CHAPTER TWO

THEORIES OF ETHICS

Ethical issues are better explained from a theoretical perspective than from a layman

point of view. This chapter addresses the various ethical theories and how they

facilitate our understanding of business ethics and the implications of manager’s

decisions. At the end of this chapter, students should be able to:

 Identify the various ethical theories discussed in the chapter

 Differentiate between teleological and deontological theories of morality

 Explain the utilitarian theory of ethics with focus on act and rule utilitarianism

 Explain the different types of teleological theories

 Explain Kantian theory of ethics with focus on universalizing maxim and

persons as ends

Introduction

Throughout the history of philosophy, thinkers have addressed the question of what

makes an act moral or immoral. In this context, the terms “moral” and “ethical” will

be used interchangeably. Ethical decisions are usually viewed from a theoretical

perspective. Thus, a manager’s decision to terminate an individual’s employment may

be justified using the utilitarian theory. This chapter addresses theoretical issues as

they relate to ethics in business.

Is there a single view of right or wrong? These questions can be complex, since there

is no single view in general ethics of what makes something right or wrong. People or

businessmen/women give explanations or reasons to explain their decisions and

behaviours and this is expressed in ethical criteria normally grounded in ethical

theories (Victor & Cullen, 1988). The theory-based criteria contain information about

the recommended action and about the reasons for that recommendation. These

criteria comprise the logic for action, "the underlying assumptions, deeply held, often

unexamined, which form a framework within which reasoning takes place" (Horn,

1983). Broadly speaking, ethicists put ethical theories under two main categories:

Teleological and Deontological ethics.

Teleology

Teleology is a philosophy of science that promotes a focus on outcomes and

consequences when studying various phenomena (Kagan, 1997). As such, theories

based on this approach to the study of ethics are sometimes referred to as

consequential theories. The notion behind such theories is that the morality of

behaviour can be judged by the consequences of that behaviour. Specifically, a

consequentialist view of ethics holds that the goodness or badness of a proposed

action is evident only in the consequences of that action: whether a lie is good or bad

depends upon the consequences of that particular lie at the time. Utilitarianism, for

example, is a consequentialist theory, in that it seeks to maximize the net happiness

for everyone affected by a particular action (‘the greatest good for the greatest

number’, as it is sometimes expressed).

Teleological Theories

Consequential Theories

Many theorists contend that the moral rightness of an action can be determined simply

by looking at its consequences. If the consequences are good, the act is right; if the

consequences are bad the act is wrong. Consequential theories measure the morality

of actions on the basis of their non-moral consequences (Barry, 1979). Simply put,

actions should be judged in terms of their consequences. Consequential theorists

therefore determine good or bad action simply by looking at the ratio of goodness or

badness the action produces; and eventually choose the course of action that would

seem to produce the most good. Under consequential ethics, egoism, utilitarianism

and situational ethics will be discussed.

Egoism

Egoism is a branch of teleology, which focuses on the consequences of behaviors on

the self as opposed to others (Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989). Egoism is a moral act

which promotes the individuals best long-term interests. In determining the morality

of an action, egoists use their best long-term advantage to measure the action’s

goodness (Barry, 1979). Egoism measures the morality of a behavior by the extent to

which the behavior promotes one’s own interests. Under this approach, an action that

promotes a person’s knowledge and self-actualization is considered ethical, whereas

an action that does not is considered unethical. There are a few variations of the

theory; one school of thought views two forms of egoism and these are psychological

egoism and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory of human

behavior that holds that people are naturally programmed to behave only in their own
self-interest. Ethical egoism is the normative theory whereby people ought to act

exclusively in their self-interest (Reidenbach & Robin, 1990; Jones et al., 2007).

Thus, the moral principle of ethical egoism suggests that an act is ethical when it

promotes the individual's long-term interest (Shultz & Brender-Ilan, 2004; Jones et

al., 2007). Note that it is possible for people to help others, follow the rules of society,

and even grant gifts if they believe that those actions are in their own best interest.

Some moralists also distinguish between two kinds of egoism: personal and

impersonal. Personal egoists claim that they should pursue their own best long term

interests and impersonal egoists also claim that everyone should follow their own best

long term interests (Barry, 1979). Hinman (2007) on the other hand sees three

categories of ethical egoism; personal ethical egoism which believes that “I am going

to act only in my own interest, and everyone else can do whatever they want.”

Individual ethical egoism also believes that “everyone should act in my own interest.”

and universal ethical egoism contends that “Each individual should act in his or her

own self-interest.” Ethical egoists sometimes maintain that if each person took care of

himself/herself, the overall effect would be to make the world a better place for

everyone.

Utilitarianism

The theory most commonly associated with the teleological approach is known as

utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism is the philosophical approach which says that the

moral act is the one that creates the greatest happiness or good for the greatest number

of people. To Rachels (1993), the belief that actions should be appraised in terms of

their effect on happiness is utilitarianism. In Barry’s (1979) opinion utilitarianism is

the consequential doctrine that asserts we should always act so as to produce the

greater ratio of good to evil for everyone and therefore emphasizes the best interests

of everyone concerned. Lewis (1991) defines it as society’s net benefit over harm. To

Hinman (2007) the fundamental imperative of utilitarianism is to always act in the

way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. Conversely,

behaviour is deemed to be unethical if it either does not maximize the benefit

individuals receive, or produce more benefit for some people than for others. In terms

of organizational policies, utilitarianism holds that rules are ethical if they promote

behaviours that maximize the benefit for all members and other stakeholders, and are

unethical if they do not (Sherwin, 1983; Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989).

Utilitarianism has been linked to the modern welfare state which has found some

special interest for students of philosophy and society. It has also been associated with

reform or social improvement (McPherson, 1970). Hosmer (2003) contends that in

applying the utilitarian theory to the outcome of an action or decision, the principle is

that everyone should act to generate the greatest benefits for the largest number of

people. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is not the happiness of the individual, but

the happiness of society (Rossouw, 2002). Are the greatest happiness and the greatest

good the same thing? Broadly speaking, utilitarians answer yes.

Utilitarianism focuses on ends and not on the means required to achieving those ends,

and it takes into account all present and future benefits and harms that accrue or might

accrue to anyone who is affected by the action, including items that may be difficult

to evaluate accurately (Schumann, 2001). According to the utilitarian moral principle,

an act is morally acceptable if it produces the greatest net benefit to society as a

whole, where the net social benefit equals social benefits minus social costs
(Bentham, 1789; Mill, 1957; Brandt, 1979; Rachels, 1999; Velasquez, 1998;

Schumann, 2001; Cavanagh, 1981).

The primary way of assessing “the greatest good for the greatest number” is by

performing a social cost/benefit analysis. All possible benefits and costs of the

assessed act are listed and summarized as the net of all benefits minus all costs. If the

net result is positive, the act is morally acceptable; if the net result is negative, the act

is not acceptable. Utilitarianism seems to have been accepted by business people,

which may in part be due to its tradition in economics. The ensuing economic

philosophy of capitalism, alongside Adam Smith (1776), provides a rich traditional

heritage to the utilitarian concepts. Capitalist systems, by providing the greatest

material good for the greatest number, get to be considered ethical from the

perspective of the traditional economic philosophy. It should be noted here that the

utilitarian analyses of moral philosophers extend beyond material good to the much

broader concept of utility, from which the term utilitarianism is derived.

The theory of utilitarianism is associated with two English philosophers: Jeremy

Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). In expressing the theory of

utilitarianism, Bentham said:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters,

pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as

well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right

and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their

throne.

He proceeded to define the principle of utility as follows:

 By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or

disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it

appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose

interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or

to oppose that happiness.

In his contribution to the theory of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill’s posited:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest

Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote

happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is

intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of

pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more

requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and

pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary

explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is

grounded – namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things

desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the

utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in

themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

Utilitarianism as a Result Oriented Ethical Theory

Although it could be interesting to actually sit back and think about what our ultimate

ends might be, in most cases we make decisions based on more immediate concerns –

what philosophers would call instrumental or intermediate concerns. For example,

a manager may add six new salespeople because he/she is persuaded that the

additional revenue they generate will not only cover their own costs, but also provide
an increment of profits to the company. Also, we choose to go to the dentist and have

a root canal performed not because we enjoy pain as an ultimate end, but because the

temporary pain of the dental procedure will result in a longer pain-free period

afterward.

When we decide on the morality of an action based on the results that will be

achieved, we are engaging in utilitarianism. This is different from choosing an action

because it is simply the right thing to do. Thus, the charge is sometimes raised that

utilitarianism is wrong because it is based on the notion that the end justifies the

means.

For too many people, the statement “the end justifies the means” is the same as “a

good end justifies any means.” Increased profit for my business is a good end, but it

does not justify my employing eight-year-old children for twelve hours a day and

paying them a dollar an hour. It also does not justify ignoring safety concerns and

selling a product or service with a high likelihood of harming or killing my customers.

However, if my employees are seriously overpaid and my company is about to go

bankrupt due to uncompetitive pricing caused by labour costs, reducing either wages

or staff, or both, may well be justified in order to keep the company operating and

prevent all employees from losing their jobs.

In terms of organizational research, both egoism and utilitarianism (branches of

teleological ethics) are problematic in that they focus on ends as opposed to means

(Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989). That is, a behavior might achieve an outcome that is

beneficial for all stakeholders of an organization, but accomplish the outcome in a

way that is detrimental to long-term well-being, for example. It can also be argued

that a utilitarian outcome is not always a fair outcome in that some people may
contribute above-average inputs to a task, but receive equal shares of the resulting

benefits.

Types of Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism

Is the theory stipulating that the morally right act is the one that produces at least as

much overall happiness in the circumstances as any alternative act. This means that

when deciding which act would be ethically right, a person must investigate the

reasonably foreseeable consequences of the different possible acts she could perform;

the act that would produce the most overall happiness is morally right and must be

carried out.

Example: this scenario involves two parties and two alternative courses of action.

Consider a request made by your aunt in the local retirement home that you visit her

one evening. She can be a difficult person and you do not particularly like visiting,

though you know she is lonely and your visits do her a world of good. If you agree to

her request and visit her, she will be very happy, but you will miss your favourite

television show, causing you to experience a certain amount of unhappiness. If you

decide not to visit her, she will be extremely disappointed, but you will be able to

watch your television programme, gaining some happiness (though a twinge of guilt

takes away just a bit of that happiness). Act-utilitarianism requires this sort of

thinking – analyzing the effects on the happiness of the individuals involved for each

alternative course of action. The morally right action is the one producing the most

overall happiness. The following chart captures these various effects:

Visit Do Not Visit

You -10 +8

Aunt +15 -20

Total +5 -12

Notice that the amount of happiness gained or lost is quantified. However, in line with

the formal definition of act-utilitarianism provided here, it should also be pointed out

that in the case where there is a “tie” in that two alternative courses of action would

produce the most happiness, either of the two acts may be performed. This sort of

possibility is covered by the specification that the right act would produce “at least” as

much overall happiness as any alternative act. If, for example, the total effects on

happiness would be identical for ACT X and Act Y (if, say, each would produce a net

gain of 5 units of happiness), then either of those two actions would be morally

permissible. To say that an act is morally permissible, is to say that it is allowed but

not required; the performance of the act is not morally wrong, but neither is the failure

to perform it. However, performing one of those two acts, instead of Act Z (that

would, say, produce an overall gain of only 2 units of happiness), would be morally

required.

Act-utilitarianism has been endorsed by philosophers because (a) it assesses the

morality of actions in terms of the consequences of those actions, and utilitarians

suggest that this is commonsensical, that what we mean by the morality of actions is

just the consequences that those actions might bring about. Thus, in what other ways,

they ask, could morality be assessed except by appealing to the consequences? (b) It

is relatively simple and (all things considered) easy to apply; the principle “maximize

overall happiness” is straightforward. This is important, according to utilitarians,

because in areas of applied ethics (such as professional ethics), it is desirable to have a

basic moral theory that can be applied to real-life cases without undue difficulty. (c)

act-utilitarianism possesses the characteristics that are important for a viable moral

theory.
Rule-Utilitarianism

Act-utilitarianism calls for the maximization of overall happiness in the

circumstances. Rule-utilitarianism differs in that it calls for an analysis that extends

beyond the immediate circumstances. Instead, it calls for a closer look at the long-

term consequences that would be generated by performing the act in all relevantly

similar situations. More formally, according to rule-utilitarianism, the right act

conforms to the rule which, when followed, produces at least much overall happiness

over the long run as any alternative rule. More broadly, that rule must then itself be a

member of a set of rules that would produce at least as much overall happiness as any

alternative set.

The claim made by rule-utilitarianism is that their theory will generate rules, and will

thus prescribe actions in accordance with those rules, that are much more in line with

our intuitions. For example, the rule requiring people to keep their promises is likely

justified by rule-utilitarian considerations. A society in which people can rely on

others to keep their word will be happier than a society in which promises are broken

on a regular basis. Keeping one’s word will thus be a fairly stringent moral obligation

under rule-utilitarianism; it is a rule that would produce at least as much happiness as

any alternative rule pertaining to promise-keeping, and that rule can likely be

integrated into a set of rules that would maximize overall societal happiness. Thus,

when a lawyer agrees in principle to a settlement in a lawsuit and then goes back on

that agreement just before the schedule trial date (in order to cause confusion on the

part of the opposing lawyer), rule-utilitarianism could perhaps be used to show that

such an act is unethical.

Conclusion
Criticizing utilitarianism is not enough to demonstrate that it should not be used in

ethical decision making. In addition to the criticisms, a defense of a “better” theory

must be provided. It is much easier to criticize than to defend. (Political campaign

advertisements are examples of this; the faults of the other candidate are often

highlighted rather than the merits of the candidate himself.) Utilitarians sometimes

acknowledge that their theory is not perfect, but they challenge their critics to point to

a better one. After all, they say, there is not perfect moral theory; rather, it is the best

moral theory that is sought. The following theories are attempts to provide alternative

to utilitarianism as a foundation for ethical decision making.

Cost-benefit analysis as a form of Utilitarianism

Cost-benefit analysis is a utilitarian approach to evaluating proposed expenditures in

business or in government. The basic concept behind cost-benefit analysis is that

spending money, time and effort might be justified by the results to be achieved, but it

might not. Since this sort of analysis is future-oriented, it will necessarily be less

precise than analysis of expenditures that have already been made and results that

have already been achieved.

Cost-benefit analysis conceptually underlies the whole process of budgeting. It does

not make good business sense to plan to spend money, under either expense or capital

budgets, that will not yield a benefit at least equal to the expenditure. The budget

process is often conducted with a good deal of politics involved and, as the saying

goes; the devil is in the details. However, when money could be spent in one of

several ways, but not all of them, then aiming to get the biggest bang for the buck is

not really different than aiming to create the greatest good for the greatest number, at

least in principle.
While cost-benefit analysis is utilitarian in spirit, it is narrower in scope. Whether in

business or in government, the most common benefit weighed against costs is

financial in nature. If a project or an addition to staff will either generate enough

revenues or reduce enough future financial cost, then it is approved. The principal

metric used in cost-benefit analysis is efficiency-will the expenditure in question

generate the most output with the least input? While it might legitimately do so, cost-

benefit analysis does not always take into account impacts beyond expenses and

revenues. To give one example frequently raised in business ethics textbooks, a cost-

benefit analysis of a plant closing in a small town might not address the impact on the

town’s unemployment rate or tax base, while in utilitarian analysis would also factor

in these issues.

Cost-benefit analysis, by its nature, stresses quantifiable factors. However, projects or

expenditures are sometimes approved on the basis of necessity rather than amount of

dollar benefits. One relatively small hospital group with which I am familiar recently

decided to spend tens of millions of dollars integrating its more than twenty software

systems so that medical and financial information would be available to everyone

involved with a patient from pre-admission medical work-ups to post-discharge

follow-ups. The executives of the hospital group felt that they simply could not

continue to provide adequate service without such systems integration. The project

was approved on the basis of necessity rather than of quantified savings or additional

revenue and profits. It appears that, in deciding to spend this amount of money on

systems integration, they were aiming in a broad sense to achieve the greatest good

for the greatest number.

Deontology
One school of thought emphasises duties, things that must be done (or refrained from)

irrespective of the consequences. This deontological point of view holds that

goodness or badness is evident only in the action itself: that, for example, lying is bad

because it is bad in itself. Thus, deontological approach to the study of ethics differs

from teleological approaches in that it does not focus solely on consequences when

assessing the morality of actions. Instead, this approach places more emphasis on the

extent to which a person’s decisions and behaviours conform to existing standards of

morality such as rules and rights. Deontology deals with actions, which are inherently

right or wrong, without taking their consequences into account. In order to define the

rightness or wrongness of a given alternative of action, we do not have to know its

probable outcomes. The foundation of moral duty is an “a priori” belief. Reason can

reveal the basic moral principles. In order to define what I should do, I must consider

what all rational beings must do. Moral laws are valid for all rational beings.

The deontological school of thought focuses on the preservation of individual rights

and on the intentions associated with a particular behaviour, rather than on its

consequences. Deontologists look for conformity to moral principles to determine

whether or not an action is ethical. They also feel that individuals have certain

undeniable rights, which include freedom of conscience, freedom of consent, freedom

of privacy, freedom of speech, and due process.

Both duties (deontological) and consequences (teleological) are plainly important in

the way we deal with ethical issues in everyday life. Unfortunately, however, they are

very different ways of reasoning, which can lead to contradictory outcomes in some

cases. An exclusively duty-based view of ethics, for example, must sooner or later run

into problems such as absolutism, or the difficulty of deciding which duty should take

precedence over others in a particular situation. If, for example, both lying and killing
are held to be inherently wrong, is it acceptable to lie in order to avoid a killing? And

whatever answer is given, how do we know?

The approaches of two leading deontologists will be discussed in this course. The first

is a strict deontology described by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who is credited with

providing the details of the theory. In fact deontological ethics is sometimes thought

to be synonymous with “Kantian ethics”, though this equivalence is misguided, one

can believe that deontology is the best moral theory without agreeing with the

specifics of Kant’s claims. This was true of Sir W.D. Rose (1877-1971), a more

moderate deontologist whose views would be discussed in this text.

Kantian Theory of Ethics/Morality

The purpose of a moral theory, Kant is to provide a way of discovering whether

certain actions or policies are ethically right, wrong, or permissible. Example, Martell

Welch, Jr. attacked Deletha Word because she accidentally dented his car. He stripped

and beat her in broad daylight on the Bell Isle Bridge in Detroit, Michigan. While he

beat her, over forty people watched him and, according to reports, at times cheered for

him. No one on the bridge offered any kind of assistance to Word, not even a phone

call for help. To escape from Welch, she threw herself over the side of the bridge and

drowned. It seems to us, according to our moral vision that Welch’s actions were

ethically wrong, and it also seems that the other people on the bridge were wrong for

failing to act on her behalf. A moral theory, though, is supposed to test these sorts of

intuitions to see if they reflect moral truth; it is supposed to clarify things, so that we

can determine whether our initial moral vision is accurate.

From Kantian perspective, the determination of whether Welch’s action was morally

right, wrong or permissible requires carefully consideration of the act under the
following thematic concepts. According to Kant, the answer to each question is a

“proposition” of morality and a revision of these propositions leads to a better

understanding of the theory and how it works.

The first question, which is very basic, is: what makes a person morally good? Kant

posits that the intention (motive) one chooses makes one morally good. When we

judge people as morally good or bad, we do not look at whether they happen to

achieve their goals. People often fail to accomplish set goals through no fault of their

own. You may set yourself the general goal of helping others, and this may mean that

when the man next to you has a heart attack, your specific goal is to save his life. It

may be, however, that despite your best efforts to save him, the man dies nonetheless.

It should be clear that the man’s death does not mean you are morally bad. Instead, it

is more plausible to claim that you are morally good because your goal – your

intention – was to save his life. This is the idea behind Kant’s first proposition; to

assess a person morally, we must look to his intentions.

Next is what sort of intentions makes one morally good? This leads to Kant’s second

proposition of morality. Specifically, Kant indicates that there is a right and a wrong

way to answer this question. The wrong way pertains to happiness. It is a fact of

human nature that people are inclined to act so as to make themselves happy. Perhaps

you have the intention of doing well in school, and this is because you have the yet

further intention of being happy. This is a perfectly reasonable way of describing a

person’s structure of intentions. Kant points out, however, that being happy is not

necessarily the same thing as being a morally good person. After all, some things that

make you happy may be unethical. Therefore, it is not the intention of bringing about

happiness that makes one morally good. Instead, it is acting with the intention of

being dutiful – of acting from the motive of duty itself, and not from the (misguided)
motive of bringing about happiness. Stated formally, Kant’s second proposition is that

a morally good intention (the possession of which makes a person morally good) is

the same as acting from motive of duty.

The second proposition (acting from motive of duty) gives rise to a third question:

what exactly, does this mean? What does it mean for a person to intend to act from the

motive of duty? Kant’s answer which is his third proposition is that acting from the

motive of duty is acting out of respect for the moral law. The moral law to Kant is

that which morality requires. Specifically, the moral law is what morality itself

(objective moral truth) requires of us, and acting out of respect for the moral law

means not allowing anything-not happiness, not fear, not love, not even government’s

law – to get in the way of doing what is morally right. This commitment to doing

what is right, and being willing to sacrifice happiness along the way, is what Kant

means to capture by the notion of “respect” in this third proposition.

In brief, Kant’s views about morality or ethics is that a person is morally good

(performs moral actions) if he acts from a morally good intention, and an intention is

morally good if the motive is duty itself, meaning respect for the moral law. First, for

Kant, doing the right thing can be a somewhat complex operation. Acting from the

right motive is crucial. Some Kantians take this to mean that acting from the right

motive is a necessary part of performing the right act-that one cannot perform the

right action unless she acts out of respect for the moral law. Others believe that the

two notions are separate, that one must perform the morally right action, and in

addition, must do so with the right motive (respect for the moral law). Against this

backdrop, it is possible to perform the right action without doing so out of respect for

the moral law. Secondly, appeal to consequences to Kant, is irrelevant. Although

certain aspects of Kantian ethics incorporate consequences, the appearance is

deceptive. Third, in performing a morally right action, one’s inclinations have to be

ignored. Inclinations refer to intuitions, desires, emotions, or any motivations other

than respect for the moral law. Kant believes that when determining the ethical course

of action, inclinations can get in the way; they can skew one’s thinking and lead to

misguided conclusions about what is ethical. Inclinations should thus be set aside.

Despite this elucidation about a morally right action, we are unable to determine what

this moral law is? To understand this, Kant proposed an answer in his famous moral

theory, the categorical imperative.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Universalizing Maxims

In ethics, moral theories serve as tools for sharpening our moral vision, for helping us

to better see things (ethically) as they really are (objectively). The tool of Kantian

deontology focuses on motive, but the more complete account of theory entails

categorical imperative, which serves two purposes. First, it is a command; it instructs

us what to do. In fact, it tells us what we must do if we are to act ethically, and in this

way it tells us what the moral law really is. Second, it is a mechanism for testing

actions or rules to see whether they are ethically right, wrong, or permissible.

First, the theory is premised on the idea of universalizing maxims. In Kant’s words,

the command is, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same

time will that it should become a universal law.” Putting into context, if we asked

Martell Welch why he beat Deletha Word, he might respond by saying, “she made me

angry, and beating her made me feel better.” His motive in some sense pertains to

alleviating the anger she caused him. The second step is to use this motive to ascertain

the person’s maxim. A maxim is a more general type of motive; it is an individual’s

reason for acting, but it is expressed as a general rule that applies to all future actions.
Welch’s motive in the specific case can be expanded into the following general

guiding rule: “Whenever anyone angers me, I will beat that person so that I can feel

better.” This is Welch’s maxim; it is the general rule that he was following in this

particular case. The third step would be to universalize this maxim, which means

restating it not just for the individual but for all people (or, as Kant says, for all

rational beings). The universalized maxim would then be: “Whenever anyone angers

any person, that person who is angry will beat the person who caused the anger.” The

fourth step is to assess whether this universalized maxim can be a moral law. If this

universalized maxim is consistent – if it can be practiced in the world without any

inconsistency – then it can be a moral law. This would mean that the original action

performed is not wrong. If, on the other hand, the universalized maxim generates a

contradiction and is thus inconsistent, then the original act performed is wrong and

may not be performed. In the example, a natural result of the universalized maxim is

that there would be a lot of beatings occurring; it is a natural fact that people get angry

from time to time, and so numerous beatings would be expected to follow. When

people get beaten, they often experience anger (among other emotions), and herein

lies the inconsistency.

Following from the earlier example, Martell beat Deletha because she made him

angry and he wanted to feel better. Thus, on the one hand, he wants his anger to be

alleviated. The maxim underlying his action, however, generates a world in which

more anger would come about. This would be true for him as well, since the people he

angers would beat him, causing him to experience anger at being beaten. In short, he

is seeking to lessen his anger, and this is straightforwardly inconsistent. Another way

to characterize the situation is to say that Martell is acting on a maxim which, when
universalized would be self-defeating, since it would negate the very goal he is trying

to accomplish (anger alleviation).

Simply, an act can be said to be morally right in the opinion of Kant based on the

following four basic steps (a) ascertain the individual’s motive; (b) ascertain the

individual’s maxim; (c) universalize the maxim; and (d) assess the universalized

maxim for consistency.

Categorical Imperative: Persons as Ends

According to Kant “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in

the person of any other, always as an end and never as a means only”. In this context,

the difference between means and ends is closely related to the difference between

people and things. An inanimate object-a “thing”-has value only insofar as someone

values it; it does not have value “in itself,” meaning it would have no value at all

without someone to value it. It is therefore permissible to use things as I see fit in

order to accomplish my goals. A computer for example, is a thing and so has no value

in itself. Therefore, since you own your computer, you can use it as a means to your

ends-as a tool for helping you achieve what you want. Treating your computer as a

mere stepping stone in this way does not morally wrong the computer, for it is not the

sort of thing that can be wronged. You can even choose to throw it out the window if

you get frustrated with it (as long as no one outside the window will be injured).

In all these ways, people are different. People do not need to be valued by others in

order to have value. This formulation underscores Kant’s belief that every rational

creature has inherent worth. This worth does not result from any quality other than

the sheer possessing of rationality. Rational human being possesses what Kant termed

an “autonomous self-legislating will.” In other words, they can evaluate their actions,

make rules for themselves, and direct their conduct according to these self-imposed
rules. Kant sums his “categorical imperative” as “one ought never to act unless one is

willing to have the maxim on which one acts to become a universal law”. To Kant

(1959) therefore, good will, and only good will, can be universalized.

Again Kant indicates that you may not treat another person as a mere means. You

may not simply use another person in an effort to further your own goals. People,

unlike computers, are not mere stepping stones and may not be treated as such. This is

Kant’s idea behind the moral command that we are always to treat people as ends and

never as means only; we must always recognize that people are valuable in

themselves (are ends in themselves). He also uses the terminology of respect and

dignity to capture this idea; we are always and everywhere to demonstrate respect for

persons, to recognize the inherent dignity they possess (because of their rational

capacities). Kant also makes clear that this is why all people are moral equals. Each

person is an end in himself or herself to the same degree as all other persons, and so

no one is more valuable – more morally important –than anyone else.

Informing our views

Nonetheless, duties and principles clearly do inform our views of how people should

treat each other at work. An exclusively consequentialist view of ethics also entails

methodological problems of forecasting reliably what the consequences of an action

may be and of deciding how to measure those consequences. Some form of

utilitarianism can be very unjust to small minorities, by allowing their unhappiness

(i.e. as a result of some proposed action) to be offset by the increased happiness of a

much larger number. Again, however, we can hardly deny that our assessment of the

likely consequences of different actions plays a part in our view of acceptable and

unacceptable behaviour in an organization.

Case 1 – Off shoring example

A UK-based company thought about an opportunity to ‘offshore’ part of its operation

to a lower-cost Anglophone country. The shareholder-centred view would place

emphasis on the unit cost savings to be achieved by moving the operation to a lower-

cost area, provided that the required quality of service can be maintained. Other things

being equal, lower unit costs obviously allow higher margins and improved rewards

to shareholders. However, the assessment would also take into account the possibility

of additional risks to be managed, such as security and quality control issues.

Furthermore, this view would also consider the competitive implications of the

decisions: if other suppliers all outsource and reduce their prices to customers, a

decision not to do the same could damage the company. On the other hand, being

different could be a viable competitive stance for one or more competitors,

particularly if some customers are concerned about reduced quality of service from

off shoring: at one point, NatWest in the UK seemed to take this stance in its

advertising.

A deontological approach to the ethics of off shoring would focus on aspects of the

proposal that might be in breach of clear principles and duties. While no business can

reasonably accept a general duty to keep existing employees on the payroll for ever, a

contemplation of duties might cause a company to do as much as possible to soften

the impact of the job losses, including the possibility of internal transfer, retraining,

outplacement and more-than-minimum redundancy packages. A utilitarian analysis

would seek to identify all who would be affected- anywhere in the world – by the
proposed off shoring decision and then assess the impact (positive or negative) on

each person (or, more realistically, group). This would allow a sort of “trial balance”

of the consequences to be drawn up and an evaluation of the net impact on aggregate

happiness. Necessarily in this method, the reduction in happiness for others, such as

those who are made involuntarily redundant, is offset by the extra happiness created

for some-those who get offshore jobs, for example. Obviously, this is of little comfort

to the former group, which illustrates one of the important criticisms of the utilitarian

approach.

Ethical decision-making at work

How, then, are ethical choices to be made by people working for organizations? No

simple and universal answer is available – ethical awareness is something that can be

cultivated and the different perspectives will often help to shed light on a particular

dilemma. Some perspectives may appear to be better suited to particular situations:

whereas, for example, it is difficult to avoid some sort of consequentialist component

in thinking about how a company should act, it is also clear that duty-based (or ‘moral

compass’) arguments must also weigh heavily in thinking about the ethical treatment

of people such as employees. The German philosopher Kant’s view that we should

always treat other people as ends in themselves and never simply as means is surely

an important principle for decent human resource management and one that would

often be seen as more important than the prospect of short-term gain.

Personal integrity and individual values are important elements in ethical decision-

making at work, but the increasingly common company, professional or industry

codes of conduct may also provide support and guidance. This is not to say that these
ethical ‘resources’ will always provide clear and comfortable guidance – sometimes,

people in organizations will experience tension between conflicting demands of, say,

their own personal values and the demands placed on them by their organization. If

these conflicts become intolerable and cannot be resolved through normal means, then

an individual may decide to become a ‘whistleblower’ in the public interest, by taking

the high-risk approach of placing the problem in the public domain for resolution.

Code of conduct can help reduce the risk of painful situations like this by providing a

published set of values to which the individual can appeal, rather than taking the risk

wholly personally.

Ethical Reflections

Case 1:

Imagine that you are an office manager in a law firm. Your responsibilities include

scheduling the only two administrative assistants, Tom and Sue. (You must make sure

they do not take the same lunch hour or schedule the same week for vacation, for

example.). Next Monday is a holiday, and you know from past experience with this

holiday that this coming Thursday and Friday will not be busy at all; the lawyers at

this firm like to take this opportunity for an extended weekend. Thus, giving each

administrative assistant an extra day off, one on Thursday and one on Friday, would

cause no problems at all in the firm and would be a nice gesture. But critics of act-

utilitarianism argue that in this sort of example a more detailed analysis is needed.

Imagine that Tom enjoys days off, but only moderately, he might do laundry or catch

up on errands, but the happiness he derives from a day off is limited. Sue, however,

derives much more happiness than Tom when she gets a day off, since she likes to go
to the beach, the mountains, or into the city. So if you are the office manager, do you

necessarily give both Tom and Sue one day off apiece?

Case 2

I imagine you are a doctor. At the moment, you are administering a routine physical

examination, and the patient is in excellent health. Your mind, however, is really on

more troubling matters; there are five patients in the critical care wing of the clinic

who are desperately in need of organ transplants. Acceptable donors have not been

found, and these particular patients are now critical; they do not have much time. As

you are completing the physical exam of the healthy patient, it occurs to you that you

have a certain choice. It would be possible for you to administer a shot to this patient

that would cause him to fall asleep and then die painlessly. (You could tell him it is a

flu shot or some similar standard precaution). Because you are very clever, you could

concoct an injection that would accomplish this task without anyone being able to

discover the true cause of death. The reason for even considering such an act is that

you are an act-utilitarian and you see the possibility of an overall gain in happiness

here. You surmise that it might be possible to take various organs out of the healthy

patient and redistribute them into the five critical patients as needed – a liver, tow

kidneys, a heart, and a lung. Because you want to be sure about the utilitarian

calculations, you quickly do some informal research and learn the following: the

patient’s organ would be excellent matches for the five needy patients (so the

likelihood of successful transplant is very high); the patient has no friends or family to
speak of, as he just moved here from the coast, “to begin with” as he says (so the

unhappiness generated by his death would not be felt by others); each of the five

needy patients has children and other family members and friends (so the unhappiness

generated by the death of each would be felt by many people). Given all of these

circumstances, it seems clear that the overall happiness would be maximized by going

ahead and killing the innocent, healthy patient in order to save the lives of the five

others. After all, there would be a net gain of four lives (four saved, one lost), and

consideration of the effects on the happiness of tangential parties (friends and family)

adds credence to this conclusion.