Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 50

The ultimate aim of the ethics is to develop a body of moral standard that we feel are reasonable to hold standard

d that we have thought about carefully and have decided are justified standards for us to accept and apply to the choice that fill our lives.

Normative study: An investigation that attempts to reach conclusions about what things are good or bad or about what actions are right or wrong.

Descriptive Study: An investigation that attempts to describe or explain the world without reaching any conclusion about the world is as it should be.

Business Ethics is a specialized study of moral right and wrong. It concentrates on moral standard as they apply to business institutions, organizations and behavior. Study of moral standards and how these apply to the social systems and organizations through which modern societies produce and distribute good and services. Modern Corporations- who have the right to sue and to be sued, own and sells property to enter into contracts, all in their own name.

Business ethics is a study of moral standards and how these apply to the social system and organizations through which ,modern societies produces and distribute goods and services and to the behavior of the people who work within these organizations

Ethical behaviour is the best long-term business strategy for a company Increasingly accepted during the last few years Ethical behaviour is not always rewarded Unethical behaviour is not always punished In the long run ethical behaviour can give a company significant competitive advantage.

Business ethics cover a variety of topics, there are three basic types of issues:

Systemic issues questions raised about the economic, political, legal, or other social systems within which businesses operate. These include questions about the morality of capitalism or of the laws, regulations, industrial structures, and social practices within which American businesses operate.

Corporate issues questions raised about a particular company. These include questions about the morality of the activities, policies, practices, or organizational structure of an individual company taken as a whole. Individual issues questions about a particular individual within an organization and their behaviors and decisions. These include questions about the morality of the decisions, actions, or character of an individual.

Two Views One is the view of those who argue that, because of the rules that tie the organization together allows us to say that corporations act as individuals and have intended objectives At the other extreme is the view of philosophers who hold that it makes no sense to hold business organizations morally responsible or to say that they have moral duties. Which One of these two extreme views is correct ? ----- Perhaps Neither.

Philosopher John Searle:

A corporate organization exists only if (1) there exist certain humans individuals who are in certain circumstances and relationships, and (2) our linguistic and social convention lay down that when those kinds of individual exist in those kind of circumstances and relationships, they shall count as a corporate organization. A corporate organization act only if (1) certain human individuals in the organization performed certain actions in certain circumstances and (2) our linguistic and social conventions lay down that when those kinds of individuals perform those kinds of actions in those kinds of circumstances, this shall count act as an act of their corporate organization.

The central point that we must constantly keep before our eyes as we apply the standards of ethics to business activities and that we must not let the fiction of the corporation obscure, is that human individuals underlie the corporate organization.

Has facilitated the international flow of capital, and the spread of multinationals corporations. Lowering of trade barriers and the rise of world wide open markets, the creation of global communication and transportation systems such as internal and global shipping, the development of international trade organization such as the world Trade organization, the establishment of international financial institution such as world bank and the international monetary fund

Specialization has increased the worlds overall productivity, which in turns has made all participating nations better off then would be if each nations tries to produce everything of its own. Globalization also accused of inflicting significant harms on the world. Globalization is also accused of giving multinational too free a hand.

Ability to shift operations from nation to nation, critics claim, enables the multi national to play one country off against another and to escape whatever social controls any one nation might try to impose to the multinationals If multinational does not like one nations environmental or labour laws, for example it can move or threaten to move to a country without such laws. Racism to the bottom; a global decline in labour, environmental and wage standards

The American oil company Unocal, for example, has been accused of relying on military forces in Burma who commonly used force or slave labor to clear roads and construct buildings for Unocal.

The German company Lahmeyer international, the Canadian company Acres, and the French company Schneider Electric Were convicted of giving bribes to government officials in South Affrica, where bribes are in fact, common. Monsanto an American company, Unilever a British Dutch company and Syngenta, a Swiss Company have all been accused of following the common local practices of using child labor to process cotton seeds in India, paying them low wages, exposing them to pesticides and keeping them out of school.

A theory that there are no ethical standards that are absolutely true and that apply or should be applied to the companies and people of all societies. In ones moral reasoning, one should always follow the moral standards prevalent in what ever society one finds oneself. When In Rome, do as the Romans Do Perhaps the most troubling criticism relativism must deal with are those that claim that ethical relativism has coherent consequences.

In 2001 the BBC, a British news company, reported that children were being kidnapped and used as slaves on cocoa farms in the West African country of the Ivory Coast and that several American chocolate manufacturers were knowingly using cocoa beans harvested by these slave children in their products. A journalist recently discovered that IBM knowingly supplied the data-processing machine that the Nazis used to track down and exterminate Jews in Germany and that its profit from doing business with the Nazis helped make it the successful company it is today.

Some moral standards are found in all societies. Moral differences do not logically imply relativism. Relativism is coherent. Relativism privileges the current moral standards of a society.

This recognition that our moral standards as well as those of other societies might be wrong implies that Moral standards a society happens to accept cannot be the only criteria of right or wrong

Ethical relativist reminds us that different societies have different social beliefs and We should not simply dismiss the moral beliefs of other cultures when they do not match our own

What exactly constitutes a culture? If we are a part of more than one culture, to which cultural group do we owe ultimate allegiance? Which cultural group trumps the others?
Nation?

Ethnic group Religion? Families or clans? Why not Individuals?

If, as it appears, most of us belong to a number of competing cultures, then the claim that cultures are so isolated that we cannot understand and make judgments about another culture is false. In fact, it is common for us to make judgments among several cultural influences, and to decide which moral principles we prefer.

When cultures hold differing scientific views, e.g., the world is flat/the world is round, we do not hesitate to say one culture is wrong. If some culture holds, contrary to the values of almost all cultures, that enslaving a particular ethnic group or killing all Jews is morally good, isnt it just as logical to say that culture holds false moral principles?

Herskovits argues for moral relativism. In fact, he claims that since we cannot legitimately judge the ethics of another culture, we have a responsibility to be tolerant of other cultures. Pojman points out that Herskovits is claiming there is one objective ethical claim that binds us all: being tolerant. But if that is an objective value, then relativism is false.

Must we claim that every aspect of morality should be relative to the culture, or can some behaviors, e. g.,
torturing innocent children,
slavery, or killing Jews or Palestinians or Hutus or

Christians or Muslims, etc.,--cross

some objective standard that people generally would adhere to?

Bertrand Russell points out that ethical relativism implies that anyone who breaks from the moral values of his culture is doing wrong. However, he claims, the opposite is often true. We honor those reformers who attempt to improve on a cultural norm. If a reformer attempts to eliminate the practice of slavery in a culture, for example, she does it by claiming allegiance to some objective value beyond the culture itself, perhaps a principle of human liberty. Perhaps she feels intuitively that another value would be better at enhancing human happiness.

Absolutism makes the claim that there are absolute values above and beyond any prevailing cultural values. The source of this absolute authority could be the pope or other religious leader the King God Nature itself

Strengths: It does appear that we need to appeal to some values outside our culture. We should not tolerate everything. Weaknesses: Whose God or King or religious leader is the one absolute source of ethical principles? This view implies we dont learn from experiences and each other in improving our cultures values; rather, we depend on the authority to tell us what is right.

Pojmans position, moral objectivism, takes a more moderate position. He claims the following: Moral goodness has something to do with the ameliorating of suffering, the resolution of conflict, and the promotion of human flourishing (Pojman, The Moral Life, 3rd ed. 187).

The claim that there are objective moral values does not require or depend on a belief in God or a religion. There may be competing sets of proposed objective moral principles. The objective moral principles may not be real, that is, they may not have a separate existence apart from human needs, and they may not be absolute.

Pojman first claims that It is morally wrong to torture people for the fun of it is an objectively true principle. He claims that if some rare culture holding an opposing view were to come into existence, it makes more sense to say that one cultures behavior is ethically wrong than to say torturing people for fun is morally good if the culture says it is.

Pojman

calls the view that values are dependent on the culture weak dependency. He makes a case for strong dependency, the view that values are largely dependent on a common human nature that we all share. Morally as well as physically, there is only one world, and we all have to live in it. (Mary Midgley)

Moral principles are functions of human needs and interests . . . . Some moral principles will promote human interests and meet human needs better than others. Those moral principles that meet human needs better are objectively valid. . . . There is an objectively valid set of moral principles (Pojman. The Moral Life. 185).

We assert that other cultures can be wrong about scientific facts. Isnt it logical that cultures, including our own, can be wrong about moral claims? Isnt it possible, for example, that the practice of slavery was objectively not as good as the moral practice of treating all people as equals? Isnt that the reason we honor people such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.?

A number of philosophers, e.g., Confucius, Hobbes, Kant, Locke, etc., claim that our fundamental reasoning power teaches us that we should treat others in a way we would like to be treated, or that we should not do to others that which we would not have them do to us. If that is true, then it could be argued that our own reasoning could be an objective standard by which to evaluate cultural norms.

We need to distinguish in our minds the difference between saying a person is bad because she does something that is an accepted practice in her culture, and asserting that the principle or behavior is objectively bad. For example, moral objectivism does not imply that we must condemn cannibals who eat human flesh because that is accepted in their culture. At the same time, objectivists can claim that the practice of cannibalism is not best suited to ameliorating suffering or bringing happiness and prosperity to that culture.

Pojmans moral objectivism does not imply that the same moral rule would necessarily exist for all persons in all cultures in all situations. It makes a much more limited claim; it argues that it is possible to evaluate whether some moral principle is better or worse than another. As the situation changes, the ethical principle may as well. In Pojmans mention of Ross, for example, Ross may argue that it is a prima facie* obligation to tell the truth. However, if lying will save a life, it is likely we might have a stronger obligation to save a life than to tell the truth. *at first glance

Moral goodness has something to do with the ameliorating of suffering, the resolution of conflict, and the promotion of human flourishing (Pojman, The
Moral Life, 3rd ed. 187).

First, be clear in our minds the distinction between saying we should not judge a person who does what he does because he was raised in a different culture and the philosophic question of whether there are grounds for being critical of any cultural belief or practice, including our own. Outline the pros and cons for each position. Write an effective argument.

Information Technology: The use of extremely powerful and compact computers, the internet wireless communications, digitalization, and numerous other technologies that have enabled us to capture, manipulate, and move information in new and creative ways. Cyberspace: A term used to denote the existence of information on an electronic network of linked computer system

Lawrence Kohlberg identified six stages of moral development: Level One: Pre-conventional Stages

Punishment and Obedience Orientation - At this stage, the physical consequences of an act wholly determine the goodness or badness of that act. The child's reasons for doing the right thing are to avoid punishment or defer to the superior physical power of authorities. There is little awareness that others have needs similar to ones own. Instrument and Relativity Orientation- At this stage, right actions become those that can serve as instruments for satisfying the childs own needs or the needs of those for whom the child cares. At these first two stages, the child is able to respond to rules and social expectations and can apply the labels good, bad, right, and wrong. These rules, however, are seen as something externally imposed on the self. Right and wrong are interpreted in terms of the pleasant or painful consequences of actions or in terms of the physical power of those who set the rules.

Level Two: Conventional Stages

Maintaining the expectations of one's own family, peer group, or nation is now seen as valuable in its own right, regardless of the consequences. Interpersonal Concordance Orientation - Good behavior at this early conventional stage is living to the expectations of those for whom one feels loyalty, affection, and trust, such as family and friends. Right action is conformity to what is generally expected in one's role as a good son, daughter, brother, friend, and so on. Law and Order Orientation - Right and wrong at this more mature conventional stage now come to be determined by loyalty to one's own larger nation or surrounding society. Laws are to be upheld except where they conflict with other fixed social duties.

Level Three: Post-conventional, Autonomous, or Principled Stages Social Contract Orientation - At this first postconventional stage, the person becomes aware that people hold a variety of conflicting personal views and opinions and emphasizes fair ways of reaching consensus by agreement, contract, and due process. Universal Ethical Principles Orientation - At this final stage, right action comes to be defined in terms of moral principles chosen because of their logical comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency.

A significant criticism of Kolberg is one that arises from the work of Carol Gilligan, a psychologist. There are, Gilligan claimed, two different ways to approach moral issues. First, there is a male approach that Kohlbergs theory emphasizes. Second is female approach to moral issues that Kohlberg does not recognize. In her theory, the earliest or preconventional level of moral development for women is one marked by caring only for oneself. Women move to a second conventional level when they internalize conventional norms about caring for others and in doing so come to neglect themselves. As women move to the post conventional or most mature level, however they become critical of the conventional norms they had earlier accepted, and they come to achieve a balance between caring for others and caring for oneself.

Moral reasoning refers to the reasoning process by which human behaviors, institutions or moral policies are judged to be in accordance with or in violation of moral standards. Moral reasoning always involves two essential components ; (a) an understanding of what reasonable moral standards requires, prohibited, value or condemn; and (b) evidence or information that shows that a particular persons, policy, institution, or behaviors has the kind of features that these moral standards require, prohibit, value, or condemn. To evaluate the adequacy of moral reasoning, ethicists employ three main criteria:

Moral reasoning must be logical. Factual evidence must be accurate, relevant, and complete. Moral standards must be consistent.

First, they argue that the pursuit of profit in perfectly competitive free markets will, by itself, ensure that the members of a society are served in the most socially beneficial ways. Second, they claim that employees, as "loyal agents," are obligated to serve their employers single-mindedly, in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interest. As a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve his or her employer as the employer would want to be served (if the employer had the agent's expertise). An employer would want to be served in whatever ways will advance his or her self-interests. Therefore, as a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve his or her employer in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interests.

Third, they say that obeying the law is sufficient for businesses and that business ethics is, essentially, nothing more than obeying the law. However, the law and morality do not always coincide (again, slavery and Nazi Germany are relevant examples). Thus, none of the arguments for keeping ethics out of business seems forceful. In contrast, there are fairly strong arguments for bringing ethics into business. One argument points out that since ethics should govern all human activity, there is no reason to exempt business activity from ethical scrutiny. One interesting argument actually claims that ethical considerations are consistent with business activities such as the pursuit of profit

A prisoners dilemma is a situation in which two parties are each faced with a choice between two options: Either cooperate with the other party or do not cooperate. If both parties cooperate, they will both gain some benefit. If both choose not to cooperate, neither gets the benefit. If one cooperates while the other chooses not to cooperate, the one who cooperates suffers a loss while the one who chooses not to cooperate gains a benefit. Though it may seem a bit stilted, closer examination will reveal that we all face such dilemmas in our everyday lives. The prisoner's dilemma demonstrates that cooperation is more advantageous than continuously trying to take advantage of others at least when we will meet these others again.

Moral responsibility is directed not only at judgments concerning right or wrong. Sometimes, they are directed at determining whether a person or organization is morally responsible for having done something wrong. People are not always responsible for their wrongful or injurious acts: moral responsibility is incurred only when a person knowingly and freely acts in an immoral way or fails to act in a moral way. Ignorance and inability to do otherwise are two conditions, called excusing condition, that completely eliminate a person's moral responsibility for causing wrongful injury. Ignorance and inability do not always excuse a person, however. When one deliberately keeps oneself ignorant to escape responsibility, that ignorance does not excuse the wrongful injury. A person is morally responsible for an injury or a wrong if:
The person caused or helped cause it, or failed to prevent it when he could and should have; The person did so knowing what he or she was doing; The person did so of his own free will.

Inability eliminates responsibility because a person cannot have a moral obligation to do something over which he or she has no control. A person is NOT morally responsible for an injury or a wrong if:
The person did not cause and could not prevent the injury or wrong; The person did not know he was inflicting the injury or the wrong; The person did not inflict the injury or the wrong of his own free will;

In addition to the excusing conditions, there are also three mitigating factors that diminish moral responsibility. They are:
Circumstances that leave a person uncertain (but not unsure) about

what he or she is doing; Circumstances that make it difficult (but not impossible) for the person to avoid doing it; Circumstances that minimize (but do not remove) a person's involvement in an act.

The extents to which these mitigating circumstances can diminish an agent's responsibility depend on the seriousness of the injury. Generally, the more serious the injury, the less the mitigating circumstances will diminish responsibility.

Prisoner B Cooperates with Prisoner A

Prisoner B does not Cooperate With Prisoner A A gets 3 years B goes free

Prisoner A A gets 1 year Cooperates with B gets 1 year Prisoner B Prisoner A does not goes free A Cooperate with B get 3 years Prisoner B

A gets 2 years B gets 2 years