentions do not matter.
• Utilitarianism: The act which is “right” is the one that provides for the
greatest good for the greatest number—the maximization of pleasure and
the minimization of pain.
• The Life boat case (Video)
• The Trolley Problem (Video)
 Sidgwick’s Dualism
• Ethical egoism and utilitarianism- “cost-benefit” orientation and commitment to a
single basic formula for testing rules and decisions
• Differ over their beneficiary- self or others
• Sidgwick- conflict between the two principles was a threat to the viability of reason
in ethics
• The task of the moral reflection was the task of discerning how consideration for
others and consideration for self were in the end reconcilable.
• Eg. Proponents of strong Govt. call to regulate the private sector (utilitarianism).
They claim competition forces corporations to ignore social and ecological
externalities in a way that does not maximise utility
• Those who demand less Govt regulation defend commitment to profit maximization
and competitive advantage (ethical egoism) and social virtues of the market system
(utilitarianism) and the invisible hand that will reconcile the two (Sidgwick’s dualism)
 Existentialism
• Main Proponent- Jean Paul Sarte
• The main Idea is that the final arbiter of right and wrong is the free
will of the decision maker involved
• Challenges the teleological approach- it is not the beneficial or
harmful results of the action that are key to their morality but rather
the purity of their motives or authencity
• Jean Paul Sarte and the Existential choice (Video)
• The Harm’s principle (Video)
 Contractarianism
• Main Proponent- John Rawls
• The intuitive idea behind the contractarianism framework is fairness
• Decision making guided by principles anyone and everyone would agree with
• Rawls argues that persons in such situation would choose two different principles
• Equality in the assignment of basic right and duties
• Social and economic inequities, for example inequities of wealth and authority, are just only
if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least
advantaged members of the society.
• Rules out comparison with utilitarianism- “hardships of some are offset by greater
good in aggregate”
• It is the fairness of society’s norms not their tendency to maximise utility that gives
them ethical force
 Kantian Ethics
• At the centre of Kantian Framework are two concepts
• Free will of the rational decision maker
• And the need for universalizing that will
• Both existentialists and contractarians point to Kant as inspiration
• Exentialists for free will and
• Contractarians to his idea of community to which the will is in some sense
subject
• Kant’s formulates his principles in two ways
• Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law
• Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of
another, always as an end and never as a means only
Intuitionism and Agapism
• Main Proponent- W D Ross
• Prima facie obligation
• Technical modifier is intended to mark an important distinction
• Eg.: Sometimes right to tell a lie or break a promise
• Difference between prima facie duty and actual or absolute duty
• List of prima facie duty or obligation
• One ought to keep explicit and implicit promises
• One ought to make reparation for previous wrongful acts
• One ought to show gratitude for services done for one by others
• One ought to see the just distribution of goods
• One ought to do what can to improve the lot of others
• One ought to improve ones condition in respect of virtue and intelligence
• One ought not to injure other people
• All duties can be reduced to two- principle of utility and contractarian principle of justice
• If utility and justice conflict, appeal is made to something like intuition or perception
• Kants Axe- Video
• Agapism
• Framework centres on “love thy neighbour as thyself” or perhaphs be
humanistic
• The ethics of agapism resembles intuitionism because it can be held to
incorporate any number of prima facie duties
• Difference one is rational and the other emotional
Divine Command Theory
• For this framework the test for right or wrong is the will of God
expressed either through nature or through revelation
• Duties or commandments associated with it are universally held
• Attributes of benevolence, justice and mercy
• Implies that actions and norms get their legitimacy from divine will
• Intitutionism and Agapism rely on intellectual and emotional faculties
for identifying and weighing moral considerations while the divine
command framework seeks this wisdom from a spiritual source
Ethical Frameworks and Discipline
• Two ways philosophers have tried to avoid arbitrariness in ethical reasoning
• First, is through the content of a single principle or set of principles explicitly defining
an ethical framework. Even though the criteria for applying such principles may not be
completely objective, they offer a touchstone for consistency
• Second way to avoid arbitrariness is through the process of weighing provisional
principles that may congruently apply to a given decision making situation.
• The second approach appears essential in connection with mixed frameworks since it
relies upon some form of weighing process (intellectual, emotional or spiritual) and
each at the same time claim some measure of objectivity or interpersonal validity.
• Because feelings and sentiments can differ widely not only between persons but also
from one time to another in the life of a single person this approach involves setting
out not a formula or a principle but a discipline for achieving sound ethical judgements
• Certain generic characterists of discipline are
• Delayed gratification or repression- not acting on impulse
• Acceptance of responsibility or freedom- not denying ones options
• Loyalty to evidence and truth- conforming ones belief to facts
• Balance or flexibility- willingness to avoid excessive rigidity to discipline itself
The Administrative Point of View
• F J Roethlisberger- Harvard Business School
• “it is the headache of any person in a position of responsibility for the
performance of others who is trying to affect a change in the system of which he
is an involved memberand who will be affected by the changes he is trying to
introduce. Taking action from this position and in this context constitutes for me
the administrative point of view and it involves- not just sometimes but always-
persons and their relations to one another. So for me the headache is not just the
human problem of administration: it is the problem of administration. Period!”
• Characterised administrative point of view as the challenge of relating two
powerful but seemingly inconsistent ways of thinking about organizations- one
abstract, objective, and purposive and other concrete, subjective and relational.
From Thought to Action
• Dominant polarity between teleological and deontological styles of
thinking about morality and ethics
• One driven by impersonal way of looking at right or wrong- take
measure of goods (utilities) and maximise
• The other seems to involve a more personal participative vision- be
true to freedom and dignity
• Something less dominant polarities emerge between individual and
social (dualism of Sidgwick and Kant); intellectual and emotional
(institution Vs Agapism) and natural and transcendent (divine
command theory)
Towards Action
• Ethical theories do not offer a mechanical decision procedure for
solving ethical problems but do point in practical directions
• They suggest certain steps that might be taken in addressing the
ethical aspects of decision making applicable not only at personal
level, but organizational level and systemic levels as well
• First Step- Understand the facts surrounding the decision at hand. What has
led up to the decision and what are the main options and their likely
consequences? Who are the stakeholders and what is my (my organizations)
relationship to each?
• Second Step- identify the moral issues using the normative frameworks that
apply, paying attention to the dominant polarity between teleological and
deontological thinking. What are the costs and benefits to the stakeholders
for each option available? What are the implications as far as freedom and
fairness are concerned? Am I (is my organization) letting the “end justify the
means” in this situation?
• Third Step- reach for synthesis both within the dominant poles (eg.,
between self and others) and between them (eg., looking at mixed
frameworks). Is there coherent options that incorporates the several moral
interpretations of my (my organizations) responsibility?
• Fourth Step- weigh conflicting moral consideration that may remain,
attending to the importance of discipline in the weighing process. Am
I (is my organization) sufficiently dispassionate, accepting
responsibility, honest about the evidence and willing to “let go” of
whatever might hinder a truly balanced perspective?
• Finally, Fifth Step- is to be open to insight about ourselves, our
organizations and the nature of the issue before us. Ethical conflicts in
business as in other arenas are typically more than problems to be
solved; they are also, and as importantly, opportunities for growth.