EM Week 3 Winter 2013

Cases Each case:  What ethical systems used? by the protagonist by other actors

Reading Maxwell  “The Mission of Business” In what way(s) does he respond to Friedman?  If so: »Are those responses convincing? this article hasn’t been very influential  Would it be if it were widely known?

Identifying Ethical Systems

normative  consequentialist 1.egoism 2.utilitarianism  act-utilitarianism  rule-utilitarianism  non-consequentialist 3.Kantian 4.prima facie principles 5.moral rights should results motives

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.egoism 2.utilitarianism  act-utilitarianism  rule-utilitarianism best for me best for everyone case-by-case rule-of-thumb

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.best for me 2.best for everyone  case-by-case  rule-of-thumb  motives 3.Kantian 4.prima facie principles 5.moral rights reason

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.best for me 2.best for everyone  case-by-case  rule-of-thumb  motives 3.reason 4.principles 5.rights Egoism

1.Egoism misplaced attacks  self-indulgence  hedonism  only pretending reasonable attacks  not a moral theory  psychological egoism not observed  ignores “reality”

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.best for me 2.best for everyone  case-by-case  rule-of-thumb  motives 3.reason 4.principles 5.rights Utilitarianism

2.Utilitarianism in organizations  clear & “straightforward” process  “objective” criteria  results-oriented

2.Utilitarianism criticisms  workable?  just?  relentless?  some acts just seem wrong

2.Utilitarianism 2 streams  act utilitarianism case-by-case  rule utilitarianism rule-of-thumb “judge codes, not actions”

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.best for me 2.best for everyone  case-by-case  rule-of-thumb  motives 3.reason 4.principles 5.rights Kant

3.Kant reason  circumstances must be ignored  intentions only duty  universal application test

3.Kant  “a categorical imperative”  “means not ends”

3.Kant in organizations  firm rules  focus on individual motivation

3.Kant criticisms  why only duty acceptable? no exceptions?  what does “means not ends” mean?

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.best for me 2.best for everyone  case-by-case  rule-of-thumb  motives 3.reason 4.principles 5.rights prima facie principles

4.Prima Facie Principles  10 commandments  love God; love others  Golden Rule

4.Prima Facie Principles “everyone agrees on some basic rules”  in hierarchy

4.Prima Facie Principles Ross  7 duties fidelity reparation gratitude justice beneficence self-improvement non-injury

4.Prima Facie Principles criticisms  universal? what happens if someone disagrees?  conflicting

Identifying Ethical Systems should  results 1.best for me 2.best for everyone  case-by-case  rule-of-thumb  motives 3.reason 4.principles 5.rights moral rights

5.Moral Rights The Declaration of the Rights of Man Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

5.Moral Rights understanding  duties & rights  positive rights & negative rights

5.Moral Rights criticisms  what is on the list?  who draws up the list? is eligible? is responsible?  how much?  rights contests

Baby M  Egoism  Act utilitarianism  Rule utilitarianism  Kant  principles  rights

Ford Pinto  Egoism  Act utilitarianism  Rule utilitarianism  Kant  principles  rights

Plasma International  Egoism  Act utilitarianism  Rule utilitarianism  Kant  principles  rights

Christianity = Moral Code ? Does being a Christian mean we must accept principle-based ethics as the only acceptable one?  Which code?  How interpreted?  How binding?  On who?

What To Do?  every approach can be criticised  organizations plural

Attempts at Synthesis Shaw & Barry Rachels Desjardins

Shaw & Barry  obligations  ideals  effects  propose a process outline options for each understand  obligations  ideals  effects weigh

Shaw & Berry  Ford Pinto obligationsideals Benefit shareholders Safety Customers Safety is good for business Don’t sell what you won’t buy optionseffectschoice Sell sell sell Fix it inform weigh.3.4

Shaw & Berry  Ford Pinto obligationsideals 1: satisfy customers 2: safety 3: reputation 4: make profit 1: cost/benefit for company 2: make world a better place optionseffectschoice sell sell sell111C recall A fix it quietly1.51 B weigh.3.5.2

Shaw & Berry  Plasma obligationsideals optionseffectschoice weigh

Shaw & Berry  Plasma obligationsideals 1: Profit 2: Safety 3: Reputation 1: Cost/benefit 2: Better world 3: Beat out competitors 4: Save lives optionseffectschoice Don’t get into this business Pedal to the metal Fair trade in blood weigh.3.2.5

Rachels reason  = weighing options  “ought”  responsibility consistency  “[Racism] is an offence against morality because it is first an offense against reason.”

Rachels deserts  if responsible  then consequences are moral “We ought to act so as to promote impartially the interests of everyone alike, except when individuals deserve particular responses as a result of their own past behaviour.”

Rachels moral community  time  space  species

Rachels apply to  Ford Pinto  Plasma International Does it work for you? Would it work in an organization?

DesJardins Aristotle  phronesis