Prescriptive Approaches
to Ethics
Geoffrey G. Bell, PhD, CA
University of Minnesota Duluth
October 2004
Sources for Lecture





Our text
Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals
(many editions)
Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism (many editions)
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Belknap
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cavanagh, G.F., D.J. Moberg, and M. Velasquez
(1981). “The ethics of organizational politics,”
Academy of Management Review, 6(3): 363374.
Problems with Prescriptive
Approaches


People tend to be a “blend,” not “purely”
Utilitarian or Kantian or whatever.
Prescriptive approaches give conflicting
advice, or no advice at all.
Who gets the heart transplant?




Rejean is 55 years old, recently retired, and covered fully by health
care. He is married, and his children are adults with children of
their own. Historically, Rejean has been active, but with his recent
heart attack, he has become bed-ridden. Without a transplant, he
will die.
Mary is 23 years old, and a single mother of one 2-year-old boy.
She is on welfare, and has no health insurance. Her parents are
retired, but “just barely making ends meet,” so cannot provide
financial assistance for the operation. She needs a transplant to
survive.
Tom is a 35 year old, married, laborer; the father of a 15-year-old
daughter and a 10-year-old son. His work provides partial health
care, but he would need to take out a second mortgage on his
house to pay much of the cost of a transplant operation. Without
the transplant, Tom can expect to live probably 5 years before other
vital organs fail.
Who should get the heart, assuming it’s a “fit” for all, and why?
Consequentialist Theory





Also called “teleological.”
Concerned with outcomes or consequences of
action, and hence the name.
Utilitarianism is well-known example.
Utilitarianism seeks to maximize welfare of all
people concerned with decision.
Makes for very difficult calculus (informationprocessing demands very high).
Deontological theory (Kantianism)



Focused on ethics as duty (what ought to be
done).
“Pure” Kantianism has no regard for outcomes of
decision.
Can the decision rule be turned into a universal
rule? If not, then it’s unethical.



(e.g., promise-breaking is wrong; lying is wrong)
Always treat people as ends and never as means
to an end.
Problem with “horrendous” outcomes.

E.g., axe murderer.
An Introduction to Justice



Justice is often used to refer to what is fair.
Justice concerns giving people what they
deserve.
Often arises in questions of distribution:




If there are a fixed number of organs to be
donated, what is a just way to allocate them?
If there is a shortfall of state revenue, what is a
just way to allocate the cuts?
If taxes must be raised, what is a just
apportionment of the raises?
Business is concerned with wealth allocation,
so justice is a relevant concept.
Rawls’ Theory of Justice


Rawls asks people to imagine a situation in
which free and equal self-interested persons
attempt to arrive at unanimous agreement on
principles that will serve as the basis for
constructing the major institutions of society.
Rawls pre-contractual situation (the “original
position”) is one in which people act behind a
veil of ignorance.

They are asked to agree on the principles of justice
without knowing about themselves and their
position (sex, race, class, natural ability,
intelligence, etc.).
Rawls’ Principles of Justice
1.
2.
Each person is to have an equal right
to the most extensive total system of
basic liberties compatible with a similar
system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to
be arranged so that they are both:
A. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged,
and
B. attached to offices and positions open to all
under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
Rawls’ First Principle



Reasoning – an equal share of whatever is
available is the most any person could
reasonably expect, given his requirement of
unanimous consent.
No one would voluntarily take less than an
equal share because to do so would make that
person comparatively worse off.
Based on the idea that “he who cuts the cake
gets the last piece.”
Rawls’ Difference Principle (2a)




Persons in the original
position would accept
inequality when the least
advantaged person is better
off.
Assumes that there is a
“worst off” person, although
we don’t know who in
advance.
Situation II is preferred to I
as the worst off is
advantages, but III is not
preferred to II.
Based on a “maximin”
strategy – a rational person
will maximize the minimum
outcome.
I
II
III
A 16 A 14 A 15
B
9 B 11 B 12
C
7 C 11 C 10
32
36
37
Rawls’ Principle of Equal
Opportunity (2b)


Whether a person gets a certain job (or
whatever) should be determined by
competence rather than any irrelevant
characteristic.
In a just society, every attempt should
be made to eliminate differences that
result from accidents of birth and social
condition.
Putting it together:
Cavanagh et al
Yes
Yes
Does the decision respect
rights of all involved?
Yes
No
Yes
Does the decision respect
the canons of justice?
Yes
Accept decision
Are there overwhelming
factors justifying
No
suboptimization?
No
Does the decision maximize
economic efficiency?
No
Yes
Are there overwhelming
factors justifying
abrogation of rights? No
Are there overwhelming
factors justifying
violation of canons of
justice?
No
Reject decision
Notes re: Cavanagh et al



Argue you can start with any of the
questions.
For any decision to be “ethical,” it must
normally accord with all three major
ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, rights,
justice).
If any decision violates any of the three,
there must be an “overwhelming reason”
to make it “ethical.”
Trevino and Nelson
Steps to making ethical decisions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Gather the facts.
Define the ethical issues.
Identify affected parties.
Identify the consequences.
Identify the obligations.
Consider your character and integrity.
Think creatively about potential actions.
Check your gut.
Do your homework!

Find out in advantage what’s expected ethically
at your organization.




Read relevant material.
Ask your boss / co-workers.
Network with key external people.
Think about this in terms of MgtS plagiarism
statement.

Our departmental statement is available on my website. I expect students to follow it while completing
assignments.
Avoid snap decisions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Don’t underestimate the importance of a
“hunch” to alert you to the possibility of
an ethical dilemma.
Ask for time.
Does the organization have a formal
policy?
Ask for advice (don’t forget friends /
family).
Use the “test of the 6 o’clock news.”
Conclusions



There are several prescriptive approaches
to ethics.
The problem with them is they often
either provide no advice or provide
conflicting advice to practicing managers.
Cavanagh et al sought to overcome this
problem by providing a flowchart to help
assess the ethicality of a decision.