Downloaded 129 times
- 1 / 151
- 2 / 151
Most read - 3 / 151
Most read - 4 / 151
- 5 / 151
Most read - 6 / 151
- 7 / 151
- 8 / 151
- 9 / 151
- 10 / 151
- 11 / 151
- 12 / 151
- 13 / 151
- 14 / 151
- 15 / 151
- 16 / 151
- 17 / 151
- 18 / 151
- 19 / 151
- 20 / 151
![BUSINESS ETHICS unedited version
42
42
Can this be universalized? Kant says no because making promises then becomes, in essence,
contradictory. The thinking is that a promise is, by definition, something you keep. The above maxim would
lead to a contradiction of will, i.e., I'll make a promise (something I keep), but I'll break it if I choose. The
more general way to understand the Principle of Universalizability is to think that we must always ask the
following questions: What if everyone did the action you are proposing? Or, what if I were in the other
person's position? This leads to the basic idea behind the Golden Rule.
Kant had another way of formulating the Categorical Imperative that is worth noting.
Never treat anyone merely as a means to an end. Rather, treat everyone as an end in themselves.
We can understand this by noting an example, i.e., the slave society. What is wrong with the slave society,
following the above principle, is that a slave is treated as a means to the slave owner's ends, i.e., as an
instrument or tool, not as a person. The upshot is that no person's interests (or rights) can be overridden by
another's, or the majority.
Many think that this way of formulating the Categorical Imperative shows that Kantianism is clearly anti-
Utilitarian.
rmmakaha@gmail.com
Some things to ask about Kantianism:
• Is it true that having good intentions is the only thing that counts morally?
• Must we always ignore good consequences?
• Is it always wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end? (Can we do otherwise?)
(9) Rights-based Theories
We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we possess simply by being human.
Rights-based views are connected to Kantianism and are Non-consequentialist. The basic idea is that if
someone has a right, then others have a corresponding duty to provide what the right requires.
Most distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is one in which the corresponding
duty requires a positive action, e.g., giving a charitable donation in order to sustain someone's right to life,
shelter, education, etc. A negative right is one in which the corresponding duty merely requires refraining
from doing something that will harm someone. Some claim -- e.g., Libertarians -- that only negative rights
count morally. For instance, the right to life does not require that we give what is needed to sustain life,
rather merely that we refrain from taking any action that would take life. [Note: others argue that there is
really no significant distinction between positive and negative rights, arguing that a positive right can be
understood negatively, and visa versa. Also, that there is no morally significant difference between, for
example, letting someone die and killing them. Obviously, this is a hotly disputed issue.]
Some things to ask about Rights-based theories:
• Where do rights come from? From nature (we have them simply by being human)? From
principles of Justice? Or, from Utilitarian procedures?
• How do we decide between competing rights?
(10) Contractarianism
The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which everyone in society would agree upon in
forming a social contract.](/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fbusinessethicsrevised-141110004001-conversion-gate01%2F85%2FBUSINESS-ETHICS-43-320.jpg)
![BUSINESS ETHICS unedited version
43
43
Various forms of Contractarianism have been suggested. In general, the idea is that the principles or rules
that determine right and wrong in society are determined by a hypothetical contract forming
procedure. Here is John Rawls's example.
Through a thought experiment, Rawls developed a way of getting people to come up with universal
principles of justice. The basic idea is nothing new -- i.e., of impartial developing a social contract
of universal principles -- but many find Rawls' novel method very appealing. The idea is to start by thinking,
hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of forming a society and we want to know which principles of
justice to ground the society. However, in this 'original position' we do this without knowing which position
we will occupy in the future society -- we don't know if we will be rich or poor, male or female, old or young,
etc. We then advocate those principles that will be in our self-interest (though we don't know what 'self'
that will be). This forces us to be impartial, and if we are rational, to propose universal principles. The idea
of the thought experiment is not to think that we actually begin again, and construct a society from
scratch. Rather, we can use the thought experiment as a test of actual principles of justice. If a principle is
one that would not be adopted by people in the original position, behind the 'veil of ignorance' (about
who they will be), then it is unjust and should be rejected.
[Rawls claims that people in this original position will choose conservatively when developing principles
governing the distribution of benefits and burdens. This conservatism, Rawls claims, will lead to the
choosing two basic principles: (1) that each member of the society should have as much liberty as possible
without infringing on the liberty of others; and (2) the 'maximin' rule for decisions about economic justice --
namely, that they will choose those rules that would maximize the minimum they would receive. In other
words, make the society in which the least well off are in the best possible position. Deviations from equality
of distribution of benefits and burdens is justified only if it advantages the least well off. Rawls thought that
some inequalities would be adopted because rewarding on the grounds of merit and hard work, for
example, would lead to a society in which there was a greater production of social benefits, so the least
well of would be better off than in a society of pure equality.]
3.1.6 Leadership, Power and Integrity
ETHICAL LIMITATIONS AND DANGERS OF MANAGERIAL ROLES
There are various stances people may take in relation to their values then different people may have
different potential strengths and weaknesses in their approach to ethical issues in organizations. Managers
can take one of five positions in their approach to ethical issues at workplace. i.e. prophets, subjectivists,
rhetoricians, quietists and balancers
(1). Prophets want to act on the world, or at least their organization, without the constraint of comment or
caution from others. They are unwilling to debate. Their monocular ethical vision means they may do
great harm if their vision happens to be wrong or bad. They do not pay attention to questioning voices.
They are positive prophets who have a particular prescription for how things should be changed and
people developed. They require disciples who will ‘buy into’ the particular values and principles they offer.
(2). Subjectivists are doubters. They are the opposite of the prophets who doubt little. Questioning the way
things are done shows engagement with the world, but is beset with anxieties as the ground of their
questioning constantly shifts. The ethical limitation of the subjectivists is that they do not believe in the
existence of objective ethical standards and think everyone has to make their own choices while
recognizing that individuals' own choices implicitly impose expectations on others. They suffer an instability
caused by the collective implications of their individualism.
(3). Rhetoricians: These managers enjoy debates in which some win and others lose. The point for them is
not to be right, but to win. They create facades of performance metrics and annual reports that are
required to keep top management content. Such material will be provided by managers despite their
doubts about their worth.
rmmakaha@gmail.com](/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fbusinessethicsrevised-141110004001-conversion-gate01%2F85%2FBUSINESS-ETHICS-44-320.jpg)
![BUSINESS ETHICS unedited version
67
67
The law is a guide to managerial decisions and actions, but it is not enough. And certainly, the absence of
a law is not enough to excuse some of those decisions and actions.
rmmakaha@gmail.com
3.3.3 Ethical Analysis
Philosophic analysis, based on rational thought processes. The view is that a manager should always act in
accordance with either a single principle of behavior or a single statement of belief that is right and
proper and just in and by itself.This is moral reasoning: logically working from a first principle through to a
decision on the duties we owe to others.
Philosophy is the study of thought and conduct. Normative philosophy is the study of proper thought and
conduct; that is, how we should behave.
Morality refers to the standards of behavior by which people are judged, and particularly to the standards
of behavior by which people are judged in their relationships with others. Ethics, on the other hand,
encompasses the system of beliefs that supports a particular view of morality. The difference between
morality and ethics is easy to remember if one speaks of moral standards of behavior and ethical systems
of belief.
Ethical Relativism - Are there objective universal principles upon which one can construct an ethical system
of belief that is applicable to all groups in all cultures at all times? Fortunately there is one principle that
does seem to exist across all groups, cultures, and times and that does form part of every ethical system;
that is the belief that members of a group do bear some form of responsibility for the well-being of other
members of that group.
Definitions and Concepts for Ethical Analysis
Definitions
[Many discussions of ethics and ethical issues founder on disagreements about definitions. Ethics is unique
among disciplines in that practitioners often cannot agree on a common definition of their topic. Ethics
Scoreboard can't solve that problem, which is many centuries old. Here it attempts to put forth definitions
that explain what words mean when they are used on this website.]
Values: Those qualities of behavior, thought, and character that society regards as being intrinsically good,
having desirable results, and worthy of emulation by others.
Morals: Modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good.
Morality: A system of determining right and wrong that is established by some authority, such as a church,
an organization, a society, or a government.
Ethics: The process of determining right and wrong conduct.
Ethical System: A specific formula for distinguishing right from wrong.
Unethical: An action or conduct which violates the principles of one or more ethical systems, or which is
counter to an accepted ethical value, such as honesty.
Non-ethical considerations: Powerful human motivations that are not based on right or wrong, but on
considerations of survival and well-being, such as health, security, love, wealth, or self-esteem.
Concepts](/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2Fbusinessethicsrevised-141110004001-conversion-gate01%2F85%2FBUSINESS-ETHICS-68-320.jpg)
Skip to main content
Uploaded byMakaha Rutendo
BUSINESS ETHICS
The document outlines a curriculum for a business ethics course aimed at providing students with essential understanding and skills related to ethical issues in business. It covers the objectives of the course, the significance of business ethics, its development, and the principles of admirable business ethics. Additionally, it highlights the benefits of practicing ethics in business and the relevance of ethical considerations in the increasingly globalized economy.
![Business ethics module_1[1]](/proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.slidesharecdn.com%2Fss_thumbnails%2Fbusinessethicsmodule11-130228085400-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26height%3D640%26fit%3Dbounds)
