practice case

1

Chapter 2

Normative Theories of Ethics

I. Introduction (NIB-Chapter Introduction) A. Opening Case Comments (NIB-Chapter Introduction)

1. Chapter 1 explained that defensible moral standards must be supportable by sound moral principles.

a. Moral principles provide a conceptual framework that guides people in making moral decisions.

b. Careful thought and open-minded reflection are always necessary to work from one’s moral principles to considered moral judgment.

2. However, what are the appropriate principles to rely on when making moral judgments?

a. The truth is that there is no consensus among people who have studied ethics reflected on these matters.

b. Different theories exist as to the proper standard of right and wrong. 3. This chapter discusses the different normative perspectives and rival ethical principles

that are humankind’s heritage.

B. Chapter Learning Objectives (NIB-Chapter Introduction) – After completing this chapter students should be able to:

1. Identify, describe, and compare the major normative theories undergirding moral judgments.

2. Carefully consider the critiques offered of each of the theories and test their validity. 3. Consider the subtleties of Kant’s main formulations of the categorical imperative

including his emphasis on moral motivation and respect for persons.

4. View the positive and negative aspects of applying each theory in an organizational context.

5. Discern between ethical egoism and psychological egoism as well as between utilitarianism and Kantianism.

6. Identify common ground on which moral decision-making can proceed. 7. Have a good understanding of other nonconsequentialist normative themes: duties,

moral rights, and prima facie principles.

C. Ethical Dilemmas versus Ethical Temptations (NIB) 1. Ethical dilemmas involve a conflict between ethical principles or normative priorities.

a. They are often defined as “right versus right” or “wrong versus wrong” principles or choices.

b. Dilemmas have deep impact on the evolution of ethical reflection. c. Solving ethical dilemmas involves:

1) Appeal to theoretical constructs. 2) Reevaluation of established moral standards and inherited intuitions.

2. Ethical temptations do not involve a conflict between ethical principles or normative priorities

a. Be involved “right versus wrong” principles or choices.

2

II. Consequentialist and Nonconsequentialist Theories (§ 2-1) A. Descriptive versus Normative Ethics (NIB-§ 2-1)

1. Descriptive ethics consists of studying and describing the morality of a people, culture, or society.

a. It compares and contrasts different moral systems, codes, practices, beliefs, principles, and values.

b. It is closely related to anthropology, sociology, and psychology. c. Due to their disadvantages, we will not focus on descriptive theories in this class.

2. Normative ethics builds on the whole that descriptive ethics provides and attempts to supply and justify a coherent moral system based on it.

a. Typically, it seeks to uncover, develop, and justify the basic moral principle or principles, or the basic moral values, of a moral system found in a given society.

b. It prescribes what people ought to do. c. Because normative ethics is a systematic attempt to explain and justify the

morality of a society or of society in general, such attempts are called “ethical

theories.”

d. Therefore, normative ethical theories propose some principle or principles for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions.

3. Normative theories can be divided into two kinds: consequentialist and nonconsequentialist.

a. According to consequentialist theories, the moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its results.

1) But consequences for whom? The two most important consequentialist theories, egoism and utilitarianism, are distinguished by their different

answers to this question.

2) Egoism advocates individual self-interest as its guiding principle. 3) Utilitarianism holds that one must take into account everyone affected by

the action.

b. By contrast, nonconsequentialist/deontological theories contend that right and wrong are determined by more than the likely consequences of an action.

III. Egoism (§ 2-2) A. Overview (NIB-§ 2-2)

1. Egoism is the view that morality coincides with the self-interest of an individual or an organization.

2. Egoists are those who determine the moral value of an action based on the principle of personal advantage.

a. Therefore, an egoist contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes that agent’s/person’s interests.

b. An action is morally wrong if it undermines it. 3. Egoist use personal advantage (both short-term and long-run) as the standard for

measuring an action’s rightness.

a. If an action will produce more good for the agent/person than any alternative action would, then that action is the morally right one to perform.

3

4. Personal versus Impersonal Egoists: a. Personal egoists claim they should pursue their own best interests, but they do

not say what others should do.

b. Impersonal egoists claim that everyone should let self-interest guide his or her conduct.

B. Misconceptions about Egoism (§ 2-2a) 1. First, egoists do only what they like, that they believe in “eat, drink, and be merry.” 2. Second, all egoists endorse hedonism, the view that pleasure (or happiness) is the only

thing that is good in itself, that it is the ultimate good, the one thing in life worth

pursuing for its own sake.

3. Third, egoists cannot act honestly, be gracious and helpful, or otherwise promote other people’s interest.

C. Psychological Egoism (§ 2-2b) 1. Proponents of the ethical theory of egoism generally attempt to derive their basic moral

principle from the alleged fact that human beings are by nature selfish creatures.

2. According to this doctrine, termed psychological egoism, people are, as a matter of fact, so constructed that they must behave selfishly.

D. Problems with Egoism (§ 2-2c) 1. Psychological egoism is not a sound theory – The doctrine of psychological egoism is

false— not all human acts are selfish by nature, and some are truly altruistic.

2. Ethical egoism is not really a moral theory at all – Egoism misses the whole point of morality, which is to restrain one’s selfish desires for the sake of peaceful coexistence

with others.

3. Ethical egoism ignores blatant wrongs – All patently wrong actions are morally neutral unless they conflict with one’s advantage.

4. For these reasons, it is safe to say that few, if any, philosophers today would advocate it as either a personal or organizational morality.

IV. Utilitarianism (§ 2-3) A. Overview (NIB-§ 2-3)

1. As mentioned above, utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that one should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by that

person’s actions. Components of the definition:

a. The principle of utility: Actions are morally praiseworthy if they promote the greatest human welfare, and blameworthy if they do not.

b. “Good” in this context means happiness or pleasure. c. “Bad” in this context means unhappiness/suffering or pain. d. Thus, the greatest happiness of all constitutes the standard that determines

whether an action is right or wrong.

2. British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill where the first philosophers to develop the theory explicitly and in detail.

4

3. Bentham’s Views: a. He believed that pleasure and pain are merely types of sensations. b. He offered a “hedonic calculus” of six criteria for evaluating pleasure and pain

exclusively by their quantitative differences—in particular, by their intensity and

duration. For example:

1) The major factors of sensations of pleasure and pain resulting from an action as outlined by Bentham are summarized by these variables:

a) Intensity (I) – How intense is the pleasure or pain? b) Duration (D) – How long does the pleasure of pain last? c) Certainty (C) – What is the probability that the pleasure or pain will

occur?

d) Propinquity (nearness or remoteness) (N) – How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain?

e) Fecundity (F) – What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other pleasures?

f) Purity (P) – What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pains?

g) Extent (E) – How many persons are affected by the pleasure? 2) { N [ C (I × D) ] + Nf [ Cf ( If × Df ) ] }

a) The subscript “f “ indicates future assignments. b) Go to http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html to see a more

detailed discussion of hedonic or hedonistic calculus.

c. He rejected any distinction based on the type of pleasure except insofar as they might indicate differences in quantity.

4. Mill’s Views: a. He believed Bentham’s concept of pleasure was too simple; he viewed human

beings as having elevated faculties that allow them to pursue various higher kinds

of pleasure.

5. Although Bentham and Mill had different conceptions of pleasure, they both equated it with happiness and believed that pleasure was the ultimate value.

B. Act Utilitarianism (NIB-§ 2-3) 1. According to act utilitarianism, a person has one and only one moral obligation, the

maximization of happiness for everyone concerned, and every action is to be judged

according to how well it lives up to the standard.

2. If an action’s consequences bring more total net good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one and the one a person should perform.

C. Six Points about Utilitarianism (§ 2-3a) 1. First, when deciding which action will produce the greatest happiness, one must

consider unhappiness or pain as well as happiness.

2. Second, actions affect people in different degrees. 3. Third, because utilitarians evaluate actions according to their consequences and

because actions produce different results in different circumstances, almost anything

might, in principle, be morally right in some particular situation.

4. Fourth, utilitarians wish to maximize happiness not simply immediately but in the long- run as well.

5

5. Fifth, utilitarians acknowledge that people often do not know with certainty what the future consequences of our actions will be.

6. Sixth, when choosing among possible actions, utilitarianism does not require persons to disregard their own pleasure.

D. Utilitarianism in an Organizational Context (§ 2-3b) 1. First, utilitarianism provides a clear and straightforward basis for formulating and

testing policies.

2. Second, utilitarianism provides an objective and attractive way of resolving conflicts of self-interest.

3. Third, utilitarianism provides a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision- making.

E. Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism (§ 2-3c) 1. Is utilitarianism really workable? 2. Are some actions wrong, even if they produce good? 3. Is utilitarianism unjust?

F. The Interplay between Self-Interest and Utility (§ 2-3d) 1. Both self-interest (egoism) and utility (utilitarianism) play important roles in

organizational decisions, and the views of many businesspeople blend these two

theories.

a. To the extent that each business pursues its own interests and each business person tries to maximize personal success, business practice can be called

egoistic.

b. But business practice is also utilitarian in that pursuing self-interest is thought to maximize the total good, and playing by the established rules of the

competitive game is seen as advancing the good of society as a whole.

2. The classical capitalist economist Adam Smith held such a view. a. He argued that if business is left to pursue its self-interest, the good of society

will be served.

b. Indeed, Smith believed that only through egoistic pursuits the greatest economic good for the whole society be produced.

3. Many today agree with Smith. Thus, what one might call business egoism—the view that it is morally acceptable (or even morally required) for individuals to pursue their

economic interest when engaged in business—is defended on utilitarian grounds.

V. Kant’s Ethics (§ 2-4) A. Overview (NIB-§ 2-4)

1. A nonconsequentialist/deontological theory. 2. Developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. 3. He believed that moral rules can, in principle, be known as a result of reason alone and

are not based on observation.

a. Therefore, in contrast to utilitarianism and other consequentialist doctrines, Kant’s ethical theory holds that one does not have to know anything about the

likely result (consequence) of a decision to know if it is moral or immoral.

b. Because being moral is the same as acting rationally, morality is not imposed on persons from the outside. It is part of their nature.

6

B. Good Will (§ 2-4a) 1. Nothing is good in itself except good will.

a. By will Kant meant the uniquely human capacity to act from principle. b. Contained in the notion of good will is the concept of duty: Only when one acts

from a sense of duty (i.e., moral obligation) does our action have moral worth.

1) When one acts only out of feeling, inclination, or self-interest, one’s actions—although they may be otherwise identical with ones that spring

from the sense of duty—have no true moral worth.

2. What determines our duty? How does a person know what morality requires of him or her? Kant answered these questions by formulating what he called the “categorical

imperative.”

C. The Categorical Imperative (§ 2-4b) 1. Kant’s categorical imperative says that one should always act in such a way that he or

she can will the maxim of his or her action to become a universal law.

a. Another way of phrasing his categorical imperative: The morality of an action depends on whether the maxim (or subjective principle) behind it can be willed as

a universal law without committing a logical contradiction.

b. By maxim, Kant meant the subjective principle of an action, the principal (or rule) that people in effect formulate in determining their conduct.

c. Example: A building contractor promises to install a sprinkler system in a project, but he is willing to break that promise to suit his purposes. His maxim can be

expressed as: “I will make promises that I will break whenever keeping them no

longer suits my purposes.” This is the subjective principle, the maxim, that directs

his action.

d. If one could logically will the maxim to become a universal law, then it is a duty or moral rule; if not, then it is not a duty or moral rule.

e. Since the maxim above allowing people to break promises whenever they want would undermine the purposes of promises, it cannot be willed to become a

universal law and therefore is not a duty.

2. When Kant insists that a moral rule be consistently universalizable, he is saying that moral rules prescribe categorically, not hypothetically.

a. A hypothetical prescription tells a person what to do if he or she desires a particular outcome. Thus, “If I want people to like me, then I should be nice to

them” and “If you want to go to medical school, then you must take biology” are

hypothetical imperatives. They tell a person what he or she must do on the

assumption that he or she has some particular goal.

1) Hypothetical imperatives always take the form of “If ______, then ______.” b. In contrast, Kant’s imperative is categorical: It commands unconditionally.

1) It is necessarily binding on everyone, regardless of his or her specific goals or desires, regardless of consequences.

2) A categorical imperative takes the form of “Do this” or “Do not do that”— no ifs, ands, or buts.

7

3. Universal Acceptability: To determine whether a principle is a moral law, a person needs to ask whether the command expressed through it is acceptable to all rational

agents/persons.

a. One can embrace something as a moral law only if all other rational beings can also embrace it. It must have universal acceptability.

b. This means that the rule, principal, or maxim of the action must be capable of being consistently universalized.

c. If an action is moral for one person, it must be moral for everyone. 4. Humanity As an End, Never As Merely a Means: A person must always act in a way

that respects human rationality in others and in themselves.

a. A rational being is also conscious of being a person, an entity who is valuable in himself or herself, and a being that is an end in itself.

b. Because of this a rational being is worthwhile, has dignity, and is worthy of respect.

c. Hence, each person should be treated by every person as an end, with respect and dignity.

D. Kant in an Organizational Context (§ 2-4c) 1. First, the categorical imperative gives us firm rules to follow in moral decision-making,

rules that do not depend on circumstances or results and that do not permit individual

exceptions.

2. Second, Kant introduces an important humanistic dimension into business decisions by requiring organizations to treat humans as ends, not means to an end.

3. Third, Kant stresses the importance of motivation and of acting on principle. E. Critical Inquiries of Kant’s Ethics (§ 2-4d)

1. What has moral worth? 2. Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of right? 3. What does it mean to treat people as means?

VI. Other Nonconsequentialist Perspectives (§ 2-5) A. Prima Facie Obligations (§ 2-5a)

1. William David Ross: British philosopher who held that persons’ moral experiences are too complex to be reduced to the principle of utility or the categorical imperative.

2. His three basic beliefs: a. A person has various duties that oftentimes come into conflict with each other. b. There are no universal rules for the resolution of conflicts of duties. c. Different situations generate different priority orders of duties.

3. Ross and many contemporary philosophers believe that all (or at least most) of our moral obligations are prima facie ones.

a. A prima facie obligation is an obligation that can be overridden by a more important duty in specific circumstances.

4. Ross thought that a person’s various prima facie obligations could be divided into seven basic types:

a. Duties of Fidelity – These are duties to keep one’s promises and contracts and not to engage in deception.

b. Duties of Reparation – This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to

others.

8

c. Duties of Gratitude – This is a duty to be grateful for benefactions done to oneself and if possible to show it by benefactions in return.

d. Duties of Justice – This duty requires that one act in such a way that one distributes benefits and burdens fairly.

e. Duties of Beneficence – This is the duty to do good to others: to foster their health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, or happiness.

f. Duties of Self-Improvement – This is the duty to act so as to promote one’s own good (i.e., one’s own health, security, wisdom, moral goodness, and happiness).

g. Duties Not to Injure Others – Also known as the duty of nonmaleficence, it is the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically: to avoid harming their

health, security, intelligence, character, or happiness.

5. Unlike utilitarianism, Ross’ ethical perspective is pluralistic in recognizing a variety of genuine obligations.

a. Ross argues that maximizing the good is only one of several prima facie obligations which play a role in determining what a person ought to do in any

given case.

6. But contrary to Kant, Ross does not see these obligations as absolute and exceptionless. 7. Note that under Ross’ view there can never be a true ethical dilemma because one of

the prima facie obligations in a given situation is always the weightiest, and overrules

all the others.

a. This is thus the absolute obligation, the action that the person ought to perform. B. Assisting Others (§ 2-5b)

1. Nonutilitarian philosophers believe that persons have a much stronger obligation to refrain from violating people’s rights than to promote their happiness or well-being.

a. Therefore, many moral philosophers draw a distinction between actions that are morally required versus charitable or supererogatory actions—that is, actions

that it would be good to do but not immoral not to do.

2. Nonutilitarian theorists see the distinction between morally obligatory actions and supererogatory actions as a necessary demarcation to avoid becoming enslaved to the

maximization of the general welfare.

C. Moral Rights (§ 2-5c) 1. A right is an entitlement to act or have others act in a certain way.

a. Generally, the connection between rights and duties is that if a person has a right to do something, then someone else has a correlative duty/obligation to act in a

certain way.

2. Moral rights are rights that are important, normative, and justifiable claims or entitlements.

a. For example, let us look at the right to life (or the right not to be killed by others) as a moral right.

1) It is a justifiable claim based on a person’s status as a rational being, worthy of respect, and ends in himself/herself.

2) It is normative—the right is based on the second version of Kant’s

categorical imperative which states that human beings are ends in

themselves, worthy of respect, and are always to be treated as such. As we

discussed earlier, Kant’s categorical imperative is a normative ethical

theory.

9

3) It is obviously important. b. Therefore, in this context moral rights are the same as human rights. Contrast that

with your authors’ view:

1) “Some . . . moral rights derive from special relationships, roles, or circumstances in which we happen to be.”

2) “Moral rights that are not the result of particular roles, special relationships, or specific circumstances are called human rights.”

3) Therefore, your authors seem to be saying that human rights are a subset of moral rights. This is a contrary view so we will equate human rights

with moral rights in this class.

c. Human rights, also called moral rights or inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal.

1) They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.

2) They are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.

3) There are five different categories of human rights. These are as follows: rights to life; rights to freedom; rights to political participation; rights to the

protection of the rule of law; rights to fundamental social, economic, and

cultural goods.

3. Legal rights refer to all those rights found within existing legal codes. a. A legal right is a right that enjoys the recognition and protection of the law. b. Questions as to its existence can be resolved by simply locating the relevant legal

instrument or piece of legislation.

c. A legal right cannot be said to exist prior to its passing into law and the limits of its validity are set by the jurisdiction of the body which passed the relevant

legislation.

4. Key features of human rights: a. Human rights are universal. b. Human rights are applied equally to all. c. Human rights are inalienable and not transferable. d. Human rights are natural in that they do not depend on human institutions.

5. Categories of human rights: a. Negative Rights – Those that reflect the vital interests that humans have in being

free from outside interference (such as the freedom of speech, assembly, religion,

etc.).

b. Positive Rights – Those that reflect the vital interests that humans have in receiving certain benefits (such as the right to education, medical care, equal job

opportunity, etc.).

D. Nonconsequentialism in an Organizational Context (§ 2-5d) 1. First, it stresses that moral decision making involves the weighing of different moral

factors and considerations.

2. Second, it acknowledges that the organization has its own legitimate goals to pursue. 3. Third, it stresses the importance of moral rights and especially human rights.

10

E. Critical Inquiries of Nonconsequentialism (§ 2-5e) 1. How well justified are these nonconsequentialist principles and moral rights? 2. Can nonconsequentialists satisfactorily handle conflicting rights and principles?

VII. Utilitarianism Once More (§ 2-6) A. Act Utilitarianism versus Rule Utilitarianism (NIB-§ 2-6)

1. Until now, the discussion of utilitarianism has focused on the classic and most straightforward version of it: “act utilitarianism.”

a. According to act utilitarianism, a person has one and only one moral obligation, the maximization of happiness for everyone concerned, and every action is to be

judged according to how well it lives up to the standard.

2. Rule utilitarianism maintains that the utilitarian standard should be applied not to individual actions but to moral codes as a whole.

a. The rule utilitarian asked what moral code (that is, what set of moral rules) a society should adopt to maximize happiness.

b. The principles that make up that code would then be the basis for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions.

3. The optimal moral code must take into account what rules can reasonably be taught and obeyed, as well as the costs of inculcating those rules in people.

a. Inculcating means to instill in people an idea. B. What Will the Optimal Code Look like? (§ 2-6a)

1. Rule utilitarians believe that the optimal moral code will not consist of just one rule— to maximize happiness.

2. Instead, rule utilitarians argue for a pluralistic moral code on three grounds: a. First, people will make mistakes if they try to calculate the results of every given

action in advance.

b. Second, important rules will be undermined if all individuals were act utilitarians. c. Third, it is too demanding for individuals to ask them to promote total well-being.

C. Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism (NIB-§ 2-6a) 1. First, act utilitarians maintain that a utilitarian who cares about happiness should be

willing to violate rules in order to maximize happiness.

2. Second, nonconsequentialists still balk at seeing moral principles determined by their consequences.

VIII. The Six Pillars of Character Model (SPCM) (See Corresponding Article in the Chapter 2 Item) A. Introduction (p.1 – SPCM Article)

1. The Six Pillars of Character are ethical values to guide individual choices. The standards of conduct that arise out of those values constitute the ground rules of ethics,

and therefore of ethical decision-making.

a. It is a normative, nonconsequentialist theory (although one could make a good argument that this fits the “optimal moral code” of rule utilitarians).

2. Strengths (NIB): a. The Six Pillars act as a multi-level filter through which to process decisions. So,

being trustworthy is not enough—one must also be caring. Adhering to the letter

of the law is not enough—individuals must accept responsibility for their action

or inaction.

11

b. SPCM provides a common lexicon. As such, individuals can see what unites a pluralistic society.

c. Unlike consequentialist theories and most nonconsequentialist theories, it provides specific ethical values and definitions of those values.

3. Weaknesses (NIB): a. Like other nonconsequentialist theories, it fails to take into account or provide

sufficient weight concerning consequences. However, as I mentioned above, most

of these values could fit the “optimal moral code” of rule utilitarians.

b. The SPCM helps detect situations where a person focuses so hard on upholding one moral principle that it sacrifices another; however, it does not tell a person

what to do when two or more values are in conflict.

B. First Pillar of Character: Trustworthiness (p.1 – SPCM Article) – Able to be relied on; people believe in us

1. Honesty (p.1 – SPCM Article) – Honesty in all communications; avoiding misrepresentations, deceptions, and other dishonest behavior

a. Honesty in Communication – Good faith intent to convey the truth 1) Truthfulness (S) – Not lying 2) Sincerity (S) – Precludes half-truths, out of context statements, silence that

leaves impressions that are untrue

3) Candor (S) – In relationships of trust, must volunteer information b. Honesty in Conduct (S) – Avoiding dishonest conduct such as embezzlement,

theft, etc.

2. Integrity (S) – Consistency between our stated values and behavior; demonstrating the courage to do the right thing regardless of the costs (a.k.a. moral courage)

3. Reliability/Promise Keeping (S) – Keeping our promises and commitments 4. Loyalty (S) – A special moral responsibility to promote and protect the interests of

certain people, organizations, etc.

C. Second Pillar of Character: Respect (p.4 – SPCM Article) – Display of regard for the worth of people

1. Golden Rule (S) – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” 2. Civility, Courtesy and Decency (S) – Treating others with consideration; do not

intimidate, coerce; punish in limited situations

3. Dignity (S) – Self-respect 4. Autonomy (S) – Exercise authority in a way that provides others with information they

need

5. Tolerance and Acceptance (S) – Accepting individual differences and beliefs without

prejudice; judge others only on the content of their behavior

12

D. Third Pillar of Character: Responsibility (p.4 – SPCM Article) – Being in charge of our choices and thus our lives

1. Accountability (S) – Being accountable for our choices; not shifting blame 2. Pursuit of Excellence

a. Diligence (S) – Doing one’s best b. Perseverance (S) – Finish what you start c. Continuous Improvement (S) – Striving to better oneself

3. Self-Restraint (S) – Responsible people exercise self-control, restraining passions (lust, hatred, fear) for sake of reason and to set a good example

E. Fourth Pillar of Character: Fairness (p.5 – SPCM Article) – A range of morally justifiable outcomes based on openness, consistency, and impartiality

1. Process (S) – We do not wait for the truth to come to us; we seek out relevant information and conflicting perspectives before making important judgments.

2. Impartiality (S) – Rules are applied equally among every human being involved or affected—no matter who the human being is—or what his or her relationship is with

the person administering the rules

3. Equity (S) – Mistakes are corrected promptly and voluntarily; ignorance or weakness are not excuses for taking advantage of others

F. Fifth Pillar of Character: Caring (p.6 – SPCM Article) – The heart of ethics; concern for the welfare of others

1. Kindness (S) – Warmhearted, considerate, humane, forgiving 2. Compassion (S) – Sympathy for others 3. Empathy (S) – Understanding and entering into another’s feelings

G. Sixth Pillar of Character: Citizenship (p.6 – SPCM Article) – Civic virtues and duties that prescribe how we ought to behave as part of a community

1. Lawfulness (S) – Obeying laws and regulations; working to improve them 2. Common Good (S) – We are part of a community of human beings, not just for

ourselves, our own lives, and our own generations

3. Volunteering (S) – Sharing some of our life by investing time to help our community

IX. Moral Decision-Making: A Practical Approach (§ 2-7) A. Overview (NIB-§ 2-7)

1. Theoretical controversies permeate the subject of ethics, and as your authors have shown, philosophers have proposed rival ways of understanding right and wrong.

2. Therefore, it might seem impossible for people to reach agreement on controversial ethical issues given that ethical theories differ so much and that people themselves

place moral value on different things.

a. However, in practice moral problems are rarely so intractable that open-minded and thoughtful people cannot, by discussing matters calmly, rationally, and

thoroughly, make significant process toward resolving them.

3. Similar to the evaluation of moral arguments in Chapter 1, the following factors will help resolve conflicting points of view:

a. First, in any moral discussion, make sure participants agree about the relevant facts.

13

b. Second, once an agreement on factual matters is reached, try to spell out the moral principles endorsed by the participants.

B. Obligations, Ideals, Effects (§ 2-7a) 1. As a practical basis for discussion moral issues in organizations, it is useful to try to

approach those issues in a way that is acceptable to individuals of diverse moral

viewpoints.

a. By emphasizing factors that are relevant to various theories, both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist, one can find some common ground on which moral

decision-making can proceed.

2. Therefore, what concerns seem common to most ethical systems? a. According to V. R. Ruggiero, three, concerns suggest themselves: obligations,

ideals, and effects.

b. Obligations – Every significant human action—personal and professional—arises in the context of human relationships. As discussed earlier, these relationships can

be the source of specific rights and duties. Obligations are the same thing as

duties.

c. Ideals – A second concern, to most ethical systems is the impact of one’s actions on important ideals. An ideal is some morally important goal, virtue, or notion of

excellence worth striving for.

d. Effects – A third common consideration regards the effects of actions. When reflecting on a possible course of action, one needs to take into account its likely

results or effects. Even nonconsequentialists do not ignore consequences entirely.

3. V. R. Ruggiero’s two-step approach to moral decision making: a. Identify the relevant considerations involved—obligations, ideas, and effects. b. Determine which of these considerations deserve emphasis in the situation at

hand.

4. Guidelines for handling cases involving conflicting obligations, ideals, and effects: a. Choose the stronger of two or more conflicting obligations. b. Honor the more important of two or more conflicting ideals. c. Of two or more rival actions, choose the one that produces the greater good or the

lesser harm.

X. Study Corner (§ 2-8) – See the end of Chapter 1’s outline and lecture.