ETHICAL REASONING What is it? Isn’t it just different for everyone?

Let’s Define It! Ethics: Derived from the Greek word, Ethos. Ethos: means “character” or “custom” Thus, ethics comes from a concern with essential qualities and behavior. Ethical reasoning is a way to determine what kinds of behavior help or harm beings.

Group Work: 3 Minutes Can you say that some things are just right or wrong or does it always depend on cultural norms? Why or why not? Examples?

THEORY 1: ETHICAL RELATIVISM

ETHICAL RELATISM | SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY | ETHICAL RELATIVISM MORALITY IS RELATIVE TO THE NORMS OF ONE’S OWN CULTURE. WHETHER AN ACTION IS RIGHT OR WRONG DEPENDS ON THE MORAL NORMS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH IT IS PRACTICED

ETHICAL RELATISM | SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY | ETHICAL RELATIVISM (cont.) The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be universally applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a society's practices can be judged are its own.

ETHICAL RELATIVISM (cont.) THERE ARE MANY PRACTICES THAT ARE CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE IS SOME SOCIETIES BUT CONDEMNED IN OTHERS GROUP WORK: 3 MINUTES WHAT ARE 5 PRACTICES THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE IN SOME SOCIETIES BUT CONDEMNED IN OTHERS?

THE LIST GOES ON & ON & ON ETHICAL RELATIVISM (cont.) GENOCIDE – POLYGAMAY – SLAVERY – RACISM – SEXISM – TORTURE – FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION – CIRCUMCISION – WOMEN WEARING A VEIL – PREMARITAL SEX - BIRTH CONTROL – SEX EDUCATION –EATING MEAT – KILLING ANIMALS – DOGS AS PETS

Most ethicists reject the theory of ethical relativism—the notion that there are no universal moral standards. WHY?

IN SUM: Societies may differ in their application of fundamental moral principles but agree on the principles. #1 REASON WHY ETHICITS REJECT ETHICAL RELATIVISM Some claim that while the moral practices of societies may differ, the fundamental moral principles underlying these practices do not. EXAMPLE  In some societies, killing one's parents after they reach a certain age is common practice, stemming from the belief that people are better off in the afterlife if they entered it while still physically active and vigorous. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with these societies on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to care for parents.

BUT: Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative. Aren’t there some issues that are simply right or wrong?!? #2 REASON ETHICISTS REJECT CULTURAL RELATIVISM: It is argued that some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures.

BUT WAIT: This view promotes social conformity and leaves no room for moral reform or improvement in society. #3 REASON WHY ETHICISTS REJECT RELATIVISM If the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a society's norms, then it follows that one must obey the norms of one's society and to diverge from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if I am a member of a society that believes that racist or sexist practices are morally permissible, then I must accept those practices as morally right.

Much of the previous information comes from this excellent website: ETHICAL RELATISM. SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY. icalrelativism.html. icalrelativism.html

MORAL ABSOLUTISM The belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged—suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences. According to moral absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source.

Why is ethical reasoning important?

Please note, there is some exaggerated information in this scenario. Question 1: If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had eight children already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion? Remember your honest answer and go to question 2.

Which candidate is your choice? Remember your answer. Shhhh. Question 2: It is time to elect the world leader, and yours is the deciding vote. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates: Candidate A: He associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks up to ten Martinis a day. Candidate B: He was ejected from office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a large amounts of whisky every evening. Candidate C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extra-marital affairs.

Please note, there is some exaggerated information in this scenario. Candidate A is Franklin D Roosevelt, Candidate B is Winston Churchill, Candidate C is Adolph Hitler. And by the way--the answer to the abortion question... If you said yes, you just killed Beethoven. We all tend to make ethical judgments based on conditioned and subjective views of what is right and proper. And we all tend to make snap decisions in assessing whether something is right or wrong, before seeking the full story. Sometimes a choice seems obvious, but maybe it’s not. Ethical reasoning is important to use in thinking, research and writing so that we don’t make snap decisions.

The Tylenol Case Consider This…

On September 30, 1982, three people in the Chicago area died from cyanide introduced into Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules. The link between the deaths and the tainted capsules was made with remarkable speed, and authorities notified Johnson and Johnson. As the number of deaths grew—the final total was seven—the firm faced a crisis and, indeed, potential disaster. Tylenol, a leading pain-reliever, was Johnson and Johnson's single largest brand, accounting for almost 18 percent of the corporation's income.

EXECUTIVES FOR TYLENOL NEEDED TO RESPOND QUICKLY But the executives did not know the answers to these three pertinent questions: 1. Had the cyanide been put in the Tylenol capsules during the manufacturing process or later? 2. Were the deaths that had already been reported just the first of a very large number? 3. Would the deaths be limited to the Chicago area?

The United States Food and Drug Administration had issued a warning not to take Tylenol, but the government had not ordered the company to take any specific action. Perhaps the deaths would be local, and there would not be more than seven. Perhaps the authorities would not demand a recall. Perhaps a temporary cessation of sales until the source of the contamination was determined could prevent more harm to the public.

Against all these unknowns, the Johnson and Johnson executives had to weigh five certainties: 1. A recall would involve a loss of up to $100 million. 2. The loss was not covered by insurance. 3. News of a recall could so damage the product that Tylenol might never be able to regain public confidence and its 37 percent of market share. 4. The news and loss would surely result in a dramatic drop in the company's stock which would hurt many thousands of stock holders. 5. The competition in their product market was fierce; competitors would try to make Tylenol's loss their gain.

The facts you now have are the only facts they had… 1. What should the Johnson & Johnson do? What is the ethically right choice? 2. What did Johnson & Johnson actually do? Consider ALL factors.

What did Johnson & Johnson Do? Unwilling to expose consumers to further risk—and making a decision that puts them in the Ethics Hall of Fame—Johnson and Johnson ordered a recall of all Tylenol bottles. In the long run, public welfare and the company's reputation were protected by ethical decision making. “Tylenol: The Name You Trust” The Tylenol case obviously presents a major example of ethical reasoning in the business world. But ethical issues, large and small, present themselves every day. Business leaders and professionals in all fields need methods for dealing with them and arriving at reasonable decisions.