Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

Business Ethics Concepts & Cases


MANUEL G. VELASQUEZ

ABSTRACT
Summary of the main points of the first two chapters in the book. The
remaining chapters are application of the concepts summarized as relating
to political forms of government and market systems. These further
chapters are less relevant to the DBA class that this summary was prepared
for.

 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 1 of 31 0812/2001


Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

preferred counted as
Chapter 1 – have worth, to other equal.
Ethics & such as values 5. Moral
Business “Honesty is including standards
good” and (especially are
Ethics is the “Injustice is ?) self- associated
principles of bad”. interest. with
conduct 4. Moral special
governing an Five standards emotions
individual or characteristi are based and a
a group. It is cs can help on special
the study of pin down the impartial vocabulary
morality. nature of considerat .
moral ions. –
Morality are standards.
the that is, a
point of Ethics is the
standards 1. Moral
view that discipline
that an standards that
individual or deal with does not
evaluate examines
group has matters one’s moral
about what is that we standards
according standards or
right and think can the moral
wrong, or seriously to whether
they standards of
good and injure or a society.
evil. seriously advance
the Ethics is
benefit
Moral interests the study of
human
norms can of a moral
beings.
usually be particular standards –
2. Moral
expressed as individual the process
standards
general rules or group, of examining
are not
or but one the moral
establishe
statements, that goes standards of
d or
such as beyond a person or
changed
“Always tell personal society to
by the
the truth”. interests determine
decisions
Moral to a whether
of
values can “universal these
particular
usually be ” standards
legislative
expressed as standpoint are
bodies.
statements in which reasonable
3. We feel
describing everyone’s or
that moral
objects or interests unreasonable
standards
features of are in order to
should be
objects that impartially apply them
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 2 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

to concrete study analysis to questions


situations attempts to that raised about
and issues. describe or assortment a particular
The ultimate explain the of company.
aim of ethics world institutions, Individual
is to develop without technologies, issues in
a body of reaching any transactions, business
moral conclusions activities, ethics are
standards about and pursuits ethical
that we feel whether the that we call questions
are world is as it business. raised about
reasonable to should be. a particular
hold – Business individual or
standards 1.1 The ethics particular
that we have Nature of investigates individuals
thought Business three within a
about different company.
Ethics
carefully and kinds of
Business issues: Because
have decided
ethics systemic, corporate
are justified
concentrates corporate, acts
standards for
on the moral and originate in
us to accept
standards as individual. the choices
and apply to
they apply to Systemic and actions
the choices
business issues in of human
that fill our
policies, business individuals, it
lives.
institutions, ethics are is these
Although and behavior. ethical individuals
ethics is a Business questions who must be
normative ethics, in raised about seen as the
study of other words, the primary
ethics, the is a form of economic, bearers of
social applied political, moral duties
sciences ethics. It legal, and and moral
engage in a includes not other social responsibility
descriptive only the systems .
study of analysis of within which Nonetheless,
ethics. A moral norms businesses it makes
normative and moral operate. perfectly
study aims values, but Corporate good sense
to discover also attempts issues in to say that a
what should to apply the business corporate
be. A conclusions ethics are organization
descriptive of this ethical has moral
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 3 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

duties and can allow country relativism


that it is the into implies that
morally multinatio nations whatever the
responsible nal to play that are majority in
for its acts. one less our society
country developed. believes
The fact that against  It is often about
multinational another. faced with morality is
s operate in  It can the automatically
more than sometimes quandary correct. The
one country transfer of fundamental
produces raw deciding problem with
ethical materials, which of ethical
dilemmas for goods and these relativism is
their capital different that it holds
managers among its norms and that the
that plants in standards moral
managers of different to standards of
firms limited countries implement a society are
to a single at terms in its the only
country do that many criteria by
not face. enable it operations which
to escape . actions in
 The ability taxes and that society
to shift its fiscal can be
operations obligation Ethical judged.
between s that relativism is
countries companies the view that Almost all
enables limited to there are no ethical issues
the a single ethical raised by
multinatio nation standards new
nal to must bear. that are technologies
escape the absolutely are related in
 They often
social true and that one way or
have the
controls apply or another to
opportunit
that a should be questions of
y to
single applied to risk. Many of
transfer a
nation the the ethical
new
might companies issues new
technolog
attempt to and people of technologies
y or set of
impose on all societies. have created
products
the Thus, the – especially
from a
multinatio theory of information
more
nal and ethical technologies
developed
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 4 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

– are related stages A. Preconve 1. Pu


to privacy. (Kohlberg). ntional nis
Stages hm
Information At these ent
technologies first two an
have also stages, d
the child Ob
raised
is able to edi
difficult respond en
ethical issues to rules ce
about the and social Ori
expectatio ent
nature of the ns and ati
right to can apply on
property the labels –
of good, At
when the bad, right thi
property in and s
question is wrong. sta
These ge,
information. rules, the
Finally, however, ph
biotechnolog are seen ysi
y has created as cal
something co
yet another externally nse
host of imposed qu
troubling on the enc
self. es
ethical of
issues. an
act
1.2 Moral wh
oll
Developmen y
t & Moral det
er
Reasoning mi
As people ne
the
mature, they go
change their od
values in nes
s
very deep an
and profound d
ways. The ba
dn
ability to ess
make of
reasoned tha
moral t
act
judgments .
develops in
identifiable
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 5 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

2. Ins wh 1. Int ,
tru om erp an
me the ers d
nt chi on tru
an ld al st,
d car Co suc
Rel es. nc h
ati B. Conventio ord as
vit nal Stages anc fa
y Maintaini e mil
Ori ng the Ori y
ent expectatio ent an
ati ns of ati d
on one’s own on frie
– family, – nds
At peer Go .
thi group, or od
s nation is be
sta now seen ha
ge, as vio
rig valuable r at
ht in its own thi
act right, s
ion regardless ear
s of the ly
bec conseque co
om nces. nv
e ent
tho ion
se al
tha sta
t ge
can is
ser livi
ve ng
as to
ins the
tru exp
me ect
nts ati
for ons
sat of
isfy tho
ing se
the for
chi wh
ld’s om
ne on
eds e
of fee
the l
ne loy
eds alty
of ,
tho aff
se ect
for ion
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 6 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

2. La ion 1. So ns
w or cia an
an sur l d
d rou Co em
Or ndi ntr ph
de ng act asi
r soc Ori zes
Ori iety ent fair
ent . ati wa
ati C. Post on ys
on Conventio – of
– nal, At rea
Rig Autonomo thi chi
ht us, or s ng
an Principled firs co
d Stages t nse
wr At these pos ns
on stages, t- us
g the co by
at person no nv agr
thi longer ent ee
s simply ion me
mo accepts al nt,
re the values sta co
ma and norms ge ntr
tur of the the act
e groups to per ,
co which he son an
nv or she bec d
ent belongs. om du
ion Instead es e
al the aw pro
sta person are ces
ge now tries tha s.
no to see t
w situations pe
co from a opl
me point of e
to view that hol
be impartiall d a
det y takes var
er everyone’ iet
mi s interests y
ne into of
d account. co
by nfli
loy cti
alt ng
y per
to son
on al
e’s vie
ow ws
n an
lar d
ger opi
nat nio
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 7 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

2. Un reh claimed, tend refers to the


ens
ive
ive
to see reasoning
rsa
l nes themselves process by
Eth s, as part of a which human
uni
ical “web” of behaviors,
Pri ver
sali relationships. institutions,
nci
ple ty For women, or policies
s an morality is are judged to
Ori d
co primarily a be in
ent
ati nsi matter of accordance
on ste “caring” and with or in
– ncy
.
“being violation of
At
thi
responsible” moral
s for others standards.
fin Although with whom Moral
al people one is reasoning
sta
ge,
generally involved in always
rig progress personal involves two
ht through the relationships, essential
act
ion
stages in the and not a components:
co same matter of
me sequence, adhering to 1. An
s not everyone understan
to
impartial and
be progresses impersonal ding of
de through all rules. Moral what
fin the stages. development reasonabl
ed
in Kohlberg has for women is e moral
ter been marked by standards
ms criticized for progress require,
of prohibit,
mo
claiming that toward more
ral the higher adequate value, or
pri stages are ways of condemn;
nci morally and
ple
caring and
s preferable to being 2. Evidence
ch the lower responsible or
ose stages. It for oneself informatio
n
bec fails to and for n that
aus adequately others. This shows that
e trace out the is called the a
of particular
the
pattern of care
ir development perspective. person,
log of women. policy,
ical Females, Moral institution,
co
mp Gilligan reasoning or
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 8 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

behavior moral their firm assumes


has the standards and not that, by
kinds of involved in a sidetrack producing
features person’s their whatever the
that these moral energies or buying public
moral reasoning their firm’s wants (or
standards must be resources values), firms
require, consistent. into “going are
prohibit, The good works”. producing
value, or consistency First, some what all the
condemn. requirement have argued members of
is the basis that in society want,
of an perfectly when in fact
First and important competitive the wants of
primarily, method of free markets, large
moral showing that the pursuit segments of
reasoning a given of profit will society (the
must be moral by itself poor and
logical. All standard ensure that disadvantage
the unspoken must be the members d) are not
moral and modified or of society necessarily
factual rejected: the are served in met because
assumptions use of the most they cannot
must be counter socially fully
made examples or beneficial participate in
explicit, and hypotheticals ways. First, the
both . most marketplace.
assumptions industrial Fourth, the
and premises 1.3 markets are argument is
be displayed Arguments not essentially
and subject For and “perfectly making a
to criticism. competitive”. normative
Against
Second, the Second, the judgment on
factual Business
argument the basis of
evidence Ethics assumes that some
cited in Persons any steps assumed but
support of a involved in taken to unproved
person’s business, increase moral
judgment they claim, profits will standards.
must be should single necessarily
accurate, mindedly be socially A loyal agent
relevant, and pursue the beneficial. of his or her
complete. financial Third, the employer, the
Third, the interests of argument manager has
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 9 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

a duty to arise. The A third kind break the


serve his or law of of objection law.
her employer agency is sometimes
in whatever states that, made against One way to
ways will “in bringing argue that
advance the determining ethics into ethics should
employer’s whether or business. be brought
self-interests. not the This is the into business
The loyal orders of the objection is simply by
agent client to the that to be pointing out
argument agent are ethical it is that, because
relies on reasonable … enough for ethics should
several business or business govern all
questionable professional people voluntary
assumptions. ethics are to merely to human
First, the be obey the law: activities and
argument considered,” Business because
tries to show, and “in no ethics is business is a
again, that event would essentially voluntary
ethics does it be implied obeying the human
not matter by that an agent law. It is activity,
assuming an has a duty to wrong, ethics should
unproved perform acts however, to also govern
moral which are see law and business.
standard. illegal or ethics as
Second, the unethical.” identical. Business
loyal agent Third, the Moreover, activities,
argument loyal agent most like any
assumes that argument ethicists other human
there are no assumes that agree that all activities,
limits to the if a manager citizens have cannot exist
manager’s agrees to a moral unless the
duties to serve a firm, obligation to people
serve the then this obey the law involved in
employer, agreement so long as the business
when in fact, automatically the law does and its
such limits justifies not require surrounding
are an whatever the clearly unjust community
express part manager behavior. adhere to
of the legal does on This means some
and social behalf of the that, in most minimal
institutions firm. cases, it is standards of
from which immoral to ethics.
these duties
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 10 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

Ethical their this can later


consideration agreement. conclusion is retaliate
s are In short, based on a against or
consistent when people false reward the
with business must choose assumption. other party,
pursuits, in between We have cooperation
particular cooperating assumed so is more
the pursuit of or not far that advantageou
profit cooperating prisoner’s s than
(results have in rules or dilemma continuously
been mixed, agreements, situations trying to take
but no and when are isolated advantage of
studies have each has interactions the other
found a more to gain between party.
negative by not people who
correlation). cooperating, never Business
then rational interact interactions
A prisoner’s self-interest again. This with
dilemma is suggests that threat of employees,
a situation in people future customers,
which two should not retaliation suppliers,
parties are cooperate in makes it and creditors
each faced keeping the more rational are repetitive
with a choice rules or for the and ongoing.
between two agreements. parties in a The
options: The series of prisoner’s
Either prisoner’s repeated dilemma
cooperate dilemma, exchanges to argument,
with the then, seems cooperate then, implies
other party to show that than to try to that, over the
or do not the rational take long run and
cooperate. self- advantage of for the most
From the interested each other. part, it is
joint person The most better to be
standpoint of should be important ethical in
the parties unethical in lesson of the business
involved, the business prisoner’s than to be
best outcome when there is dilemma, unethical.
in a something to then, is that
prisoner’s be gained when people Finally, we
dilemma is through deal with should note
for both unethical each other that there is
parties to behavior. repeatedly, also a good
cooperate in However, so that each deal of
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 11 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

evidence that moral perform or circumstance


most people responsibility prevent. s that make
so value is sometimes it difficult
ethical used as an Two but not
behavior that equivalent to conditions impossible
they will moral duty or completely for the
punish those moral eliminate a person to
whom they obligation. person’s avoid doing
perceive to moral it (these
be behaving A person is responsibili affect the
unethically morally ty for person’s
and reward responsible causing a freedom); (c)
those who only for wrongful circumstance
are those acts injury: (1) s that
perceived to and their ignorance minimize but
be ethical. forseen and (2) not
injurious inability. completely
1.4 Moral effects (a) There are remove a
Responsibili which the also several person’s
ty & Blame person mitigating involvement
knowingly factors that in an act
Moral and freely can lessen a (these affect
reasoning, performed or person’s the degree to
however, is brought moral which the
sometimes about and responsibility person
directed at a which it was depending on actually
related but morally the severity caused or
different kind wrong for of the wrong. helped to
of judgment: the person to Mitigating cause the
determining perform or factors wrongful
whether a bring about, include (a) injury).
person is or (b) which circumstance These can
morally the person s that leave a lessen a
responsible, knowingly person person’s
or culpable, and freely uncertain but responsibility
for having failed to not for
done perform or altogether wrongdoing
something prevent and unsure about depending on
wrong or for which it was what he or a fourth
having morally she is doing factor: the
wrongfully wrong for (these affect seriousness
injured the person to the person’s of the wrong.
someone. fail to knowledge);
The term
(b)
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 12 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

Who is the corporate she is


morally managers act organizations “following
responsible within their , will orders”.
for jointly authority) completely
produced and not to eliminate a
acts? The the person’s
traditional managers as moral
view is that individuals. responsibility
those who Because . Moreover,
knowingly individuals depending on
and freely are morally the
did what was responsible seriousness
necessary to for the of the act,
produce the known and the
corporate act intended mitigating
are each consequence factors of
morally s of their free uncertainty,
responsible. actions, any difficulty, and
individual minimal
Critics of the who involvement
traditional knowingly can also
view of the and freely diminish a
individual’s joins his person’s
responsibility actions moral
for corporate together with responsibility
acts have those of for a
claimed that others, corporate
the corporate intending act.
group and thereby to
not the bring about a It is clearly
individuals certain mistaken,
who make up corporate however, to
the group act, will be think that an
must be held morally employee
responsible responsible who freely
for the act. for that act. and
The law The excusing knowingly
typically factors of does
attributes ignorance something
the acts of a and inability, wrong is
corporation’s which are absolved of
managers to endemic to all
the corporate large-scale responsibility
(so long as bureaucratic when he or
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 13 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

consequence Jeremy
Chapter 2 – claims that s is Bentham
Ethical something is sometimes (1748-1832)
Principles in right to the referred to is generally
extent that it as a considered
Business
diminishes consequent the founder
Judgments social costs ialist of traditional
about and approach utilitarianism
justice are increases and . The
based on social sometimes as utilitarian
moral benefits. An a utilitarian principle
principles ethic of approach. holds that:
that identify care is an “An action is
fair ways of ethic that Utilitarianis right from an
distributing emphasizes m is a ethical point
benefits and caring for general term of view if and
burdens the concrete for any view only if the
among the well-being of that holds sum total of
members of a those near to that actions utilities
society. us. and policies produced by
Judgments Evaluations should be that act is
about of the moral evaluated on greater than
violations of character of the basis of the sum total
people’s persons or the benefits of utilities
rights are groups are and costs produced by
based on based on they will any other act
moral what is impose on the agent
principles called an society. Many could have
that indicate ethic of business performed in
the areas on virtue. analysts hold its place.”
which that the best
people’s 2.1 way to The
rights to Utilitarianis evaluate the utilitarian
freedom and m: Weighing ethical principle
well-being Social propriety of a assumes that
must be business we can
Costs and
respected. decision – or somehow
Benefits any other measure and
A utilitarian Selecting the decision – is add the
standard of course of by relying on quantities of
morality; a action that utilitarian benefits
moral would have cost/benefit produced by
principle, the most analysis. an action and
that is, that beneficial subtract
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 14 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

from them the direct cost-benefit is to count


the and analysis. as a cost.
measured indirect 5. The
quantities of benefits Problems assumptio
harm the and costs with n that all
action will that the Utilitarianis goods are
have. Both action m measurabl
the would e implies
immediate produce 1. Difficulties that all
and all for each encounter goods can
foreseeable and every ed be traded
future costs person measuring for
and benefits affected . equivalent
that each by the 2. Some s of each
alternative action in benefits other.
will provide the and costs
for each foreseeabl seem
individual e future. intractabl Replies to
must be 3. The e to the
taken into alternative measurem Problems of
account as that ent Utilitarianis
well as any produces (health). m
significant the 3. Because
indirect greatest many of  Utilitarian
effects. sum total the ism
of utility benefits merely
Three steps must be and costs insists
are chosen as of an that the
performed: the action consequen
ethically cannot ces of any
1. Determine appropriat easily be projected
what e course predicted, act be
alternative of action. they also expressly
actions or cannot be stated
policies adequatel with as
are Utilitarian y much
available views have measured. clarity and
to me on been highly 4. It is accuracy
that influential in unclear as is
occasion. economics exactly humanly
2. For each and is the what is to possible,
alternative basis of the count as a and that
action, techniques of benefit all
estimate economic and what relevant
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 15 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

informatio judgments nt of any the cost of


n of the other safety
concernin comparati benefits equipment
g these ve values they may in a car).
consequen things produce.
ces be have for  You can
presented most weigh Rights and
in a form people. goods Justice –
that will  Several between Problems
allow common- needs and with
them to be sense wants. Utilitarianis
systematic criteria  A m
ally can be standard
compared used to The major
objection
and determine difficulty
against
impartially the with
using
weighed relative utilitarianism
monetary
against values , according
values to
each that to some
measure
other. should be critics, is
all costs
Expressin given to that it is
and
g this various unable to
benefits is
informatio categories deal with two
that some
n in of goods. kinds of
goods, in
quantitativ moral issues:
Instrume particular
e terms those
ntal health and
facilitates relating to
goods are life,
such rights and
things that cannot be
compariso those
are priced.
ns and relating to
considere The
weighting justice. That
d valuable utilitarian
s. is, the
only may
However, utilitarian
because argue,
where principle
they lead however,
quantitativ implies that
to other that not
e data are certain
good only is it
unavailabl actions are
things. possible to
e, one my morally right
Intrinsic put a price
legitimatel when in fact
goods, on health
y rely on they are
however, and life,
shared unjust or
are things but that
and violate
that are we do so
common people’s
desirable almost
sense rights. It can
independe daily (ex.
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 16 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

also go is never utility. The utilities


wrong, when supposed to correct produced
it is applied ask whether moral rules if
to situations that are those everyone
that involve particular that would were to
social justice. action will produce the follow
produce the greatest some
Replies to greatest amount of alternative
the amount of utility if rule.
Problems utility. everyone
with Rights Instead, one were to
and Justice is supposed follow them. There are
to ask two main
Utilitarians whether the 1. An action limits to
have action is is right utilitarian
proposed an required by from an methods of
important the correct ethical moral
and moral rules point of reasoning,
influential that view if and therefore,
alternative everyone only if the although the
version of should action precise
utilitarianism follow. If the would be extent of
call rule- action is required these limits
utilitarianis required by by those is
m. The basic such rules, moral controversial
strategy of then one rules that . First,
the rule- should carry are utilitarian
utilitarian is out the correct. methods are
to limit action. But 2. A moral difficult to
utilitarian what are the rule is use when
analysis to “correct” correct if dealing with
the moral rules? and only if values that
evaluations It is only this the sum are difficult
of moral second total of and perhaps
rules. question, utilities impossible to
According to according to produced measure
the rule- the rule- if quantitatively
utilitarian, utilitarian, everyone . Second,
whey trying that is were to utilitarianism
to determine supposed to follow that by itself
whether a be answered rule is seems to
particular by reference greater deal
action is to than the inadequately
ethical, one maximizing sum total with
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 17 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

situations that all  To  Tightly


that involve human indicate correlated
rights and beings are the with
justice, permitted or existence duties.
although empowered of This is
some have to do prohibitio because
tried to something or ns or one
remedy this are entitled requireme person’s
deficiency by to have nts on moral
restricting something others right
utilitarianism done for that generally
to the them. enable the can be
evaluation of individual defined –
rules. Ways that we to pursue at least
use the term certain partially –
2.2 Rights a right: interests in terms of
and Duties or the moral
 To activities. duties
In general, a indicate
right is an other
the mere people
individual’s absence of
entitlement The most have
prohibitio important toward
to ns against
something. If moral rights that
pursuing are rights person.
it derives some
from a legal that impose  Provide
interest or prohibitions
system, it is individuals
activity. or
a legal with
 To requirements autonomy
right. Legal
indicate on others and
rights are
that a and that equality in
limited to the
person is thereby the free
particular
authorized enable pursuit of
jurisdiction
or individuals to their
within which
empowere choose freely interests.
the legal
d to do whether to
system is in  Provide a
something pursue
force. Moral basis for
either to certain
rights or justifying
secure the interests or
human one’s
interests activities.
rights are actions
of others
based on and for
or to Ways that we
moral norms invoking
secure use the term
and the
one’s moral
principles protection
interests. rights:
that specify
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 18 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

or aid of A large Contractual transactio


others. group of rights and n between
rights called duties particular
negative (sometimes individuals
Because rights is called .
moral rights distinguished special  Depend on
have these by the fact rights and a publicly
features, that its duties or accepted
they provide members can special system of
bases for be defined obligations) rules that
making wholly in are the define the
moral terms of the limited rights transactio
judgments duties others and ns that
that differ have to not correlative give rise
substantially interfere in duties that to those
from certain arise when rights and
utilitarian activities of one person duties.
standards. the person enters an
First, moral who holds a agreement
rights given right. with another The ethical
express the person. rules that
requirements In contrast, Contractual govern
of morality positive rights and contracts:
from the rights do duties are
point of view more than distinguished  Both of
of the impose : the parties
individual, negative to a
whereas duties. They  By the fact contract
utilitarianism also imply that they must have
expresses that some attach to full
the other agents specific knowledge
requirements (it is not individuals of the
of morality always clear and the nature of
from the who) have correlative the
point of view the positive duties are agreement
of society as duty of imposed they are
a whole. providing the only on entering.
Second, holder of the other  Neither
rights limit right with specific party to a
the validity whatever he individuals contract
of appeals to or she needs . must
social to freely  Arise out intentional
benefits and pursue his or of a ly
to numbers. her interests. specific misrepres
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 19 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

ent the else. Kant’s for imperative is


facts of first determining this: “Act in
the formulation moral right such a way
contractua of the and wrong: that you
l situation categorical always treat
to the imperative is  Universali humanity,
other as follows: “I zability: whether in
party. ought never The your own
 Neither to act except person’s person or in
party to in such a way reasons the person of
the that I can for acting any other,
contract also will that must be never simply
must be my maxim reasons as a means,
forced to should that but always at
enter the become a everyone the same
contract universal could act time as an
under law.” An on at least end. Or
duress or action is in never treat
coercion. morally right principle. people only
 The for a person  Reversibili as means,
contract in a certain ty: The but always
must not situation if, person’s also as ends.
bind the and only if, reasons “An action is
parties to the person’s for acting morally right
an reason for must be for a person
immoral carrying out reasons if, and only if,
act. the action is that he or in
a reason that she would performing
he or she be willing the action,
Kant’s theory would be to have all the person
is based on a willing to others does not use
moral have every use, even others
principle that person act as a basis merely as a
he calls the on, in any of how means for
categorical similar they treat advancing
imperative situation. him or his or her
and that The first her. own
requires that formalation interests, but
everyone of the also both
should be categorical The second respects and
treated as a imperative, formulation develops
free person then, Kant gives of their
equal to incorporates the capacity to
everyone two criteria categorical choose freely
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 20 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

for a clear that have Nozick


themselves. interest in the status claims that
being free of moral the only
A large from rights, basic right
number of injury or there is that every
authors have fraud and substantia individual
held that the in being l possesses is
categorical free to disagreem the negative
imperative think, ent right to be
(in one or the associate, concernin free from the
other of its speak, and g what the coercion of
formulations) live limits of other human
explains why privately each of beings.
people have as they these Nozick and
moral rights. choose. rights are other
 Human and libertarians
 Human beings concernin pass too
beings have a g how quickly over
have a clear each of the fact that
clear interest in these the freedom
interest in preserving rights of one person
being the should be necessarily
helped by institution balanced imposes
being of against constraints
provided contracts. other on other
with the conflicting persons.
work, rights.
food, Problems  There are Justice and
clothing, with Kant: counterex Fairness
housing, amples
and  Kant’s Issues
that show
medical theory is involving
the theory
care they not questions of
sometimes
need to precise justice and
goes
live on enough to fairness are
wrong.
when they always be usually
cannot useful. divided into
provide  Although The three
these for we might Libertarian categories:
themselve be able to Objection:
s. agree on Nozick. The  Distribut
 Human the kinds American ive
beings of philosopher justice,
also have interests Robert the first

 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 21 of 31 0812/2001


Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

and basic Individuals Egalitarians both in


category, who are hold that society
is similar in all there are no and in
concerned respects relevant smaller
with the relevant to differences groups:
fair the kind of among need,
distributio treatment in people that ability and
n of question can justify effort.
society’s should be unequal
benefits given similar treatment.
and benefits and Every person Some
burdens. burdens, should be egalitarians
 Retributi even if they given exactly have tried to
ve justice are equal shares strengthen
refers to dissimilar in of a society’s their position
the just other or a group’s by
imposition irrelevant benefits and distinguishin
of respects; and burdens. g two
punishme individuals different
nts and who are Criticisms kinds of
penalties dissimilar in of equality:
on those a relevant Egalitarians political
who do respect : equality and
wrong. ought to be economic
treated  There is equality.
 Compens
dissimilarly, no quality Political
atory
in proportion that all equality
justice
to their human refers to an
concerns
dissimilarity. beings equal
the best
It is based on possess in participation
way of
the purely precisely in, and
compensat
logical idea the same treatment by,
ing people
that we must degree. the means of
for what
they lost be consistent  The controlling
when they in the way egalitarian and directing
were we treat ignores the political
wronged similar some system. This
by others. situations. characteri includes
stics that equal rights
Justice as should be to participate
The Equality: taken into in the
principle of Egalitariani account in legislative
distributive sm distributin process,
justice: g goods equal civil
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 22 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

liberties, and Justice person product


equal rights Based on produces should be
to due Contributio anything determined
process. n: Capitalist worthwhile by the
Economic Justice through market
equality these efforts forces of
refers to Effort: is to reward supply and
equality of Benefits incompetenc demand.
income and should be e and Unfortunatel
wealth and distributed inefficiency. y this method
equality of according to of measuring
opportunity. the value of Productivit the value of a
the y: the better person’s
Thus, they contribution the quality of product still
have argued the a person’s ignores
that every individual contributed people’s
person has a makes to a product, the needs.
right to a society, a more he or
minimum task, a she should Justice
standard of group, or an receive. This based on
living and exchange. ignores Needs and
that income The main people’s Abilities:
and wealth question needs. It is Socialism
should be raised by the difficult to
distributed contributive place any First
equally until principle of objective proposed by
this standard distributive measure on Louis Blanc
is achieved justice is how the value of a (1870-1924)
for everyone. the “value of person’s “From each
The the product, according to
economic contribution” especially in his ability, to
surplus that of each fields such as each
remains after individual is the sciences, according to
everyone has to be the arts, his needs.”
achieved the measured entertainmen The socialist
minimum (based on t, athletics, principal:
standard of work education, work
living can effort). To theology, and burdens
then be reward a health care. should be
distributed person’s distributed
unequally efforts Supply and according to
according to without any Demand: people’s
need, effort reference to The value of abilities, and
and so on. whether the a person’s benefits
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 23 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

should be principle been given A. Each


distributed were previously person
according to enforced, it (under this has an
people’s would maxim) and equal
needs. obliterate haven’t yet right to
individual expended or the
First there freedom. The transferred. most
would be no occupation Obviously, extensi
relation each person this means it ve basic
between the entered would be libertie
amount of would be wrong to tax s
effort a determined one person compati
worker puts by the to provide ble with
forth and the person’s welfare similar
amount of abilities and benefits for libertie
remuneratio not by his or someone s for all,
n one her free else’s needs. and
receives choice. This would B. Social
(because generate and
remuneratio Justice as unjust econom
n would Freedom: treatment of ic
depend on Libertariani the inequali
need, not on sm disadvantage ties are
effort). d. arrange
Human From each d so
nature is according to Justice as that
essentially what he Fairness: they
self- chooses to Rawls are
interested do, to each both:
and according to The
competitive what he distribution
and so makes for of benefits
outside the himself and burdens
family people (perhaps in a society is
cannot be with the just if and
motivated by contracted only if:
the faternal aid of others)
willingness and what
to share and others
help that is choose to do
characteristi for him and
c of families. choose to
If the give him of
socialist what they’ve
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 24 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

1. To 2. At over Part 1 of
th ta Principle B Principle B is
e ch should the called the
gr ed two of them difference
ea to ever come principle. It
te off into conflict, assumes that
st ic and within a productive
be es Principle B, society will
ne an Part 2 is incorporate
fit d supposed to inequalities,
of po take priority but it then
th sit over Part 1. asserts that
e io steps must
le ns Principle A is be taken to
as op called the improve the
t en principle of position of
ad to equal the most
va all liberty: each needy
nt un citizen’s members of
ag de liberties society,
ed r must be unless such
pe co protected improvement
rs nd from invasion s would so
on iti by others burden
s on and must be society that
s equal to they make
of those of everyone,
fai others. These including the
r basic needy, worse
eq liberties off than
ua include the before.
lit right to vote,
y freedom of Part 2 of
of speech and Principle B is
op conscience called the
po and other principle of
rt civil liberties, fair
un freedom to equality of
ity hold personal opportunity:
property, and everyone
freedom should be
Principle A is from given an
supposed to arbitrary equal
take priority arrest. opportunity
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 25 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

to qualify for punishments conditions This view –


the more is certitude are present: that we have
privileged that the an obligation
positions in person being 1. The action to exercise
society’s punished that special care
institutions. actually did inflicted toward those
the wrong. A the injury particular
Retributive third kind of was wrong persons with
Justice condition of or whom we
just negligent. have
Retributive punishments 2. The valuable
justice is that they person’s close
concerns the must be action was relationships,
justice of consistent the real particularly
blaming or and cause of relations of
punishing proportione the injury. dependency
persons for d to the 3. The – is a key
doing wrong. wrong. person concept in an
More inflicted ethic of
relevant to Compensat the injury care. Thus,
our purposes ory Justice voluntarily an ethic of
is the . care
question of Compensator emphasizes
the y justice two moral
conditions concerns the The most
demands:
under which justice of controversial
it is just to restoring to a forms of  We each
punish a person what compensatio exist in a
person for the person n web of
doing wrong. lost when he undoubtedly relationshi
Major or she was are the ps and
conditions wronged by preferential should
under which someone treatment preserve
a person else. programs and
could not be Traditional that attempt nurture
held moralists to remedy those
responsible have argued past concrete
include that a person injustices and
ignorance has a moral against valuable
and obligation to groups. relationshi
inability. A compensate ps we
second kind an injured Partiality
have with
of condition party only if and Care
specific
of just three persons.
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 26 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

 We each care for the involved and


should well-being of whether the
exercise A others. behavior is
special communita consistent
care for rian ethic is 2.5 with one’s
those with an ethic that Integrating agreements
whom we sees Utility, and special
are concrete duties.
Rights,
concretely communities
and Justice and Third, our
related by
communal Caring moral
attending
to their relationships Utilitarian judgments
particular as having a standards are also in
needs, fundamental must be used part based
values, value that when we do on standards
desires, should be not have the of justice
and preserved resources to that indicate
concrete and attain how benefits
well-being maintained. everyone’s and burdens
as seen Second, it is objectives, so should be
from their important to we are distributed
own recognize forced to among the
personal that the consider the members of a
perspectiv demands of net social group.
e, and by caring are benefits and
sometimes in social costs Fourth, our
respondin
conflict with consequent moral
g
the demands on the judgments
positively
of justice. It actions by are also
to these
has been which we can based on
needs,
claimed that attain these standards of
values,
an ethic of objectives. caring that
desires,
care can indicate the
and
degenerate Moral kind of care
concrete
into unjust reasoning of that is owed
well-
favoritism. this type to those with
being,
Its demands forces whom we
particularl
can lead to consideration have special
y of those
burnout due of whether concrete
who are
to the the behavior relationships.
vulnerable
sacrifice of respects the
and This
their own basic rights
dependant suggests
needs and of the
on our that moral
desires to individuals
care.
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 27 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

reasoning one is closely behavior. A


should considering related to person has a
incorporate : or moral virtue
all four dependen when the
kinds of 1. Does the t on person is
moral action, as oneself? disposed to
considerati far as behave
ons, possible, habitually in
although maximize Moral Factual the way and
social Standards Informati
only one or with the
on
the other benefits reasons,
may turn and Maximize Concerningfeelings, and
out to be minimize social desires that
the policy,
relevant or social utility institution,
are
injuries? or behavior
characteristi
decisive in Respect under
a particular 2. Is the moral c of a morally
considerati
situation. action rights on good person.
One simple consisten
strategy for t with the Distribute The Moral
moral benefits Virtues
ensuring and
that all four rights of burdens
those Greek
kinds of justly
philosopher
considerati whom it
will Exercise Aristotle
ons are argued that a
caring
incorporate affect?
3. Will the moral
d into one’s virtue is a
moral action
habit that
reasoning is lead to a The Nature enables a
to inquire just of Virtue human being
systematica distributi
to act in
lly into the on of A moral
accordance
utility, benefits virtue is an
with the
rights, and acquired
specific
justice and burdens? disposition
purpose of
caring 4. Does the that is valued
human
involved in action as part of the
beings.
a given exhibit character of
moral appropria a morally St. Thomas
judgment. te care good human Aquinas,
Ask a series for the being and followed
of questions well- that is Aristotle in
about an being of exhibited in holding that
action that those the person’s the moral
who are habitual
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 28 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

virtues dispositions Hence, there 2.7 Morality


enable we call the is no conflict in
people to moral between Internationa
follow reason virtues, and theories of
l Contexts
in dealing to exercise ethics that
with their and exhibit are based on Some have
desires, them in the principles claimed that,
emotions and many and theories when
actions and situations of ethics operating in
in accepting that human based on less
that the four life sets virtues. An developed
pivotal or before us. ethic of countries,
cardinal virtue is not multinational
moral virtues An action is a fifth kind of s from more
are courage, morally right moral developed
temperance if in carrying principle that home
, justice, and out the should take countries
prudence. action the its place should
Aquinas agent alongside the always follow
added the exercises, principles of those
“theological” exhibits, or utilitarianism practices
or Christian develops a , rights, prevalent in
virtues of morally justice and the more
faith, hope virtuous caring. developed
and charity character, Instead, an country,
– the virtues and it is ethics of which set
that enable a morally virtue fills higher or
person to wrong to the out and adds more
achieve extent that to these four stringent
union with by carrying by looking standards.
God. out the not at the But this
action the actions claim ignores
Virtues, agent people are that
Actions and exercises, required to introducing
Institutions exhibits, or perform, but practices
develops a at the that have
Virtue morally character evolved in a
theory vicious they are highly
argues that character. required to developed
the aim of have. country into
the moral life Virtues and one that is
is to develop Principles less
those developed
general may produce
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 29 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

more harm should be policy nations be


than good. asked about encourage implemente
the exercise d without
any or the damage to
Some have corporate development the host
gone to the action or of morally country and
opposite policy under good its
extreme and consideration character? development
argued that 2. Taking into , and in
by a
multinational account the context
company would such
s should nation’s
operating in level of implementat
always follow a foreign technologica ion be more
local country: l, social and consistent
practices, economic with the
whatever 1. What does development ethical
and what its standards of
they may be, the
corporate government utilitarianis
or that they m, rights,
policy or is doing to
should do action really promote this justice, and
whatever the mean in the development caring?
local context of , does the Would such
government the local corporate implementat
culture? policy or ion
wants, encourage
When action
because it is produce the exercise
viewed in
the terms of its consequenc or the
representativ local es that are development
e of the cultural ethically of morally
meaning, is acceptable good
people. But it
the policy or from the character?
is sometimes 3. If the
action point of
unethical to ethically view of corporate
go along with acceptable, utilitarianis action or
local or does it m, rights, policy is
practices or violate the justice and allowed or
government ethical caring, or required by
standards of from the the laws or
requirements point of the decrees
utilitarianis
as it m, rights, view of of the local
sometimes is justice, and moral government,
to oppose caring to character? does this
them. such an Can the government
extent that more truly
it should not stringent represent
The
be legal the will of
foregoing requirement all its
undertaken?
discussion From the s or people?
suggests that perspective practices Does the
the following of virtue, common in corporate
questions does the more action or
action or developed policy
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 30 of 31 0812/2001
Business Ethics, Anderson University DBA Fall 2001

nevertheless business in
violate the the host
principles of country
utilitarianis without
m, rights, engaging in
justice or the
caring, or is practice? If
it not, then
condemnabl does the
e from the practice
perspective violate the
of moral principles of
character? If utilitarianis
so, and if m, rights,
the action or justice, and
policy is caring to a
legally degree
required to significant
do business enough to
in the host require
country, withdrawal
then is the from that
ethical country? Is
violation the practice
significant so
enough to pernicious
require from the
withdrawal perspective
from that of moral
country? character as
4. If the to require
corporate withdrawal
action or from the
policy country?
involves a
local
common
practice that
is morally
questionable
by home
country
standards
(such as
sexual
discriminati
on or
bribery of
government
personnel),
is it possible
to conduct
 2001by Karl R. Knapp Page 31 of 31 0812/2001

Вам также может понравиться