Chapter 5: Normative ethical theories

Relativism – there is no right and wrong

Absolutism – principles are objective

Pluralism – multiple values, reach consensus if we follow (basic) principles

• Motivation drives action and that action triggers anoutcome

• Consequentialist ethics: moral woth of a decision is judged by the outcome

• Am I acting in my, or my organization’s, best long-term interest?

• An action is morally right if the decision makers freelydecide to pursue either their (short-term) desires or their (long-term) interests.

• Adam Smith (1723-1790) -> need light government and led the free market work <-> Thomas Hobbs: need powerful government to solve issues

• Everybody following self-interest is morally right

Criticism

• Anarchism and chaos (would lead to anachy and chaos)

• Empirical examples: more heroic (eg. saints, parents)or mundane (eg. leaving a tip)

• Is my action producing more pleasure than pain for society in the long run?

• An action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the action.

• Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) & John Stuart Mills (1806-1873)

  
  

  -Man macht eine cost and benefit analysis  weight/count against each other -> when the benefits are higher than the costs, the action is morally right

  -Ends justify the means

Criticism

• Subjectivity and quantification: Comparing utilitarian value to determine best action

• Ignorance of nonutilitarian factors, such as justice (eg., unjustified treatment of minorities) 

-       Difficult to co pare because not all measured in the same kind of unit

• What’s my duty in this situation?

• An action is morally right if it is motivated by a categorical imperative

  • Consistency: action should not be tied to any condition

  • Human dignity: action should not use people as means but as ends

  • Universality: action should be acceptable for every human

• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

-       We look at principles not at the action (we do it because it is the right thing to do)

-       Categorical impertaives (we should not kill, etc)  are consistent, there are no exaptions

-       Means jusity the ends (principal morally right -> don’t care about outcome)

Criticism

• Inadequate handling of emotions, such as sympathy and care

• Emphasis on universal obligations vs. particular obligations (certain roles)

• Moral obligation and impartiality vs personal favoritism (eg., spouse, friends, loyalty for historical suppliers in Japan)

-       Does not take sympathy, favoritsm, etc. into account  always being impartial

• Am I respecting fundamental human rights?

• An action is morally right if it is consistent with certain basic, important, unalienable entitlements that should be respected and protected in every single action (e.g. right to life, freedom and property; education, right to a living wage)

• John Locke (1632-1704)

Criticism

• Conflict among diverse claims to rights

• Existence of diverse perspectives and western centric approach

 —> the universal declaration of Human Rights (based on three pillars)

• How can we work together to provide a mutually acceptable solution to the problem?

• Only those moral norms that meet (or could meet) the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse can claim to be valid. Consensus can be achieved only if all participants participate freely.

• Not based on outcomes nor on principles

• From normative to norm generation: peaceful settlement of a conflict

• Jürgen Habermas (1929-?)

—> The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

-       Norms are emerging from discussion

-       If everyone is fine = morally right

-       Problem: many times in a discussion you only take stakeholders into account who are directly linked not including the ones indirectly linked

Am I acting with integrity?

What would a decent and honest person do in the same situation?

• Morally acceptable actions are those undertaken by actors with virtuous characters

• Virtues are not ours by birth, we acquire them by learning and being in relationships with others in a community (practical wisdom - phronesis)

• Human beings should aim at attaining the happiness associated with the “good life” (eudaimonia)

• Focus on character and integrity of the decision maker (not on outcomes, principles, or procedures)

• Aristotle (384aC-322aC)

-       Educating people into being virtuous

Seek to adjudicate disputes rationally, taking an impartial stance and assuming that other persons are neither more nor less important than ourselves

Multistep ethical decision procedure

1. Get the facts

2. Identify stakeholders

3. Act with integrity

4. Consider the consequences

5. Make a decision