Normative Theories
of Ethics
• Any theory which seeks to explain or predict
what would happen under theoretical
constraints; what ought to be, rather than
what is, or will be.
• In ethics, normative theories propose some
principle or principles for distinguishing right
action from wrong actions. These theories
can, for convenience, be divided into
consequentialist and non-consequentialist
approaches.
CONSEQUENTIALISM
• Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is the view
that normative properties depend only on
consequences. This general approach can be applied
at different levels to different normative properties
of different kinds of things, but the most prominent
example is consequentialism about the moral
rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is
morally right depends only on the consequences of
that act or of something related to that act, such as
the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring
acts of the same kind.
NON CONSEQUENTIALISM
• A normative stance that views what should be done
as determined by fundamental principles that do not
derive solely or even primarily from consequences.
An act or rule is right insofar as it satisfies the
demands of some over-riding (non-consequentialist)
principle of moral duty. Deontologists sometimes
stress that the value of actions lies more in motives
than in consequences.
2 Important Consequentialist
Theories
EGOISM
UTILITARIANISM
Egoism
• Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position.
Psychological egoism, the most famous descriptive
position, claims that each person has but one
ultimate aim: her own welfare. Normative forms of
egoism make claims about what one ought to do,
rather than describe what one does do. Ethical
egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for
an action to be morally right that it maximize one's
self-interest. Rational egoism claims that it is
necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational
that it maximize one's self-interest.
Egoism
• Personal egoists claim they should pursue
their own best long-term interests, but they
do not say what others should do.
• Impersonal egoists claim that everyone should
follow his or her best long-term interests.
• Some years ago, Firestone Tire and Rubber
Company announced that it was discontinuing
its controversial “500” steel-belted radial,
which accordingly had been associated with
15 deaths and 31 injuries. This was
interpreted by newspapers as an immediate
removal of the tires from the market, whereas
Firestone intended a “rolling phaseout”.
• It was later found out that Firestone had in
fact continued making the steel-belted “500”
radial, despite earlier media reports to the
contrary. Immediately thereafter, newspapers
reported a Firestone spokesperson as denying
that Firestone had misled the public. Asked
why Firestone had not corrected the media
misinterpretation of the company’s intent...
• The spokesperson said that Firestone’s policy
was to ask for corrections only when it was
beneficial to the company to do so – in other
words, when it was in the company’s selfinterest.
Misconceptions about Egoism
• Egoists only do what they like
– Not so. Undergoing unpleasant, even painful
experience meshes with egoism, provided such
temporary sacrifice is necessary for the
advancement of one’s long-term interest.
• All egoists endorse hedonism (the view that
only pleasure is of intrinsic value, the only
good in life worth pursuing)
– although some egoists are hedonistic, others have
a broader view of what constitutes self-interest.
Misconceptions about Egoism
• Egoists cannot act honestly, be gracious and
helpful to others, or otherwise promote
others’ interests.
– Egoism, however, requires us to do whatever will
best further our own interests, and doing this
sometimes requires us to advance the interests of
others.
Problems with Egoism
• Psychological egoism is not a sound
theory
• Ethical egoism is not really a moral
theory at all
• Ethical egoism ignores blatant
wrongs
Utilitarianism
• one of the most powerful and persuasive
approaches to normative ethics in the history
of philosophy.
• This theory defines morality in terms of the
maximization of net expectable utility for all
parties affected by a decision or action.
• Moral doctrine that we should always act to
produce the greatest possible balance of good
over bad for everyone affected by our action.
Six Points about Utilitarianism
• When a utilitarian advocates “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number,” we must
consider unhappiness or pain as well as
happiness.
• Actions affect people to different degrees
• Because utilitarians evaluate actions according
to their consequences, and actions produce
different results in different circumstances,
almost anything might, in principle, be morally
right in some particular circumstance.
Six Points about Utilitarianism
(cont’n)
• Utilitarians wish to maximize happiness not
simply immediately but in the long run as well.
• Utilitarians acknowledge that we often do not
know with certainty what the future
consequences of our actions will be.
• When choosing among possible actions,
utilitarianism does not require us to disregard
our own pleasure.
Critical Inquiries of Utilitarianism
• Is utilitarianism really workable?
• Are some actions wrong, even if they
produce good?
• Is utilitarianism unjust?
The Interplay Between Self-Interest
and Utility
• Both self-interest and utility play important roles
in organizational decisions, and the views of
many businesspeople blend these 2 theories. To
the extent that each business pursues its own
interests and each businessperson tries to
maximize personal success, business practice can
be called egoistic. But business practice is also
utilitarian in that pursuing self-interest is thought
to maximize the total good, and playing by the
established rules of the competitive game is seen
as advancing the good of society as a whole.
Kant’s Ethics
• German philosopher Immanuel Kant sought
moral principles that do not rest on
contingencies and that define actions as
inherently right or wrong apart from any
particular circumstances. He believed that
moral rules can, in principle, be known as a
result of reason alone and are not based on
observation.
Kant’s Ethics (cont’n)
• “The basis of obligation must not be sought in
human nature, nor in the circumstance of the
world.” – Kant
– Moral reasoning is not based on factual
knowledge and that reason by itself can reveal the
basic principle of morality.
Kant’s Ethics (cont’n)
• Immanuel Kant (1724–
1804) is the central figure in
modern philosophy.
• Philosopher whose
comprehensive and
systematic work in the theory
of knowledge, ethics, and
aesthetics greatly influenced
all subsequent philosophy,
especially the various schools
of Kantianism and Idealism.
Good Will
• According to Kant, nothing is good in itself
except a good will. This does not mean that
intelligence, courage, self-control, health,
happiness, and other things are not good and
desirable. But Kant believed that their
goodness depends on the will that makes use
of them.
• By will Kant meant the uniquely human
capacity to act from principle.
The Categorical Imperative
• Kant believed that reason alone can yield a
moral law. We need not rely on empirical
evidence relating to consequences and to
similar situations.
• Kant’s categorical imperative says that we
should act in such a way that we can will the
maxim of our action to become a universal
law.
Kant in an Organizational Context
• The categorical imperative gives us firm rules
to follow in moral decision making, rules that
do not depend on circumstances or results
and that do not permit individual exceptions.
• One of the principal objections to egoism and
utilitarianism is that they permit us to treat
humans as means to ends. Kant’s principles
clearly forbid this.
Kant in an Organizational Context
(Cont’n)
• Kant stresses the importance of motivation
and of acting on principle. According to Kant,
it is not enough just to do the right thing; an
action has moral worth only if it is done from
a sense of duty – that is, from a desire to do
the right thing for its own sake.
Critical Inquiries of Kant’s Ethics
• What has moral worth?
• Is the categorical imperative an adequate
test of right?
• What does it mean to treat people as
means?
Prima Facie Principles
• Philosophers like W.D. Ross believe that most,
or even all, of our moral obligations are prima
facie ones. A prima facie obligation is simply
an obligation that can be over-ridden by a
more important obligation.
• Ross thought that the various prima facie
obligations could be divided into seven basic
types.
Prima Facie Obligations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Duties of Fidelity
Duties of Reparation
Duties of Gratitude
Duties of Justice
Duties of Beneficence
Duties of Self-Improvement
Duties Not to Injure Others
Assisting Others
• Most nonutilitarian philosophers believe that
we have some obligation to promote the
general welfare, but they typically view this
obligation as less stringent than, for example,
the obligation not to injure people. They see
us as having a much stronger obligation to
refrain from violating people’s rights than to
promote their happiness or well-being.
Assisting Others (cont’n)
• Many moral philosophers draw a related
distinction between actions that we are
morally required to take and charitable or
supererogatory acts – that is, actions that
would be good to take but not immoral not to
take.
Moral Rights
• A right is an entitlement to act or have others
act in a certain way. The connection between
rights and duties is that, generally speaking, if
you have a right to do something, then
someone else has a correlative duty to act in a
certain way.
• Moral rights are noneconomic rights that are
considered to be the inalienable rights of the
creators of works.
Nonconsequentialism in an
Organizational Context
• NC stresses that moral decision making
involves the weighing of different moral
factors and considerations
• NC acknowledges that the organization has its
own legitimate goals to pursue.
• NC stresses the importance of moral rights
Critical Inquiries of
Nonconsequentialism
• How well justified are these
nonconsequentialist principles and moral
rights?
• Can nonconsequentialists satisfactorily handle
conflicting rights and principles?
Moral Decision Making: Toward a
Synthesis
• Theoretical controversies permeate the
subject of ethics, and philosophers have
proposed rival ways of understanding right
and wrong. These philosophical differences of
perspective, emphasis, and theory are
significant and can have profound practical
consequences.
Moral Decision Making: Toward a
Synthesis
• In any moral discussion, make sure
participants agree about the relevant facts.
• Once there is general agreement on factual
matters, try to spell out the moral principles
to which different people are, at least
implicitly, appealing.