solution
Four Ethical Decision Criteria
An individual can use four criteria in making ethical choices. The first is utilitarianism, in which decisions are made solely on the basis of their outcomes, ideally to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.101 This view dominates business decision making and is consistent with goals such as efficiency, productivity, and high profits. Keep in mind that utilitarianism is not always as objective as it sounds. A recent study indicated that the ethicality of utilitarianism is influenced in ways we don’t realize. Participants were given a moral dilemma: The weight of five people bends a footbridge so it is low to some train tracks. A train is about to hit the bridge. The choice is to let all five people perish, or push the one heavy man off the bridge to save four people. In the United States, South Korea, France, and Israel, 20 percent of respondents chose to push the man off the bridge, in Spain, 18 percent, and in Korea, none. These might speak to cultural utilitarian values, but a minor change, asking people to answer in a non-native language they knew, caused more participants to push the man overboard: In one group, 33 percent pushed the man, and in another group 44 percent did.102 The emotional distance of answering in a non-native language thus seemed to foster a utilitarian viewpoint. It appears that even our view of what we consider pragmatic is changeable.
101 K. V. Kortenkamp and C. F. Moore, “Ethics under Uncertainty: The Morality and Appropriateness of Utilitarianism When Outcomes Are Uncertain,” American Journal of Psychology 127, no. 3 (2014), pp. 367–382.
102 A. Lukits, “Hello and Bonjour to Moral Dilemmas,” Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2014, p. D4.
A second ethical criterion is to make decisions consistent with fundamental liberties and privileges as set forth in documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An emphasis on rights in decision making means respecting and protecting the basic rights of individuals, such as the rights to privacy, free speech, and due process. This criterion protects whistle-blowers103 when they report unethical or illegal practices by their organizations to the media or to government agencies, using their right to free speech.
103 J. Hollings, “Let the Story Go: The Role of Emotion in the Decision-Making Process of the Reluctant, Vulnerable Witness or Whistle-Blower,” Journal of Business Ethics 114, no. 3 (2013), pp. 501–512.
A third criterion is to impose and enforce rules fairly and impartially to ensure justice or an equitable distribution of benefits and costs.104 Justice perspectives are sometimes used to justify paying people the same wage for a given job, regardless of performance differences, and using seniority as the primary determinant in making layoff decisions. A focus on justice protects the interests of the underrepresented and less powerful, but it can encourage a sense of entitlement that reduces risk-taking, innovation, and productivity.
104 D. E. Rupp, P. M. Wright, S. Aryee, and Y. Luo, “Organizational Justice, Behavioral Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Finally the Three Shall Merge,” Management and Organization Review 11 (2015), pp. 15–24.
A fourth ethical criterion is care. The ethics of care can be stated as follows: “The morally correct action is the one that expresses care in protecting the special relationships that individuals have with each other.”105 The care criterion suggests that we should be aware of the needs, desires, and well-being of those to whom we are closely connected. This perspective does remind us of the difficulty of being impartial in all decisions.
105 P. L. Schumann, “A Moral Principles Framework for Human Resource Management Ethics,” Human Resource Management Review 11 (Spring–Summer 2001), pp. 93–111.
To summarize, a focus on utilitarianism promotes efficiency and productivity, but can sideline the rights of individuals with minority representation,. The use of rights protects individuals but can create a legalistic environment that hinders productivity and efficiency. A focus on justice protects the interests of the underrepresented and less powerful, but it can reduce risk-taking, innovation, and productivity.
Decision makers, particularly in for-profit organizations, feel comfortable with utilitarianism. The “best interests” of the organization and stockholders can justify a lot of questionable actions, such as large layoffs. But many critics feel this perspective needs to change. Public concern about individual rights and social justice suggests that managers should develop ethical standards based on nonutilitarian criteria. This presents a challenge because satisfying individual rights and social justice creates far more ambiguities than utilitarian effects on efficiency and profits. However, while raising prices, selling products with questionable effects on consumer health, closing down inefficient plants, laying off large numbers of employees, and moving production overseas to cut costs can be justified in utilitarian terms, there may no longer be a single measure by which good decisions are judged.
Murad Al-Katib, president of Regina-based AGT Food and Ingredients Inc., wanted to do good for Syrian refugees. Through his company, he got 700 million meals made from lentils, chickpeas, and wheat into the United Nations Syrian refugee program. For this he won the Oslo Business for Peace Award in 2017.106
Lucas Jackson/Reuters
106 J. Hazlewood, “AGT Food President Awarded International Prize by Nobel Laureates,” CBC News, March 29, 2017,http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/nobel-business-prize-al-katib-1.4045869.
This is where corporate social responsibility (CSR) comes in to effect a positive change. As we can see by looking at utilitarian ideals, organizations are not motivated to respond equitably when they are looking only at a balance sheet. However, public pressure on organizations to behave responsibly has meant sustainability issues now affect the bottom line: Consumers increasingly choose to purchase goods and services from organizations with effective CSR initiatives, high performers are attracted to work at CSR organizations, governments offer incentives to organizations for sustainability efforts, and so forth. CSR is now beginning to make good business sense, folding ethics into utilitarian computations.
Increasingly, researchers are turning to behavioral ethics—an area of study that analyzes how people behave when confronted with ethical dilemmas. Their research tells us that while ethical standards exist collectively in societies and organizations and individuals in the form of personal ethics, we do not always follow ethical standards promoted by our organizations, and we sometimes violate our own standards. Our ethical behavior varies widely from one situation to the next. Focus on Research considers why people cheat, and what organizations can do to limit cheating.
An individual can use four criteria in making ethical choices. The first is utilitarianism, in which decisions are made solely on the basis of their outcomes, ideally to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.101 This view dominates business decision making and is consistent with goals such as efficiency, productivity, and high profits. Keep in mind that utilitarianism is not always as objective as it sounds. A recent study indicated that the ethicality of utilitarianism is influenced in ways we don’t realize. Participants were given a moral dilemma: The weight of five people bends a footbridge so it is low to some train tracks. A train is about to hit the bridge. The choice is to let all five people perish, or push the one heavy man off the bridge to save four people. In the United States, South Korea, France, and Israel, 20 percent of respondents chose to push the man off the bridge, in Spain, 18 percent, and in Korea, none. These might speak to cultural utilitarian values, but a minor change, asking people to answer in a non-native language they knew, caused more participants to push the man overboard: In one group, 33 percent pushed the man, and in another group 44 percent did.102 The emotional distance of answering in a non-native language thus seemed to foster a utilitarian viewpoint. It appears that even our view of what we consider pragmatic is changeable.
101 K. V. Kortenkamp and C. F. Moore, “Ethics under Uncertainty: The Morality and Appropriateness of Utilitarianism When Outcomes Are Uncertain,” American Journal of Psychology 127, no. 3 (2014), pp. 367–382.
102 A. Lukits, “Hello and Bonjour to Moral Dilemmas,” Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2014, p. D4.
A second ethical criterion is to make decisions consistent with fundamental liberties and privileges as set forth in documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An emphasis on rights in decision making means respecting and protecting the basic rights of individuals, such as the rights to privacy, free speech, and due process. This criterion protects whistle-blowers103 when they report unethical or illegal practices by their organizations to the media or to government agencies, using their right to free speech.
103 J. Hollings, “Let the Story Go: The Role of Emotion in the Decision-Making Process of the Reluctant, Vulnerable Witness or Whistle-Blower,” Journal of Business Ethics 114, no. 3 (2013), pp. 501–512.
A third criterion is to impose and enforce rules fairly and impartially to ensure justice or an equitable distribution of benefits and costs.104 Justice perspectives are sometimes used to justify paying people the same wage for a given job, regardless of performance differences, and using seniority as the primary determinant in making layoff decisions. A focus on justice protects the interests of the underrepresented and less powerful, but it can encourage a sense of entitlement that reduces risk-taking, innovation, and productivity.
104 D. E. Rupp, P. M. Wright, S. Aryee, and Y. Luo, “Organizational Justice, Behavioral Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Finally the Three Shall Merge,” Management and Organization Review 11 (2015), pp. 15–24.
A fourth ethical criterion is care. The ethics of care can be stated as follows: “The morally correct action is the one that expresses care in protecting the special relationships that individuals have with each other.”105 The care criterion suggests that we should be aware of the needs, desires, and well-being of those to whom we are closely connected. This perspective does remind us of the difficulty of being impartial in all decisions.
105 P. L. Schumann, “A Moral Principles Framework for Human Resource Management Ethics,” Human Resource Management Review 11 (Spring–Summer 2001), pp. 93–111.
To summarize, a focus on utilitarianism promotes efficiency and productivity, but can sideline the rights of individuals with minority representation,. The use of rights protects individuals but can create a legalistic environment that hinders productivity and efficiency. A focus on justice protects the interests of the underrepresented and less powerful, but it can reduce risk-taking, innovation, and productivity.
Decision makers, particularly in for-profit organizations, feel comfortable with utilitarianism. The “best interests” of the organization and stockholders can justify a lot of questionable actions, such as large layoffs. But many critics feel this perspective needs to change. Public concern about individual rights and social justice suggests that managers should develop ethical standards based on nonutilitarian criteria. This presents a challenge because satisfying individual rights and social justice creates far more ambiguities than utilitarian effects on efficiency and profits. However, while raising prices, selling products with questionable effects on consumer health, closing down inefficient plants, laying off large numbers of employees, and moving production overseas to cut costs can be justified in utilitarian terms, there may no longer be a single measure by which good decisions are judged.
Murad Al-Katib, president of Regina-based AGT Food and Ingredients Inc., wanted to do good for Syrian refugees. Through his company, he got 700 million meals made from lentils, chickpeas, and wheat into the United Nations Syrian refugee program. For this he won the Oslo Business for Peace Award in 2017.106
Lucas Jackson/Reuters
106 J. Hazlewood, “AGT Food President Awarded International Prize by Nobel Laureates,” CBC News, March 29, 2017,http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/nobel-business-prize-al-katib-1.4045869.
This is where corporate social responsibility (CSR) comes in to effect a positive change. As we can see by looking at utilitarian ideals, organizations are not motivated to respond equitably when they are looking only at a balance sheet. However, public pressure on organizations to behave responsibly has meant sustainability issues now affect the bottom line: Consumers increasingly choose to purchase goods and services from organizations with effective CSR initiatives, high performers are attracted to work at CSR organizations, governments offer incentives to organizations for sustainability efforts, and so forth. CSR is now beginning to make good business sense, folding ethics into utilitarian computations.
Increasingly, researchers are turning to behavioral ethics—an area of study that analyzes how people behave when confronted with ethical dilemmas. Their research tells us that while ethical standards exist collectively in societies and organizations and individuals in the form of personal ethics, we do not always follow ethical standards promoted by our organizations, and we sometimes violate our own standards. Our ethical behavior varies widely from one situation to the next. Focus on Research considers why people cheat, and what organizations can do to limit cheating.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
