Chapter 2

Ethical Principles,
Quick Tests, And
Decision-Making
Guidelines
Copyright 2003 by SouthWestern, a division of
Thomson Learning

Chapter Topics
Decision criteria for ethical reasoning
2.
Ethical relativism: A self-interest approach
3.
Utilitarianism: A consequentialist (resultsbased) approach
4.
Universalism: A deontological (duty-based)
approach
5.
Rights: An entitlement-based approach
6.
Justice: Procedures, compensation,
retribution
7.
Immoral, amoral, and moral management
8.
Four social responsibility roles
9.
Individual ethical decision-making styles
10.
Quick ethical tests
2003 by South-Western,
a division of
11.Copyright
Concluding
comments
1.

Thomson Learning

Decision Criteria for

Ethical Reasoning
A first step in addressing ethical dilemmas is to
identify the problem and related issues.
Laura Nash developed twelve questions to ask
yourself during the decision-making period to
help clarify ethical problems.
These twelve questions can help individuals:

Openly discuss the responsibilities necessary to

solve ethical problems
Facilitate group discussions
Build cohesiveness and consensus
Serve as an information source
Uncover ethical inconsistencies
Help a CEO see how managers think
Increase the nature and range of choices

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

Decision Criteria for

Ethical Reasoning
The following three criteria can be used in
ethical reasoning:

Moral reasoning must be logical

Factual evidence cited to support a persons
judgment should be accurate, relevant, and
complete
Ethical standards used should be consistent

A simple but powerful question can be

used throughout your decision-making
process in solving ethical dilemmas:

What is my motivation for choosing a course

of action?

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

Decision Criteria for

Ethical Reasoning
A major aim of ethical reasoning is to gain a
clearer and sharper logical focus on problems
to facilitate acting in morally responsible ways.
Two conditions that eliminate a persons moral
responsibility for causing harm are:

Ignorance
Inability

Mitigating circumstances that excuse or lessen

a persons moral responsibility include:

A low level of or lack of seriousness to cause

harm
Uncertainty about knowledge of wrongdoing
The degree to which a harmful injury was caused
or averted

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

Ethical Relativism:
A Self-Interest
Approach
Ethical relativism holds that no
universal standards or rules can be
used to guide or evaluate the
morality of an act.

This view argues that people set

their own moral standards for
judging their actions.

This is also referred to as nave

relativism.

The logic of ethical relativism

Copyright
2003 by South-Western,
a division of
extends
to culture.

Thomson Learning

Ethical Relativism:
A Self-Interest
Approach
Benefits include:

Problems include:

Ability to recognize the distinction

between individual and social values,
customs, and moral standards
Imply an underlying laziness
Contradicts everyday experience
Relativists can become absolutists

Relativism and stakeholder analysis.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

Utilitarianism: A
Consequentialist (ResultsBased) Approach

The basic view holds that an action is

judged as right, good, or wrong on
the basis of its consequences.
The moral authority that drives
utilitarianism is the calculated
consequences or results of an action,
regardless of other principles that
determine the means or motivations
for taking the action.
Utilitarianism includes other tenets.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

Utilitarianism: A
Consequentialist (ResultsBased) Approach
Problems with utilitarianism include:

No agreement exists about the definition of

the good to be maximized
No agreement exists about who decides
How are the costs and benefits of
nonmonetary stakes measured?
Does not consider the individual
Principles of rights and justice are ignored

Utilitarianism and stakeholder

analysis.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

Universalism: A
Deontological (Duty-Based)
Approach

This view is also referred to as

deontological ethics or
nonconsequentialist ethics and holds
that the means justify the ends of an
action, not the consequences.
Kants principle of the categorical
imperative places the moral authority
for taking action on an individuals duty
toward other individuals and humanity.
The categorical imperative consists of
two parts.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

10

Universalism: A
Deontological (Duty-Based)
Approach
The major weaknesses of
universalism and Kants
categorical imperative include:

Principles are imprecise and lack

practical utility
Hard to resolve conflicts of interest
Does not allow for prioritizing ones
duties

Universalism and stakeholder

analysis.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

11

Rights: An EntitlementBased Approach

Moral rights are based on legal rights
and the principle of duty.
Rights can override utilitarian
principles.
The limitations of rights include:

Can be used to disguise and manipulate

selfish, unjust political interests and
claims
Protection of rights can be at the expense
of others
Limits of rights come into question

Rights and stakeholder analysis.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

12

Justice: Procedures,
Compensation,
Retribution
The principle of justice deals with
fairness and equality.
Two recognized principles of fairness
that represent the principle of justice
include:

Equal rights compatible with similar

liberties for others
Social and economic inequality arrangement

Four types of justice include:

Compensatory

Retributive

Distributive

Copyright Procedural
2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

13

Justice: Procedures,
Compensation,
Retribution
Problems using the principle of justice
include:

Justice, rights, and power are really

intertwined.
Two steps in transforming justice:

Who decides who is right and who is wrong?

Who has moral authority to punish?
Can opportunities and burdens be fairly
distributed?

Be aware of your rights and power

Establish legitimate power for obtaining
rights

Justice and stakeholder analysis.

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

14

Immoral, Amoral, Or
Moral Management
Immoral management means
intentionally going against ethical
principles of justice and of fair and
equitable treatment of other
stakeholders.

Amoral management happens when

others are treated negligently without
concern for the consequences of actions
or policies.

Moral management places value on

equitable, fair, and just concern of
others
Copyright
2003 byinvolved.
South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

15

Four Social
Responsibility Roles
Figure 3.3 illustrates four ethical
interpretations of the social roles
and modes of decision-making.
The four social responsibility modes
reflect business roles toward
stockholders and stakeholders.
Two social responsibility
orientations of businesses and
managers toward society include:

Stockholder model
Stakeholder model

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

16

Individual Ethical
Decision-Making Styles
Stanley Krolick developed a
survey that interprets individual
primary and secondary ethical
decision-making styles, that
include:

Individualism
Altruism
Pragmatism
Idealism

Copyright 2003 by South-Western, a division of

Thomson Learning

17

Quick Ethical Tests

The Center for Business Ethics at
Bentley College suggests six
questions to be asked before
making a decision.
Classical ethical tests:

The Golden Rule

The Intuition Ethic

The Means-End Ethic

Test of Common Sense

Test of Ones Best Self

Test of Ventilation

Copyright
2003 by
division of
Test
ofSouth-Western,
PurifiedaIdea

Thomson Learning

18