Transcript Moral Reasoning

Moral Reasoning
Ethical dilemmas in management are not
simple choices between “right” and
“wrong”.They are complex judgments on
the balance between economic
performance and social performance,
complicated by the multiple alternatives,
extended consequence, uncertain
probabilities and career implications that
are an inherent part of the decisions.
Formal Rules (Laws) and Ethics
You may ask why it is necessary for
professionals to have the ability to critically
analyze [ethical ]situations. After all, if the
rules are there, then it just seems a matter of
following them. It is extremely important to
realize, however, that acting ethically in the
professions is not so simple. Adopting a
simplistic approach will not be helpful and is
likely to be damaging. Even with certain rules
in place, the ability to rationally analyze
situations is crucial.
How do we decide when face such issues. How do we
determine what is “just”, “right” and “proper” in these
and other instances? Choosing between right vs. right
is not easy like choosing between right and wrong for
business manager. On many occasion managers also
choose between two wrongs .
Managerial decision (or dilemmas) simply does not depend on "do
the right thing", or "always tell the truth". On the surface one can
argue that there is another right thing which is not done but in
complex business situations the action is morally justified.
.
Mangers analyze the situation and
find solution which is win-win for
both the parties and most practical.
Application of ethical theories help
them to justify their action.
Moral dilemmas
Many times we feel stuck when confronting a
moral problem. Only a few options come to
mind, none of them very appealing. In fact,
our most immediate association with the word
“moral” seems to be the word “dilemma”,
Moral dilemmas.
We are supposed to have two and only two
choices or any way only a few and often
neither choice is much good. We can only
pick the “lesser of two evils.” But, hey,
that’s life. Or so we’re told.
Is it? In all seriousness: is it? How many
alleged dilemmas are actually only what
logicians call “false dilemmas”? How
many times, when we seem stuck, do we
just need a little more imagination? For one
thing, mightn’t there be some ready ways of
multiplying options; of simply thinking up
other possibilities, options we might not
have considered?
And how about rethinking the problem
itself, so that it might be headed off in the
future, or transformed into something more
easily resolved? How much farther might
we be able to go in ethics if we approached
it with a little more creativity?
Teleology
The term teleology is derived from the Greek
word “telos” which means, “end” or “purpose”.
According to this theory the concept of right,
wrong and duty are subordinated to the concept
of end or purpose of the action. This is also
called consequentialist theory. Which suggest
that ethical reasoning concentrate on the
consequence of human action, and all actions
are evaluated in terms of the extent to which they
achieve desirable results.
Deontology
The term deontology comes from the Greek Word
“deon” means “duty”.
According to the
deontologist the rules and principles are crucial for
guiding human action.They believe that ethical
reasoning should concern activities that are
rationally motivated and apply universally to all
human action.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) attempted to discover
the rational principle that would stand as a
categorical imperative grounding all other ethical
judgments. The imperative would have to be
categorical rather than hypothetical, or
conditional, since true morality should not depend
on our individual likings and disliking or on our
abilities and opportunities. These are historical
“accidents”; any ultimate principle of ethics must
transcend them .
Among the various formulations of the categorical
imperative, two are particularly worth noting.
1)Always act in such a way that you can also will
that the maxim of your action should become a
universal law.
2)Or act so that you treat humanity, both in your
own person and in that of another, always as an
end and never merely as a means.
Thus morality is seen as being an objective
requirement, independent of what anyone may
want.
Although ultimately these are formally
equivalent, the first illustrates the need for
moral principles to be universalizable. The
second points to the radical distinction to be
made between things and persons, and
emphasizes the necessity of respect for
persons.
Kant’s theory is an example of a
deontological or duty-based ethics. It judges
morality by examining the nature of actions
and the will of agents rather than goals
achieved. (Roughly, a deontological theory
looks at inputs rather than outcomes).
One reason for the shift away from
consequences to duties is that, in spite of
our best efforts, we cannot control the
future. We are praised or blamed for
actions within our control, and that includes
our willing, not our achieving.
This is not to say that Kant did not care about
the outcomes of our actions-we all wish for
good things. Rather Kant insisted that as far
as the moral evaluation of our actions was
concerned, consequences did not matter.
Note that universalizability is not the same as
universality. Kant’s point is not that we would all
agree on some rule if it is moral. Instead, we must
be able to will that it be made universal; the idea is
very much like the golden rule – “Do unto others,
as you would have them do unto you.” If you
cannot will that everyone follow the same rule,
your rule is not a moral one.
The principle of universalizability and
reversibility.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism was first formulated by Jeremy
Bentham(1748-1832) and it’s foremost proponent
was a student of Bentham’s John Stuart
Mill(1806-1873). Bentham and J.S. Mill both
criticized Kant. They asked “do we really care
what a persons intentions are if we get hurt or
benefit?” Bentham said, for the most part, we
focus on the utility of actions.
Utility: an act or thing has utility for a person if it
makes them happy or brings pleasure or decreases
pain.
Bentham addressed this problem by
proposing a “hedonistic calculus” in which
the good ness or badness of an action would
be calculated based on a sophisticated
analysis of each potential pleasure’s (and
pain’s) “intensity, duration, certainty or
uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness,
fecundity, and the purity of the value in
question”.
When these variables were figured in,
Bentham said, reasonable people would with
some accuracy be able to distinguish between
low-yield and high-yield pleasures, to assess
the relative (if not absolute) preferability of
actions based on the ‘units” of pleasure and
pain. If you could count, you could tell right
from wrong.
As a straightforward, materialistic approach to
moral questions, utilitarianism has proved
remarkably durable, largely because as Bentham
and his followers pointed out the hedonistic
calculus, with all its imprecision, is a fairly
accurate metaphor for the way the nonphilosopher compares choices anyway, all the
time. “Utilitarianism”, De George says, “is simply
the result of making explicit the ways we
ordinarily argue about policies, laws, and actions”.
To the business professional this should be
obvious. When you use any type of cost-benefit
analysis, you are employing utilitarian thinking.
And this is appropriate. If you want to know
whether a given decision is ethical or not, it makes
sense to ask how much good (pleasure) and how
much bad (pain) it will bring, and then compare
the two. It’s done all the time, and it works.
But there are problems with this ledger
approach to ethics. Let us address the two
most serious ones: the likelihood that
subjective bias will distort the calculation,
and the utilitarian’s incomplete explanation
of how a balance sheet on morals serves
justice.
Subjective bias. Critics of utilitarianism say that in
calculating the net sum of good and bad in a
potential action, I am not likely to be dispassionate
and impartial, but to weight my own happiness more
heavily than that of others. The injunction to
promote the general good may be ignored,
consequently, if it conflicts with what I see as my
own pleasure. Moreover, I am likely to make my
own case special, to make myself an exception to
every utilitarian rule.
That this is no idle apprehension we see in
business every day. It’s a generally moral action,
or that the distributiors of defective merchandise
see the greatest good for the greatest number in
the crapshoot they play with their products. To
every manager faced with the choice of honoring
the general good or of honoring his own good by
increasing profits, the temptation is strong to
weight the scales.
To Bentham and his chief apologist, the
philosopher John Stuart Mill, this was a
manageable problem. Yes, they admitted, the
hedonistic calculus could be perverted. But so
could every other system. “Is utility the only
creed,” Mill asked in his 1863 tract Utilitarianism,
“which is able to furnish us with excuses for evil
doing, and means of cheating our own
conscience?” ……………..
With the proper education, the early
utilitarians were convinced, rational
individuals would understand the ultimate
conjunction between their personal
happiness and that of the greatest number.
With the proper education, they would see
thing impartially and act well.
Hedonism
“How do we measure pleasure?” Bentham
proposed we start by naming our units of
measure:
Hedons: Units of pleasure
Dolors: units of pain
Analogy with determining which of two rooms is
the largest – we need a unit of measure or a
yardstick, and a method of calculating the total
space in each room in order to determine the
largest room) .
1.Anticipation/Certainty
2. Intensity,
3.Duration
4.Remoteness (doing for others) (all the above
provide a means of measuring immediate
pleasure/pain).
5.Secondary effects – some pains produce
pleasure and vice versa
6.Extent: how far reaching (how many people
does it affect). So, 1-5 measure the aspects of
pleasure for an individual, while 6 accounts for the
group (society, all sentient beings)
Hedonistic Calculus:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Start with the individual most affected
Quantify the immediate pleasure
Quantify the immediate pain
Quantify the secondary pleasure/pain.
Grand total for that individual
Repeat steps 1-5 for all affected
Repeat for every possible alternative act
Principle of Utility:
Utilitarianism focus on the consequences of
actions – with an eye toward maximizing
happiness/utility.
Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism:
Act Utilitarianism:
“Do those acts which will result in the greatest
good for the greatest number of people”.
The Rule Utilitarianism:
“Follow those rules, the following of which will
result in the greatest good for the greatest
number”….(You do the calculus once on a
proposed rule, and then follow the rule).
`
The Act Utilitarian may allow rules to be
used; but conceives of a rule like “Tell the
Truth” as follows
Telling the truth is generally for the greatest
general good”
But the Rule Utilitarian conceive of this as :
Our always telling the truth is for the greatest
general good” Or “It is for the greatest good
if one always tell the truth”