Q

your friend

ethics_systems-_rights_and_justice.pptx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Economics homework help >Q

Ethics Systems: Rights and Justice

Chapter 22

22-1

Topics Covered

Introduction

Classification of ethics systems

Classes of rights

Kantian maxims or moral rules

Applied rights analysis

Conflicts among rights

Equal employment opportunity

22-2

Topics Covered

Paternalism

Neoclassical liberalism

Categories of justice theories

Rawls’s theory of justice

Higher order standards for evaluating ethics systems

22-3

Introduction

Consequentialist ethics systems such as utilitarianism focus on:

The good and evaluate the good in terms of individuals’ preferences for consequences

Rights established under a consequentialist system are instrumental

Their justification is in terms of the consequences they yield

22-4

Classification of Ethics Systems

Teleological - Define the rightness of an action in terms of the good its consequences yield

Also called consequentialist systems

Deontological - Holds that moral right takes precedence over the good

Can be evaluated by considerations independent of, or in addition to, consequences

22-5

Teleological and Deontological Ethics Systems

22-6

Rights

May be derived from moral principles

May be established through political choice

These often reflect moral principles

Established through legislation

Established through private agreements

Established by implicit contracts

22-7

Negative and Positive Rights

Negative rights impose duties on people and the state not to interfere with the actions of a person

For example, freedom of speech and assembly

Positive rights impose affirmative duties on others to take particular action

For example, right to public education

22-8

An important difference between rights established by the state and those based on moral principles is that the former can be publicly enforced, whereas for moral rights there is no enforcement mechanism other than individual sanction.

Kantian Maxims or Moral Rules

Categorical imperative - A fundamental axiom on which Kant’s system is based on

Serves two basic functions

Provides a basis for determining maxims and moral rules

Prescribes that individuals are to act in accord with those rules

22-9

For Kant, freedom and rationality are the foundations of a theory of morality.

The strength of Kant’s conception of morality is that it focuses on motives or reasons for acting that are universal—apply to everyone—and thus are reversible—apply to oneself.

The categorical imperative thus embodies two standards for the evaluation of maxims—universalizability and reversibility.

Universalizability may be thought of as “Would I want everyone to behave according to that rule?” Reversibility may be thought of as “Would I want that rule applied to me?”

The Relationship between Maxims and Rights

Kant’s system is expressed in terms of maxims:

Which individuals have a moral duty to respect

That duty establishes moral rights

22-10

Those moral rights are intrinsic, since they are derived from the categorical imperative and not from other considerations such as consequences.

Maxims

“A firm must sell its product to anyone who wants it, regardless of the price they are willing to pay.”

“A firm must sell its product to anyone who is willing to pay the price set by the firm.”

“A firm must sell its product to anyone who is willing to pay the cost of producing it.”

22-11

Instrumental Rights

To be respected because they contribute to achieving better consequences, by, for example, enabling individuals to pursue their interests

Intrinsic Rights

To be respected in and of themselves and do not require any justification in terms of consequences or other considerations

Instrumental Rights and Consequences

22-12

Intrinsic Rights and Consequences

22-13

Criticisms of Kantian Rights

Include:

Those that pertain to deontological systems in general

Those specific to his system

22-14

The fundamental criticism of deontological systems is that they fail to explain why a principle or right should be respected.

More specific criticisms of rights-based ethics systems are that they may not:

Identify sufficiently precisely where the corresponding duty lies.

Indicate priority when one right conflicts with another.

Indicate when—if ever—it would be acceptable to violate a right.

In spite of these criticisms, individual rights are a fundamental component of our ethical intuition.

Applied Rights Analysis

In managerial decision making, rights have two effects:

They rule out certain alternatives, such as those that would violate moral principles or legally protected rights

A right may impose an affirmative duty that requires a firm to take particular actions

22-15

22-16

Granted Right

Established by moral consensus or by government and is accompanied by a clear assignment of the corresponding duty

Claimed Right

When the duty has not been clearly assigned, moral consensus is absent, or government has not spoken

Individuals claim rights and make demands on others by asserting moral justifications, but others may view those claims as morally unjustified.

Rights and Moral Standing

22-17

Ethics pertains to the moral standing of claims.

Politics involves efforts to turn claimed rights into granted rights or vise versa.

A Methodology for Rights Analysis

Identify the rights claimed and their claimed moral bases

Determine which claimed rights satisfy moral standards

If a claim is not morally justified, check whether it is established by government

If it is, it is granted and is to be respected

If not, the claim need not be respected

Identify the actions consistent with the protection or promotion of any morally justified rights

22-18

Rights analysis has two principal components.

The first is determining whether a claimed right has moral standing.

The second is determining how conflicts among rights are to be resolved.

A Methodology for Rights Analysis

Identify conflicts among rights

If there are none, those claimed rights with moral standing are to be respected

If there are conflicts among rights with moral standing:

Investigate the importance of the interests those rights are intended to protect or promote

Prioritize the rights based on the importance of those interests and determine the extent to which each is constrained by the others

Choose the action that does best in terms of the priorities established

22-19

Conflicts Among Rights

Rights and interests

Prioritization

22-20

When the set of rights is expanded to include instrumental rights and granted rights established by government through politics, however, rights can be in conflict.

Those conflicts may mean that there is no action that respects all rights.

Rights and interests

In the case of moral rights, or rights more generally, one approach to reasoning about, if not resolving, conflicts is to assess the importance of the rights by considering the interests they are intended to promote or protect.

Prioritization

The framework for analyzing conflicts among rights begins with an identification of a right, an assessment of whether it is claimed or granted, and its bases.

The possible bases for a right are moral and legal, where the latter includes the Constitution, statutes, court precedents, and contracts.

Applied Rights Analysis: Integrity Tests

22-21

The figure presents a framework for prioritizing conflicting rights and illustrates the integrity tests issue.

Equal Employment Opportunity

A principle supported by virtually all ethics systems

Its importance is supported by legal grants that provide for its public enforcement

Its legal manifestation is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sex, religion, or national origin”

22-22

Complex issues involving equal opportunity and discrimination continue to arise in the employment relationship.

Paternalism

Actions taken to benefit a person without that person’s consent

Is a moral wrong

Is objectionable from a consequentialist perspective because:

It denies individuals the opportunity to make choices that would further their interests

22-23

In any ethics system emphasizing individual autonomy and liberty, consent is essential for an action or a rule to have moral standing.

One is acting paternalistically toward a person if and only if:

One’s action benefits that person.

One’s action involves violating a moral rule with regard to that person.

One’s action does not have that person’s past, present, or immediately forthcoming consent.

That person is competent to give consent (simple or valid) to the violation.

Neoclassical Liberalism

Emphasizes the liberty of individuals

Concerned with the relationships between liberty and morality and between liberty and the state

22-24

Categories of Justice Theories

Distributive

Compensatory

Retributive

22-25

Distributive justice

Concerned with the distribution of the rewards and burdens of social interactions.

Necessarily comparative, since it identifies how those rewards and burdens are assigned to individuals with particular attributes or in particular situations.

The basic comparative principle of distributive justice is that “Equals should be treated equally and unequals, unequally.”

Compensatory justice

Concerned with whether and how a person should be compensated for an injustice.

Has fairness and restitution as its goals.

If a person is injured, the institutions of society may be designed to compensate the person.

Compensation serves two objectives.

First, it provides restitution for the injury.

Second, it provides incentives to reduce injuries and their social costs by imposing the burden on the parties best placed to avoid accidents.

Retributive justice

Concerned with punishment for actions that are contrary to a moral rule or societal well-being.

May be used to justify deterring harmful actions.

Distributive Justice: Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, and Rawlsian Justice

22-26

Injustice

A general principle advanced in conceptions of justice is that:

An injustice is morally tolerated only if it is necessary to avoid a greater injustice

Requires an ordering of injustices

22-27

Rawls’s Contractarian Framework

22-28

Rawls argues that individuals would adopt two principles as a basis for justice as fairness:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others.

Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.

Attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Difference Principle, Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism

22-29

The role of incentives and the comparison between the utilitarian, egalitarian, and Rawlsian systems are illustrated in the figure, where the utility possibility set corresponds to societal institutions that satisfy the equal liberty and fair equality of opportunity principles.

Criticisms of Rawls’s Theory

One form of criticism centers on whether all individuals in the original position would choose the same principles:

If so, whether they would choose Rawls’s principles rather than some other principles

Another criticism centers on Rawls’s conclusion that:

In the original position, once liberties and equal opportunity have been assured, society would choose institutions that provide the maximum benefit to the least advantaged

22-30

Methodology for Applying the Principles of Justice

Identify the liberties and rights involved

The principle of equal liberty

The principle of fair equality of opportunity

For the remaining alternatives, evaluate their fairness implications for the pursuit of opportunities by those affected

Choose among the remaining policies based on the difference principle

Identify which parties have which duties

22-31

In this methodology a departure from equal liberty cannot be justified by an advantage in social or economic matters for any individual, including the least advantaged.

Higher Order Standards for Evaluating Ethics Systems

The ethics systems based on utilitarian, rights, and justice considerations use two general standards for determining which principles or rules have moral standing:

Universalizability (which implies reversibility)

Unanimous impartial choice as in Rawls’s original position

22-32

Kantian maxims meet both standards.

Cases - Genetic Testing in the Workplace

Determines susceptibility to certain hazards can be done from a sample of blood or other bodily fluid

Can be used for either screening or monitoring purposes

Can also be used to monitor groups of employees over time

To determine if they experience chromosome damage due to exposure in the workplace

In 2008, Congress enacted and the president signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

22-33

Cases - Chipotle Mexican Grill and Undocumented Workers

Despite the success of the company in the marketplace, the management team faced:

A difficult challenge in its nonmarket environment

In 2010 ICE conducted an investigation of Chipotle restaurants leading to the firing of 400 workers

The chair of the immigration subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, Elton Gallegly (R-CA), argued that the use of E-Verify should be mandatory

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported that its members had mixed reactions to making E-Verify mandatory

Advocates for undocumented workers argued that firing the workers would simply drive them into the underground economy

22-34

Cases - Environmental Injustice?

Addresses two aspects

Explanation for the empirical finding

Centers on whether the situation is unjust

Explanations for the finding that minorities and those in poverty are disproportionately located proximate hazardous waste facilities

Firms that construct and operate plants with toxic emissions and hazardous waste facilities:

Seek to impose harm on the poor and minorities

Locations for such facilities are chosen on an economic basis

Locations for toxic emissions and hazardous waste facilities are chosen based on economic considerations and with the intent of avoiding posing a risk to people

22-35

Cases - Environmental Injustice?

The bulk of the empirical studies examining the socio-economic characteristics of people who might be exposed to the hazards analyze:

The data at a point in time at which both the toxic emission site and the people are present

Ann Wolverton, an economist at the EPA, conducted an empirical study on Environmental Injustice

Supports the third explanation and not the first or second explanations

22-36