Professional Ethics (GEN301/PHI200) UNIT 2: NORMATIVE THEORIES OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS Handout # 2 CLO # 2 Explain the rationale behind adoption of normative theories and professional codes of conduct. https://lms.ectmoodle.ae

LEARNING OBJECTIVES Describe normative theories of ethics. Distinguish between the consequentialist and non-consequentialist normative theories. Explore moral decision making in an organizational context

NORMATIVE THEORIES Normative theories propose some principles for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions. Two kinds of theories: Consequentialist theories Nonconsequentialist theories

CONSEQUENTIAL THEORIES They determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. If the consequences are good then the act is right, if they are bad then act is wrong. Consequences for whom? Only for oneself? Or for everyone affected? The most important consequentialist theories are egoism and utilitarianism, are distinguished by their different answers to this question. Egoism advocates individual self-interest. Utilitarianism holds that one must take into account everyone affected by the action.

NONCONSEQUENTIALIST THEORIES Contend that right and wrong are determined by more than the likely consequences of an action. They believe that other factors are also relevant to the moral assessment of an action.

EGOISM Egoism is the consequentialist theory that an action is right when it promotes the individual's best interests. Proponents of this theory base their alleged fact that human beings are, by nature, selfish. Egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s interests. If an action will produce more good for the agent than any alternative actions would, then that action is the morally right one to perform

PROBLEMS WITH THE EGOISM There are strong objections to egoism as an ethical doctrine: Psychological egoism is not a sound theory: The egoism theory contends that self-interest is the only thing that ever motivates anyone. Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all: Misunderstands the nature and point of morality. If our interests never come into conflict then we would have no need for morality. It is difficult to see how ethical egoism could perform this function Ethical egoism ignores blatant wrongs: The most common objection to egoism as an ethical doctrine is that by reducing everything to the standard of best long-term self-interest, too many immoral acts (murder, theft, discrimination, false advertisement) become morally neutral.

UTILITARIANISM Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions. By “good”, utilitarians understand happiness or pleasure. When deciding which action will produce the greatest happiness we must consider unhappiness or pain as well as happiness. Actions affect people to different degrees. Utilitarians evaluate actions according to their consequences, and actions produce different results in different circumstances, almost anything might be morally right in some particular situation. Utilitarians wish to maximize happiness not simply immediately but in the long run as well.

UTILITARIANISM IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT Several features about utilitarianism make it appealing as a standard for moral decisions in organizations. By utilitarian standards, an organizational policy, decision or action is good if it promotes the general welfare more than any other alternative. Utilitarianism provides an objective and attractive way of resolving conflicts of self-interests. Provides a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision making.

KANT’S THEORY Kant theory is an important example of a purely non-consequentialist approach to ethics. Kant believed that moral reasoning is not based on factual knowledge and that the results of our actions do not determine whether they are right or wrong. Good will is the only thing that is good in itself, Kant believed that their goodness depends on the will that makes use of them. By “will” Kant meant the uniquely human capacity to act from principle. Kant held that only when we act from duty does our action have moral worth.

KANT’S THEORY Kant’s categorical imperative states that an action is morally right if and only if we can will that the maxim (principle) represented by our action be a universal law. He believed that the categorical imperative is binding on all rational creatures, regardless of their specific goals and regardless of the consequences.

MORAL DECISION MAKING In a moral discussion make sure participants agree about the relevant facts . Once there is general agreement on factual matters try to spell out the moral principles to which different people are appealing. Despite disagreements on controversial theoretical issues, people can make significant progress in resolving practical moral problems through open-minded and reflective discussion One useful approach is to identify the obligations, ideals and effect in a given situation and then to determine where the emphasis should lie among these different considerations.

When two or more moral obligations conflict, choose the stronger one. Keep the following guidelines in mind when handling cases of conflicting obligations, ideals, and effect: When two or more moral obligations conflict, choose the stronger one. When two or more ideals conflict, or when ideals conflict with obligations, honor the more important one. When rival actions will have different results, choose the action that produces the greater good or the lesser harm.