Ethics Lecturette
I. Overview
·
Ethics has been
defined as the study of morality, which is "a set of principles or
rules of right and wrong designed to guide our thinking, attitudes, and
behavior." Moral means right, good, and proper thinking, attitudes, and behaviors,
in contrast with immoral - wrong,
bad, and improper thinking,
attitudes, and behaviors. (good/evil:
God/devil)
·
Ethical
issues arise whenever there is serious potential
harm or benefit to any stakeholders—individuals
or groups affected by a particular decision, course of action, policy (e.g.,
affirmative action), or institution (e.g., socialism) that is either immoral or
moral. Ethical issues are
problems, opportunities, or other situations that require a person or
organization to choose among several courses of action (including
no action) that must be evaluated as right or wrong, ethical or unethical,
helpful or harmful. (Remember the
doctor’s Hippocratic Oath: :First, do
no harm.) The choices are differentially
consistent or inconsistent with one or more moral standards—rules/guidelines by which we make ethical
decisions and live rightly.
·
Moral
reasoning (ethical reasoning) is the rational reasoning process
whereby people determine if human decisions, behaviors, institutions, or
policies are in accordance with or in violation of moral standards, thereby
analyzing ethical issues. Moral
reasoning is done by a conscientious
moral agent - an individual or
institution that engages in moral decision making and has responsibility to
make an ethical decision.
·
Unethical behavior is what the Bible calls sin—wrongdoing. It is wrong because it causes harm—to (1) other
stakeholders (e.g., competitors, customers, employees, strategic partners), (2)
yourself (e.g., your reputation and conscience), and (3) God (He hates sin
because He loves us and hates to see us harm others and ourselves. Sin can bring disgrace to His name when
Christians sin).
·
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/
II. Two Ethical
Philosophies or Worldviews
·
There are two general approaches to ethics,
i.e., two general ethical philosophies or worldviews that are mutually
inconsistent and might lead to
different ethical decisions:
·
Worldview—A set of fundamental beliefs about
the nature of the world, what is
important in life, and what gives us a sense of purpose, direction, and
goals to guide our actions. This worldview underlies one’s values, thinking processes,
and decision-making.
(1) Moral relativism (a.k.a. situation
ethics, situationalism) (based on a humanistic view)
–whether a given decision, action/behavior, policy, or institution
(e.g., slavery) is morally right Question (Q): Can you guess?) depends
(Depends on what? Two of the three
usual suspects: individual and situation [not product], plus society/culture).
(2) Moral absolutism (a.k.a. moral
idealism or universalism) (This
terminology is no more standardized than that of CB!)—A given decision, action,
policy, or institution is always either right or wrong, regardless. There are absolute, unchanging moral
truths.
·
Often these two general worldviews will often give
very different answers to the all-important question: “Is it right?” Therefore, they can’t both be right—they are mutually
exclusive approaches. (That is, if you believe in truth, which most
situationalists don’t.)
Q: To which view do you
subscribe? (Show of hands.) (Christian sociologist
George Barna (2002): 64% of adults and 83% of teens believe truth is always
relative to the person and her situation).
·
Your worldview is important since it lies at the root
of all of your values, priorities, and choices.
A. Relativism—It depends
on… Using relative standards, one denies that there are absolute answers
to ethical issues; rather, the correctness of a particular action “depends.”
+ Morals are relative to three things:
(1) The individual moral
agent - the person faced
with an ethical issue. This is known as ethical subjectivism or individual relativism: What is
ethically right or wrong is strictly a matter for individuals to decide, based
on how they feel about it. We hear this
view often advocated: “We all have different values,” “I’m the only one
who knows what’s right for me,” the advice that “You must do what’s right for
you" "What's right for you might not be right for me," and “It
depends on your point of view.” You are
your own moral authority (as during the chaos and anarchy in the
biblical book of Judges: “Every man did right in his own eyes.”)
While the idea that “What's right for you might not be right for
me" might be true for some personal choices we make in life
regarding preferences, such as the kind of car we drive, music we listen
to, clothes we wear, or where we spend our vacation, what about lying, cheating,
stealing, incest, child abuse, adultery, rape, and murder? Q Are these optional choices?
Q: Problem with ethical subjectivism: What if in the greyer areas
there is disagreement among conflicting viewpoints—who decides? (It’s your opinion vs. mine. Who’s to say
who’s right? You think a woman should
have a right to an abortion and I don’t.)
A solution would be to appeal to a higher authority—e.g.,
a mediator, arbitrator, or boss.
However, the authority, being only human, could be fallible too.
(We often hear that “Truth is
whatever you sincerely believe.”
What astonishing power this sincerity myth suggests—we must be mighty
magicians! If you sincerely believe
you’re a cucumber, you are. If you
really believe you are George
A person might be well meaning but misguided, sincere
but sincerely wrong. There is a lot
to truth to the old adage, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Good intentions are good, but they’re
not good enough! Proverbs 14:12 says,
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of
death." E.g., the Marxian ideal
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means” seemed
like a flawless humanitarian intention, but it has led to misery for the masses
in those societies that have tried it (it demotivates, and the corrupt ruling
elite grab power and take from the masses).
(2) The situation/circumstances - the old, familiar thought process that
says, “Yes, ordinarily this behavior is wrong, but special circumstances
make it OK for me to ignore this ethical rule.”
E.g., theft is justified if you cannot earn a “living wage” and
meet your expenses; e.g., a retail store feels justified in installing
TV cameras and two-way mirrors in dressing rooms to curtail shoplifting and
thereby lower consumer prices; e.g., an extramarital affair is ok if
your spouse is terminally ill or isn’t sexually satisfying you; e.g., “It was Spring
Break, and that’s why I ended up drunk and buck naked on one of those wild
Spring Break videos posted on YouTube.”
Q: Problem: It becomes easy to rationalize/justify immoral
behavior by pointing to your “special circumstances,” which become
excuses.
(3) The society or
culture, i.e., the time and place (cultural
relativism—what is ethical depends on the culture). E.g., what is “socially acceptable,”
"the spirit of the age," the “new morality,” “When in
This is multiculturalism—the belief that all cultures are morally
equivalent, each reflecting its own history and experience. (This contrasts with Christians, who
regard the Western tradition and heritage as worth defending since it
has historically been shaped by a biblical worldview. Today’s professorate views such thinking as ethnocentric, however.) Yet, societies have
tolerated some pretty evil practices.
Examples: polygamy, slavery, infanticide, and cannibalism have
all been tolerated or even encouraged by the moral system of one society or
another. Today, American international
businesspeople need to decide how to deal with societies and governments having
different attitudes than the U.S. on such key issues as human rights, women’s
rights, labor standards, intellectual property theft, and bribery.
“Everyone else is doing it” is often used to justify bad behavior
(e.g., everyone else illegally copies copyrighted software; everyone else downloads
music for free off of the Internet). Q:
Problem? This is the logic of bratty four-year olds. Remember your mother’s question after you did
something stupid or wrong because your friend did: “If Billy jumped off the
bridge would you jump off the bridge?”
[We often hear that “Truth is whatever people accept or agree
on”.
Examples: community
standards used in obscenity trials (or at Stonehill College regarding
drinking policy!); e.g., sexual intercourse between consenting adults isn’t
considered immoral by many people these days; e.g., sexual harassment:
in the 1950’s it was considered all part of a nurse’s job to tolerate a little
friendly fanny pinching by “playful” doctors, whereas now this type of behavior
is likely to be considered sexual harassment and intolerable in the workplace;
e.g., smoking is now considered immoral, especially indoors due to
secondhand smoke. Collaboration on a
take-home exam at Duke’s MBA program was justified as OK since the business
world has changed and there is a new culture of teamwork, and shared
information. However, since the students
didn’t inform the professor of their collaboration and pretended that each
worked on the exam individually, this was cheating, i.e., lying.
Here, “community standards” determine
truth—truth is “socially constructed” as the sociologists say, or we practice
“communitarianism,” as the political scientists say—there aren’t any standards
of truth but those that a community agrees on, or the “consensus theory of
truth” of philosophy—whatever we agree on is truth.
Q: Problem?: But what about
people who don’t agree that “truth is agreement”—doesn’t that mean that we
don’t have agreement on this theory, and so isn’t it false?]
In summary, relativism says there
are no moral truths, i.e., moral
propositions that hold for all people in all circumstances at all times and all
places. Relativists assume that right and wrong are just a matter of what an individual
or social group approval in given circumstances or in a given society. But people and societies can be
mistaken—we are fallible. Public
opinion changes—today we oppose euthanasia, tomorrow we support it. There is no stability
[This is humanism, the idea that humanity
can determine what is best for society by its vast knowledge and
technological capability. The belief is
that we are getting better all the time (utopianism). Humanism exalts
man and disregards, disrespects, or disbelieves in God. This humanistic worldview subscribes to Protagoras'
assertion back around 400 BC that "Man is the measure of all things,"
the basic philosophy of secularism/secular
humanism.
Radical
relativism took root on campuses in the late 20th century as
postmodernism, which teaches that values
are all relative to race, gender, and ethnicity, and that any statements of
moral truth are merely attempts to exert power over others and oppress
them. Postmodernists advocate tolerance
in matters of morality. It is deterministic—we
are products of our environment.
Therefore, there aren’t any moral choices—rather choices are due to
environmental conditioning or genetics—you can’t help yourself. ]
+ Relativism has some advantages
to make it appealing. Q: What do
you like about situation ethics?
1. It does presumably provide pragmatic,
expedient solutions to moral problems, not idealistic, unworkable
platitudes. Whatever works and gets the
job done is acceptable. Pragmatism says
whatever works well is moral and true.
Truth is created, rather than discovered. Examples: corporate
espionage is just the way to do business in a highly competitive
environmrent; bribery (a “facilitating fee”) overseas is the only way to get you the business, so just grease a few palms with
gringo green, or, to open a restaurant in New Delhi or to get a taxi license in
Sao Paulo, you must “thank” local regulators.
Q: Problem? Something
might work and still be false or wrong.
Example: Atheism is false, but it might give me comfort if I’m
angry enough with God. Does that make it
true or even wise? Astrology is
bunk, but it might land me a job as an astrologogical journalist at the local
newspaper if I know how to cast a horoscope.
.
2. Relativism is flexible and
able to adapt to changing circumstances.
But, again, this might be easy and convenient, but that doesn’t make it
right.
3. Relativism is considered "nonjudgmental,”
tolerant, and broadminded - it affirms individual diversity in
ethical matters, respecting peoples' differences.
The highest virtue is tolerance,
according to situationists.
Q: Questions: But why
is it wrong to judge wrongdoing? How
broadminded should you be? Where do you
draw the ethical line in the sand on what you do or do not tolerate and what
differences you'll respect?
[To say, "I'll tolerate what you
believe if you'll tolerate what I believe" is not logical if we
disagree on what we’ll tolerate.]
4. Relativism is illogical. Tolerance and respect for other
individual and cultural values has become an absolute moral value in and
of itself—oops! (To say "all truth
is relative" is in itself an absolute statement. The relativist says, "the only thing
that is absolute is that thing is absolute." If you asked him, "Are you sure?"
he'd reply, "Absolutely!"
If
all views are equally valid, then the absolutist viewpoint must also be
valid. But absolutists hold that not all
viewpoints are equally valid. And, we
tolerate people with whom we disagree.
If all views were equally valid, there would be no need for tolerance. )
4.
For independent types, there is no moral authority to which to answer
but you. You are the moral
authority.
Q: Problem? Like it or
not, that isn’t reality: There are other moral authorities, be they
parents, the police, your boss, and, ultimately, God. Disobey them at your own risk.
5. Relativism respects freedom
(religious, political, and economic).
However, unbridled libertyn can
turn to licentiousness, where we do anything we darn well please,
thereby causing harm to ourselves
and/or others.
B. Absolutism
Moral absolutism, moral idealism, or
universalism judges the act on the basis of moral ideals or
absolute, objective, universal, unchanging (immutable) moral standards ("traditional values") which hold true
over person, situation, time, and place.
These moral Truths are permanent, immutable, rigid rules to be
followed regardless of the circumstances (“no ifs, ands, or buts”),
i.e., there are certain behaviors that are inherently plain right and wrong,
good and evil, and they are true across all epochs, cultures, peoples (whether
prince or pauper, mighty or meek), and situations, i.e., they exist apart from
and transcend the individual, culture, and situation.
Moral law
is as unchangeable as the law of gravity.
Truth has an objective basis in moral standards, which are the rules/guidelines
by which we should live. Moral
standards are used in any situation where there is actual or potential
serious harm or benefit to any individual or group from a particular course of
action. They are accepted principles of
right and wrong for individual or group behavior. Q. Examples
include honesty, fairness, discipline, obedience to authority, politeness, and
kindness.
Moral standards provide the moral compass. Cruise ships don’t operate on the personal
sense of direction of their captains or crews, they use a compass to find “true
north” and navigate from that point. If
we could find a “moral true north,” we could successfully judge our actions
Question: How many of
you think it's possible to know for sure if an ethical value is true or
false? (Few hands.) How many of you
think it's wrong to torture someone just for the heck of it? (All hands.)
You have just used simple moral reasoning to derive a universal standard:
"Thou shalt not torture."
Nonetheless, perhaps the greatest difficulty
with absolutism is the fact that gray areas still abound. Reasonable people can differ on how to
interpret a given principle in a specific situation and at what
point a person trips over the ethical line.
Even biblical principles are left to us by God to figure out how
to put them into practice. The Ten
Commandments have led to millions of pages of rabbinical interpretation and
commentary.
[Our culture has no trouble condemning such sins as murder, rape, and
child beating. There is less agreement
on the medieval sins of gluttony and usury.
Likewise for student issues such as binge drinking and cheating on tests
and cultural hot-button issues such as premarital sex, homosexual acts, and
abortion.]
+ Q?
Objections to Absolutism
1. Some would argue that what absolute
values command is blind, unthinking adherence to moral rules. However, believing in moral absolutes isn't
as simplistic as some believe; one still needs to make moral judgments to
apply the standards in particular situations, and one should understand the
rationale for moral rules.
2. Closely related is the charge that holding only to traditional values
is "narrow-minded"; we need to "loosen up" and adapt
to the circumstances. The question is: How
broad should broad-minded people be?
Should you be open to all things, some things, or what?
3. Others do not like the fact that
absolutes are intolerant. In our
politically correct moral culture, tolerance, open-mindedness, and mutual
respect have become the chief virtues (“I’m ok, you’re ok”) and
intolerance has become the cardinal sin.
The notion that all ideas and behaviors are to be equally respected is a
recent one. E.g., should we respect the
values of Neo-Nazi, the KKK, Mafia, Islamofascists, or skinheads?
4. Also, people say that to rely on
absolutes is to be judgmental.
The word “judgment” has acquired a negative meaning, which leaves our
language without a word to describe opposition on moral grounds. However, the judgment is based on a person's
actions, not on what is thought to be
in the heart (i.e., intentions, although these can also be
immoral). You must learn how to render a
moral judgment.
5. Then there is the argument that
traditional values are obsolete or "Neanderthal.” Traditionalists are trying to "turn the
clock back" on what relativists call "progress." Yet, some things in life are not to be manipulated or
adjusted. This is understood in
mathematics, science, and other intellectual disciplines, yet it is often
denied regarding standards for human behavior.
6. Another perceived problem is that to
teach absolutes is to indoctrinate.
But, the dictionary defines a doctrine
as something which is taught; hence we cannot teach without imparting
doctrines.
7. To believe in absolutes is
said to be arrogant: "How can you know for sure what the moral
standards are?" asks the skeptical relativist, or “Who are you to
judge?” he demands. “We all have
different needs, so who is to say what is good and what is bad?” Admittedly, answers will vary, depending upon
which of the sources of moral standards we will examine you turn to for
your value system. But informed
absolutism refrains from being ignorant, without being arrogant. There are moral authorities.
Thus, a final and probably the most
important sticking point with absolutes is disagreement on the source of the
standards. Question: Where do
moral standards come from? What is the objective
basis for morality? Who or what is
the moral authority?
1. Reason. For philosophers, the important question isn't the standard’s source, i.e., how we came to have the particular principles we have; rather, it is whether the principles we hold can be logically justified and withstand critical scrutiny. Philosophers use moral reason and moral sense. They rely on human intellect: “Figure it out.” They erly on human intellect.
Example: Kant’s categorical imperative. Philosopher Immanuel Kant said that if everyone were to act on your moral standard and the result is chaos, then your principle is immoral. In other words, ask the following question regarding the action in question: "What if everyone did that? Would you want that behavior to become normative?"
Examples: Murder.
If everyone started murdering others, soon nobody would be left. Cheating on an examination only
succeeds if others do not cheat; everyone cannot receive an "A” because
then an “A” becomes meaningless.
Cheaters must free ride off of
honest people, i.e., take advantage of the fact that others are behaving
ethically. Or, consider that if
everyone lied, there would be no social order; language would lose its
meaning. Liars must free ride off of truth-tellers. Or, think about queuing on the highway
and the character that drives in the right-hand lane while all others merge
left, and then cuts into the left-hand lane at the last possible moment. If there were universalized cutting in line
the result would be social chaos on the highways. Cutters free ride off of que-ers. For example, calling in sick at work
when you feel fine is wrong, because it makes more work for your co-workers,
and if everyone did it, the organization would shut down. Or, consider deserters when a military
unit is under attack – one or two don’t matter too much, but if many jump ship,
then attackers will slaughter the army unit and likely catch and kill the
deserters.
Q: Problems with reasoning:
1. Human reasoning can be flawed
(the Protestant Reformers coined the term “total
depravity,” meaning that our sinful nature and choices distort all aspects
of our being, including our power to reason.)
2. Reasoning might be ideologically
biased and result in lack of consensus (e g political/social/economic
liberals vs. conservatives)
3. Reasoning doesn't create moral
standards. In fact, different
ethical philosophies (e.g., utilitatianism vs. justice) lead to different,
sometimes conflicting, recommendations.
So, which philosophy is right?
2. Civil law. This is statutory man-made law. "If it's legal, then it's moral." Q: Problem?
1. Sociological law has no fixed
basis. It is arbitrarily determined
by what a group of people says is good for society at the time.
2. The problem with man-made rules
is that they are the products of fallible humans, and therefore there
can be immoral laws (e.g., laws allowing slavery, genocide, euthanasia,
abortion, capital punishment). Thus, the
law is relativistic.
3. The law merely provides a moral
minimum, never prescribing the nice and kind thing to do. The focus is on harms, not helps.
3. Cultural law (Sociological/community authorities). We have already discussed this factor as cultural/ethical relativism. Q: Sociological sources of
absolute values include parental
standards (often the first thing students mention when asked where absolute
values can come from), the educational
system (teaches values e.g., knowledge, self-esteem, tolerance, cooperation,
etc.), the workplace (corporate
culture, codes of conduct organizational philosophy, etc.), and professional standards (e.g., AMA Code of Ethics, 4A’s Creative
Code).
Q: Problem?: Lke the law, cultural norms arise as a process of
consensus and compromise among flawed humans and are often situation-
and context-specific; hence they are relativistic.
4. Natural law. Natural law is the belief
that moral truths are present in the natural world that can be known by all as
discovered by reason. This says that
what is natural in creation is moral. The concept of nature refers to the proper
ordering of the universe. Behavior
that follows from this material nature is said to be natural to it. As the
Founding Fathers said, certain truths are “self
evident.” Natural law is normal—the way things ought to
be. Natural
Law is a body of laws that derives
from nature (and nature’s God, if, like John Locke, you believe that He is
the creator of nature-God’s Natural Order).
Natural law says that only right behavior gets right results. E.g., breaking into the front of a
long checkout line invites hostility from others patiently waiting their
turn.
Natural law in an absolute law since
human nature and the natural order don't change. Behavior consistent with natural law generally
causes no harm. Nature
penalizes all misbehavior in physically and/or psychologically
damaging ways. E.g., getting drunk
and doing drugs often causes harm (to one’s self and to others), and so is
unnatural and therefore immoral. E.g., sex
outside of marriage often leads to AIDS and venereal disease, unwanted
pregnancy, causes emotional distress, harms future relationships, etc.
5. Religion: Divine revelation's moral law. All of the above sources of
morality ultimately depend on the human mind for moral guidance (except
natural law, which is consistent with divine revelation since God created
nature). Moral theology looks to divine
revelation for principles whereby people are called to live, depending on a
"higher law" that comes from the mind of God and is therefore God-centered. This is generally found in a holy, divinely
inspired book, e.g., the Koran and the Bible. (“What is the Truth” link # 6 after the
“Other Information” link on Professor Geoff’s website gives solid reasons to
believe in the truth of the Old and New Testaments.).
Christians believe that God gives us moral
rules for moral reasons and because He loves and cares for us
(rather than just being mean or arbitrarily imposing his will on us) (e.g.,
"so that it may go well with you" often follows Old Testament
commands). His law is for our own
good since He's created the world in such a way that sin - the breaking of
His law - always has negative repercussions (Numbers 32:23: "Be sure your
sin will find you out").
Judeo-Christian teaching says that life is sacred because we are made in
the image and likeness of God and that we are accountable to Him for the
way that we behave.
Acts such as murder, theft, etc. are
wrong because they violate the laws of God and harm individuals
and society.
(Western civilization has been
governed by well-established tradition, a moral consensus based on biblical
revelation. When our nation’s founders
talked about “the laws of nature and nature’s God,” they were referring to this
tradition. It is only in recent years
that we have begun to challenge this tradition. Yet, a big part of what is often missing in business
education is an appreciation for and an understanding of the spiritual side
of life. The general attitude in
business schools is that "religion" and "God" are dirty
words that should never be uttered in the classroom.
Liberal theology now abandons
the idea of divine revelation (undoubtedly you encountered this in your
religious studies courses). For
liberals, religion becomes essentially a dimension of human experience
with no reference point outside that experience. However, this is very subjective and
nonverifiable.
Most ethical writings and discussions seem to downplay the importance
of religion in determining ethical standards. The justifications are based on bad behavior
of religious persons [e.g., enforcing religious beliefs on minorities], scorning
those who hold other views, torturing or murdering people due to religious zeal
or conviction, etc.
While some religions (e.g., Islam’s Koran) endorse such behaviors,
biblically-based Christianity does not, although misinterpretations of the
Scriptures historically have led to abuses such as the Crusades and the Spanish
Inquisition.)
Some ethics books and professors set up the two sources of ethics as (1)
naturalistic—morality doesn’t come from God—and (2) supernaturalistic—morality
does come from God: mystical, supernatural, divine revelations. The latter is then dismissed as superstitious. This is based on a worldview known as naturalism—the
material world is all there ever has been, is, and will be; nothing
supernatural is real. We live in a
purely physical world, and nothing exists beyond what our senses can perceive. Belief in God (plus the devil, angels, and
demons) is superstitious because all things can be explained by natural causes
and laws, which God cannot. (Mostly
modern scientists and many college professors fall into this camp.) Therefore, faith in God is irrational. (See the “What Is The truth?” link on Professor
Geoff’s website, link # 2: ”Is Christianity Rational?”)
There can be no moral law without a Lawgiver. The commandments that God spoke to
Moses aren’t relative, they’re absolute!
They are right for all people, in all times, in all places. They establish a standard of right and wrong
outside, above, and beyond ourselves.
(Right and wrong spring from God’s
nature, as the Bible makes clear: “The law of the
LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple. The precepts of
the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving
light to the eyes. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring
forever. The ordinances of the LORD are
sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure
gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. By them is your servant
warned; in keeping them there is great reward.”)
Without God's special revelation we lack
an ultimate moral authority according to many great thinkers: (Plato
said that society couldn’t survive without an ultimate source of
authority.
Without God, sin becomes whatever makes us
feel uncomfortable. Being good is
replaced by feeling good. We become a law
unto ourselves and a people living for ourselves. Who is to say for sure
that Hitler was wrong in murdering six million Jews? If God does not exist and determine moral law,
then there are no objective moral values—values that are valid and binding
independently of whether anyone believes in them or not.
(Absent a religious foundation, morality
becomes a matter of personal preference or taste, more often than not, a
code of convenience. They are like
statements such as: “Broccoli tastes good.”
Well, it tastes good to some people but bad to others. There isn’t any truth to that; it’s a matter
of subjective taste. For example,
to say that killing innocent children is wrong would just be an expression of
taste, saying, “I don’t like the killing of innocent children.”)
(Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian creed, along with “enlightenment
thinking” [some of which can be traced to the Islamic enlightenment of
900-1300) has greatly influenced the Constitution, common law, and system of
justice in the
See the “What Is The truth?” link after the “Other Information” link on
Professor Geoff’s website, lesson 6 “Is The Bible God’s Word” for convincing
arguments that the Bible is true and contains a solid foundation for moral
standard)).
Question: But what about those with other religious
convictions? Certainly they are free to
apply their own religious convictions on morality, which, by and large, will
not clash with those of Judeo-Christian morality. Most religions (as well as those without a
faith tradition) agree on the nature of morality (but not the nature of
God, salvation, etc.)
(One economic reason for applying the “predominant religion”
values in the marketplace, however, even if we are not believers in that
religion, is that the universal acceptance of its morality permits us to
predict the likely behavior of other marketplace participants, leading to more
certainty in decision making, thereby reducing the costs of business decision
making.)
+
Absolute Ethics Applied to Situations
Question: What about a situation
where you must violate one ethical standard in order to do uphold another moral
standard—you can’t simultaneously fulfill both standards (e.g., lies or lives)? Wouldn’t situation ethics kick in here? No: Some
moral idealists—contextual absolutists,
near absolutists, prima facie absolutists (absolutists “on
the surface”), or graded absolutists—believe that there
are many absolute laws that conflict with each other in certain
circumstances, and we are responsible to obey the higher law. Near absolutists allow for justifiable
exceptions to the general principles, depending on the circumstances. E.g., Some believe that abortion is
wrong except in cases of rape or incest, or to save a mother's life (in which
case the value of human life inside the womb is viewed as a secondary value to
the life and health of the mother).
Under the principle
of hierarchicalism there is a hierarchy of values, norms, and interests:
When norms, values, or interests conflict, one must determine which is the
higher one and obey it: It is our duty to obey the higher rule. Example: Is it OK to run a red
light in order to save someone who is about to commit suicide? Sure: It is more important to save a life
than to obey a traffic law. Similarly, lying
is generally wrong, but exceptions can be made to, for instance, protect a person's
sensitivities ("little white lies," e.g., telling grandmother you
would indeed like the purple sweater she's knitting for you) or to protect a
life, as in the case of citizens in Nazi Germany hiding Jews in their homes. Thus, there is an exemption to the
lower rule (truth telling) in view of the higher rule (protecting human
life).
III. Types of moral
standards
Very generally, there are three types of moral standards: (1)
simple heuristics or decision rules, (2) moral/ethical values and norms, and (3) moral/ethical
principles/theories/perspectives/frameworks.
Heuristics
or decision rules are simple,
general rules of thumb or pithy ethical maxims that can be used
for ethical decision making. Four of my personal favorites are:
·
"When in doubt, don't.”—err on the side of
caution. The basic issue here is
whether you perceive that what you’re doing is right. It’s “Jiminy Cricket’s school of ethics: “Let
your conscience be your guide.” (Romans
2: 14-15 explains that God has written the basics of the moral law on the human
heart so that even if we tell ourselves we don’t know them, we do. “Indeed, when
Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they
show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their
consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even
defending them.”) Q:
Problem? Your conscience might be
fallible, even seared. It is individual
relativism or intuitionism.
·
"Would you do it to your family and
friends?" (If no, then the action
is probably unethical, although it is legitimate to weight your family and
close friends more heavily than strangers according to the Ethics of Care
theory.)
·
Golden Rule: (Ha-ha: This is not “He who has
the gold makes the rules.”) Most
religions teach the Golden Rule in one form or another. This simple, elegant, sensible guide to life,
as taught by Christ to His disciples (Matthew. 7:13, 4) says, "Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.”
The admonition is proactive/positive—to do something good for
others--helps
(A variation is The Silver Rule,
as stated by many other religions: “Do not do anything that injures someone
else” or “Do no harm.” It falls short of
the Golden Rule’s impetus to actively seek to so something good for
others—rather it is negative. It
isn’t very hard to refrain from harming others; it’s more difficult to take the
initiative in doing something good for them.
·
TV/CNN/newspaper/Internet/dinner table test – The
basic issue here is whether others or
even society perceives that what you
are considering doing is right. Always
ask, "Would I feel comfortable explaining to a national TV audience why I
took this action?," or "If it wouldn't read well/you'd be embarrassed
to see it on the front page of the newspaper, don't do it, " or “How would
you feel if you saw what you did today all over the Internet tomorrow?”, or
"Would I feel comfortable explaining over the dinner table to my family
what I did?" This is also known as
the disclosure principle, a.k.a. the
"What if it gets out?" principle.
Q. Problem? This is pure pragmatism—it’s simply
good business not to get into trouble. <TI’s Ethics “Quick Test”> <Lockheed Martin’s Warning Signs> Also, the answer is relative to
friends’ and society’s morals.
B. Moral (Ethical) Norms and Values
The second type of moral standard is moral (ethical) norms—standards of behavior in the
moral realm that require, prohibit, or permit certain specific behaviors
to avoid harming others (e.g.,
prohibitions against stealing, lying, injuring, etc.) or to help others (such as giving to the poor
or helping those in need); they constitute moral
obligations.
They are a subset of cultural
norms, which are standards of socially acceptable behavior in
either a society or social group, determining what is "normal"
(or, to quote Rush Limbaugh, “the way things ought to be.”) Moral norms are beliefs about the
inherent rightness and wrongness of certain behaviors.
Moral norms derive from society's basic moral values (a subset of cultural
values—general principles we esteem to be of worth)— general abstract moral ideals, i.e.,
about what is right and wrong (just as cultural
norms derive from cultural values
and social group norms derive from social
group values). Thus, our values
drive our behaviors.
- There are two types of moral values:
·
Values that define our person are called our personal
(self-oriented) values:
basic values that we might be willing to die for, that we would not sacrifice
nor abandon. <Variation in Employee Conduct> IKt is important to follow your personal
values so as to not violate your conscience.
·
Despite the existence of conflicts of personal values,
there are also "shared values," sometimes called absolute values or social values. Shared values
related to morality are called common
morality or moral common sense—so-called
because they are the moral rules most people agree on and live by most
of the time.
Question: Examples? A partial
listing of shared moral values includes (For each core value ask if anyone
is opposed to it. E.g., “Is anyone
here opposed to respect, at least in the way other people treat you? Is anyone opposed to fairness, at least when
it comes to giving you what you deserve?? Telling you the truth? Etc.
This illustrates that there are moral truths):
. Human worth: Human beings are
important and should avoid harming or being inconsiderate of others. Respect persons as ends, not means. E.g., think of how we often rudely treat
store clerks simply as means to our end of getting merchandise. E.g., slander is an assault on human
decency (as well as truthfulness).
. Fairness: People ought to
treat each other fairly, justly, and equally. (This follows logically from the
concept of human worth)
. Lawfulness: Laws should be
respected and obeyed (except where they are evil. If you disagree with a court decision you can
appeal it while still abiding by the law.)
. Honesty (veracity): People
should tell the truth, keep promises, and never cheat anyone.
. Fidelity/dependability: People
should keep promises and act in good faith
. Confidentiality: Betrayal is
wrong. People ought to respect
professional secrets and confidences.
. Duty: People should do their
duty and fulfill the responsibilities of their role (role-related responsibilities, e.g.,
parent, teacher, employee, manager, etc.).
.
. Courage: People should not be
afraid to speak out and defend what they know is right, even in the face of
adverse consequences.
. Trustworthiness: One should
always fulfill one’s obligations. This
is the most universally accepted variable as a basis for any human interaction
or exchange.
. Personal responsibility: the essence of managing means taking responsibility for and being accountable for one’s actions.
. Work
ethic: one should do their work to the best of their abilities, strive for
nothing less than excellence, take pride in their work, be thrifty in carrying
our tasks, be industrious, be concerned for the community, and respect
property. (One must also be careful not
to step over the line and overdo it, neglecting friends, family, and community
obligations). (Work is a gift of God,
and it mirrors the work of God in creating the world in the Garden of Eden
[Genesis 2:15]).
Some other common values
include kindness and compassion, caring, loyalty, tolerance, self-discipline,
politeness, thrift, obedience to authority (except when they are wrong), and
having the courage of one’s convictions (moral courage: speaking out and acting
against wrongdoing, and not being afraid to do the right thing even if others
are opposed).
C. Moral perspectives/theories/frameworks
The third type of moral standard is moral perspectives (theories, frameworks) studied by philosophy. These are general theories,
standards or methods of moral
reasoning that are used by philosophers to evaluate the adequacy of our
social and corporate policies as well as our individual decisions and
behaviors. Each moral theory uses different
criteria to judge morality (and therefore, as ethics textbooks often
neglect to point out, they often yield conflicting results).
The three most common moral principles
are (1) consequencialism/consequences-based/teleological
that focus on results, usually using principles of utility (e.g., utilitarianism), which says that the ethical alternative is
that which yields the best outcome for those stakeholders affected by your
decision/action/policy/institution; (2) duty-based/deontological,
focusing on peoples’ duties/responsibilities/obligations to uphold
ethical norms using principles of rights
and principles of justice; and (3) virtue-based , depending on whether the
behavior promotes or typifies good character. Less often applied is (4) the ethics of care, which says to put the
interests of those closest to you above others’ interests.
Each moral theory looks at the
outcome of a behavior, decision, etc. on stakeholders (publics, constituents) (Ha ha). These
are not the guys who walk the sidelines at football games to mark off
yardage.) —any constituencies
(individuals or groups) 1. affected by the firm’s decisions or 2. who can
affect the firm by their actions. The
impact of business decisions on all stakeholders must be considered.
Stakeholders
are of two types:
(1) Primary stakeholders—those
stakeholders that have ongoing contact, i.e., transactional relationships
with the firm. Their existence is
necessary for the firm's survival, Q: E.g., stockholders; employees;
customers (the three most important); suppliers, distributors, and other
business partners; and other financiers such as creditors and bondholders. All
of these are member’s of the firm’s microenvironment/operating
environment.
(2) Secondary stakeholders—those constituencies who might be, affected by and
might influence the firm but have no ongoing transactional relationships
with it. These third parties areaffected
by the firm's actions, e.g., the local community, government regulators, media,
noncustomers, spotted owls, etc. These
are primarily groups in the macroenvironment.
+ The four moral theories are:
(1)
Consequences-based (teleological) philosophy (consequentialism)
is based on the consequences/outcomes/results
of actions. For the teleologist, an
action is ethically right if its consequences are good and wrong if its
consequences are bad or evil.
The most popular theory of
consequentialism is utilitarianism, which
Q. seeks “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Stated differently, we try to maximize the ratio
of benefits to harms to the various stakeholders affected by our
decision.
Most modern philosophers agree that this
is an immoral theory. Nonetheless,
it is popular in the result-oriented, get-it-done business world. (Maybe this helps explain the numerous moral
lapses in business.)
Q: Problems with utilitarianism:
1. Minorities often suffer the "tyranny
of the majority." This is the
problem of “the greatest bad for the smallest number,” i.e., someone or some
group gets burned when the majority rules. E.g., southern slavery was justified
in that because it provided cheap labor that made most people in the south (especially
the powerful plantation owners) materially better off (but not spiritually
better off).
2. In effect this says that the ends justify the means (the atrocities of Stalinism [such as the
use of violence against political opponents, or lying to the working class]
were justified to pursue the socialist utopian objective). In effect, utilitarianism says,
“Let us do evil, that good may come.” E.g.,
using this logic, it would be okay to have prostitutes work out of
church basements if the money was to be donated to the poor, or for a student
to cheat on an exam so as to get a good grade and hence land a decent
job or get into grad school. The Mafia
gives lots of money to charity. There is
a strip club that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for
a children's hospital.
In business, winning becomes more important than how the game is
played—“Profits (mammon) uber alles,”—maximize profits for stockholders,
your most important stakeholders.
However, this could justify virtually any unethical business
behavior.
(For example, when one of Hewlett-Packard’s
board of directors members was apparently leaking company information on
clashes between CEO Cary Fiorina and the Board of Directors to the press,
Hewlett-Packard hired a detective firm to find out who it was. The firm’s subcontractor used “pretexting,”
whereby they pretended to be people whose records were being sought to get
board members’ and journalists’ confidential phone records. In effect, the detectives felt that the ends
of uncovering the source of the leaks justified the deceptive and ethically
grey means.)
Because of its sole focus on results,
not means, utilitarianism is a system that basically denies or ignores all morals
and principles—it is amoral.
Utiilitarianism is entirely relativistic—morality depend on the situational results. For
instance, dishonesty or theft might be justifiable if it increases net
benefits.
3. Logically, morality shouldn’t be determined by consequences since results (e.g., sales and profits) are often
beyond the control of the moral agent (in business due to factors like the
competition, the economy, and other macro-and micro-environmental forces). You get lucky or unlucky. E.g.: Is drunk driving
a worse behavior if someone gets killed?
Why should it be, since that is largely beyond the drunk driver’s control?
(2) Duty-based/deontological
philosophy focuses on people’s duties/responsibilities/obligations
to uphold moral norms. Rather than
focusing on the ends or consequences,
we focus on the means and correctness
of the moral agent’s actions. In
the deontological approach, if an action
fulfills one's duties, then the
action counts as an ethical one; if
it does not fulfill responsibilities, then it is an irresponsible, unethical
action. Obeying moral standards/rules
is our moral duty and obligation to stakeholders—they tell us what is right to do (e.g.,
"tell the truth" and "treat others as you would want to be
treated") as well as what is not right to do (e.g., "do not
cheat," do not steal," and "do not kill.").
The moral agent is said to have moral
responsibility. There are three
senses of the term:
(1) Causal responsibility means that someone caused something to
happen and is therefore morally responsible or accountable for its
consequences. They deserve either blame
or praise for their actions. E.g., Management
is responsible for the failure of the business, given its poor planning; Billy
should be responsible for paying the costs of the window since he hit the
baseball through it; General Motors salespeople aren’t responsible for
declining sales of weak models; restaurant wait staff aren’t responsible
for causing obesity in patrons.
Causal responsibility is a huge issue for marketers. Are marketers responsible for the actions
that able-bodied, able-minded people sovereignly choose to take? E.g., should we blame cereal marketers
because Mom bought Fruit Loops at her whiny daughter’s insistence and
she turned out obese? Is Walmart’s
advertising designed to “specifically attract a large crowd” according to a
court complaint responsible for the death of the temporary worker who was
trampled to death by a crowd on Black Friday 2008 when the crowd broke open the
electronic doors as the store opened at 5pm?
(2) Role-related responsibility
entails the responsibilities or proper behavior that go along with a given role
(a particular position within a social group or society). This involves the care, welfare, or treatment
of others as derived from one's role. E.g.,
parents are responsible for the moral and spiritual upbringing of their
children; accountants are responsible for the independence and objectivity
of their judgments; a surgeon is responsible for the informed consent of
her patients; a salesperson is responsible for knowing and satisfying
her clients’ needs. E.g., liquor
advertisers have social responsibility to run “responsibility ads”—messages
about designated drivers and underage drinking.
E.g., both advertisers and their ad agencies share responsibility
for false and misleading ads: Clients have primary liability, but if the agency
knew of or should have known of the advertisement’s deceptive nature, they are
also responsible. E.g., if a company’s
name is on a product, the firm has total responsibility for its quality,
even if it outsources production, in which case it might need to monitor the
outsourced production 9e.g., potential salmonella cases). When a tragedy happens and mistakes occur on
a ship, the captain takes responsibility.
That’s what leadership is about—“the buck stops here” with CEOs
and other C-level executives.
(3) Moral capacity/capability responsibility is the ability to make and act on moral or rational
decisions on one's own, thereby incurring responsibility for them. E.g., Babysitters and parents can make
decisions on what kid can eat for snacks, when they may go to bed, etc, but
young children can't be entrusted to make important decisions regarding their
own welfare;” E.g., A shopper spotted the shoplifter and should have
reported her.” Question: Who is
responsible for a student’s learning—the professor or the student? While a good professor can motivate a student—lead
the student to water—drinking is up to the student. Never forget that your educational
experience depends upon what you invest in it.
Question: Should students report fellow students who know they
are cheating since they are able to do so-do you become an accomplice to
the crime? What if it’s a best
friend? (Perhaps in the long-run, you
are doing her a favor by turning her in.
God knows it’s in our best interest when He asys, Be sure your sin will
find you out). Question: Who is
responsible for our overweight population? Is it personal responsibility, governmental
responsibility, and/or corporate responsibility of food marketers? Question: Who was primarily
responsible for the 2008 trouble in the housing market and mortgage
business? Survey of adults said:
mortgage lenders and brokers (52%), government regulators (21%), home buyers
(16%), and someone else (11%). In many
cases, then, there is shared
responsibility.
There are two major deontological
theories: the theory of rights
and the theory of justice, and they are
really the two pillar theories
of ethics. Rights theory focuses on
individuals' rights and the
corresponding duties of moral agents
to respect those rights. The theory of justice, focuses on duties to
uphold equity, fairness, and impartiality in decision making
a. Rights theory. Webster defines a right as “something to which one has a
just claim.” Thus, most rights
are called claim rights: a person
can claim others have an unconditional duty toward him without appealing
to kindness, mercy, gratitude, pity, or good will, and can insist that the
right be respected.
(Hohfeld’s right theory has 3 elements, and it says
that with party A, party B, and action verb V, there is a reversible relation
between right and duty: A has a claim
right that B should V, if and only if B has a corresponding duty toward A to V. This is a better explanation than the popular
2-term model inn which A has a right to B.
Here, who has the duty to fulfill the right is unclear: it can go unassigned
or defacto be assigned to “everyone” or to “the state.”)
Moral rights
(human rights, natural rights) are based on moral
norms and principles that specify that all human beings are permitted or
empowered to do something or to have something done for them by virtue of the
dignity of each human and, according to Judeo-Christian thinking, the idea
that people are made in God’s image (separating us from animals, who
don’t have rights).
For each right, another moral agent has a duty to respect
or fulfill that right.
Role-related
rights are special rights stemming from roles (e.g., in your role as student,
you have certain academic rights, such as the right to be graded fairly,
which I in my role as professor have the duty to fulfill [therefore I use blind
grading]). You have a right to due
process if accused of cheating. You have
a right to free speech (what about “hate speech”?).
There are two broad classes of individual rights. First, are negative/liberty rights (freedom, e.g., privacy, free
speech, freedom of conscience, free consent, freedom from censorship, freedom
from religious coercion, freedom of religious worship, freedom of press,
freedom of association, freedom to own property, to work (vs. a right to a job),
to form and join trade unions, rest and leisure). All philosophers who are
rights theorists recognize negative rights.
They suggest that people should be free
from restriction or control, i.e., they have the right to be left alone,
both by other individuals and by government as long as they
aren’t harming others. Others have a negative
duty duty to leave them alone or not harm them. These are the “Unalienable rights”
discussed in the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Second, are positive/welfare
rights (well being, e.g., health care, food, clothing, a job, access
to credit), etc. These are rights to
whatever is necessary to satisfy basic human needs. These are known as positive rights because other
individuals (families and friends), groups (charities and churches, and
[debatably]), or (controversially) society/government have the positive duty to provide
the one with welfare rights or entitlements. This generally entails an expenditure of
time, money, or effort on the part of the provider. Libertarians and many conservatives
do not recognize these societal rights because the Bill of Rights did not
ask government to provide services and it imposes an undue restriction on
others who have a(n alleged) duty to provide, thereby limiting their
freedom (e.g., higher insurance premiums to pay for universal health care,
higher taxes to provide welfare, etc.).
Important Question: Where do rights come from? They don’t just come from society. For instance, should American women lose their basic human rights and be treated like cattle in certain third-world nations?
Human rights are now increasingly seen as resting only
on constitutions, governmental enactments (legislation or, increasingly,
judicial decisions by rogue judges on issues like gay rights and abortion
rights), and international conventions rather than on any sense that
there is a divinely constituted Order of Being (found in natural law) that
is to be respected by all. Yet, rights
are more than constitutional or government granted—as our Founding
Fathers said, they are “unalienable”
or pre-political—not to be taken away or conferred by government. All men, said the Founders, “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life,
Traditionally in Western civilization it
has been believed that the origin of rights rested in God (“God-given
rights”), not government, because the Bible explains that we are created
in God’s image and therefore have worth and dignity, and because government
(e.g., the Supreme Court) could arbitrarily take away our rights (“What
the government giveth, the government taketh away). (The Founding Fathers understood that if
there is no higher authority than man, that if there is no God, then basic
rights are whatever the powers that be say they are. That was the road to the terror of the French
Revolution and the horrors of the twentieth century totalitarian Communist
dictatorships.)
However, if rights are relativisticly derived by government, of
which human rights can we be certain and how? With today’s relativistic approach, more
and more rights are being postulated, but many of these are spurious rights
(actually, they are “wrongs,” such as a “right to same-sex marriage” and a
“right to die,” which contradict biblical teaching). Others are privileges (e.g., the “right’ to a job or healthcare).
b. Theory
of Justice
The theory
of justice is also called the theory of fairness the fairness approach or the equity approach. Justice theory holds
that duties to uphold standards of equity, fairness, and impartiality
should guide decision-making. Thus,
justice theory is duty-based (deontological). A person has been given just treatment
when she has been given what is deserved, due or owed, i.e., what she deserves
or can legitimately claim, i.e., what she has a right to. The fundamental principle is that equals
should be treated equally and unequals treated unequally: those
with an equal claim to resources should receive equally, and those with a
greater (lesser) claim should receive more (less).
Any denial of something to which someone
has a right or claim is an injustice. (This relates to rights theory in that a right is something to which to which
you have a just claim (a claim
right).
Distributive
justice deals with the fair distribution of society's benefits and
burdens. What might be deserved can be either a benefit
(e.g., recompense, reward for extra effort or good results) or a burden
(e.g., punishment, tax, late payment penalty).
Questions of justice often arise when there is something to distribute
(distributional justice). The something can be material goods
(e.g., food, clothing, shelter) and income and wealth. All of these entail economic justice. There are
also nonmaterial goods, such as political power, honor, and such, whose
distribution can lead to political justice, social justice, and legal
justice.
(3) Virtue ethics relies heavily on the notion of moral values, and it concerns a person's character. Character is a
person's unique bundle of virtues (the
opposite of vices), which are traits
of moral excellence, rightness, and goodness; virtues are morally superior values, not just values (e.g., you can
value worldly values like fame, fortune, and wealth, which are all
self-centered.) . Virtues define character and behavior. Character involves valuing who you
are above what you do—you’re a “human being,” not a “human doing” (or
a “human having”—you are what you own or what your credentials are—character
above credentials). Your character should
be built around values and guidelines such as those found in the Bible
or another source of moral standards, e.g., integrity, love for God and others,
patience, kindness, humility, fairness, and other virtues. We should strive to be people of character who do the
right thing regardless of whether anybody
is watching or aware (God always is). Ethical character is something I try to
discuss in letters of recommendation I write for students.
(Use of moral norms/values, virtue ethics, theories of rights and justice that use absolute standards of rights and justice, and Judeo-Christian ethics are based on an absolutist worldview.
Use of most decision heuristics, consequentialism, and theories of rights and justice that use relativistic standards are based on a relativistic
worldview.)
(4) The ethics of care says that our moral task is not to follow universal
and impartial moral principles, but, instead, to attend to and respond to the
good of particular concrete persons or groups with whom we are in a valuable
and close relationship. The most
important stakeholders in a corporation’s care are Q stockholders,
customers, and employees, followed by business partners.
For example, the Lantos view of CSR—that only strategic
CS—CSR activities that result in increased profits to the firm—is
justifiable—is based on the ethics of care.
Altruistic CSR isn’t justifiable because it spends money for the
general welfare (e.g., local community, third-world aid, etc.) at the possible
expense of those the firm should be most caring for: employees (who might
suffer lower wages), customers (who might suffer higher prices or poorer
product quality), and stockholders (who would suffer lower equity and
dividends). The rights, needs, etc. of
these primary stakeholders should be
given greater weight/consideration in ethical decision making than those
of secondary stakeholders such as the
local community, spotted owls, etc.
D. Pragmatic
Suggestion: Handling the Unethical Boss
One last practical matter: Q: When
reporting to a superior or dealing with a peer who is pressuring you to do
something you know from your moral standards is unethical, what should you do?
One option is (1) blind obedience. However, “Just following orders”
doesn’t get you off the ethical or legal hook.
Morality does not simply mean obeying the authorities (e.g.,
"Boss says so,” "Our Code of Ethics says so," "Corporate
policy says so"). (The "loyal agent's argument” is that the
manager, as a loyal agent of his or her employer or stockholders, has a duty to obey them on the job no matter what.)
Q: Why not?
1. Because they are fallible humans;
the authorities could be wrong.
2.
3. For your own
good: It’s better to obey God’s will, even if this is difficult and means
suffering man’s wrath. ,
A second option is to (2) quit your job
and trust God for taking care of you since you refused to do the wrong thing—exercise
faith. While you might suffer in the short-term, He
will see you through and honor you for your integrity. However, quitting doesn’t fix the
problem. The company will probably hire
someone else to do the dirty work.
A wiser alternative to (1) blind
obedience at one extreme and (2) quitting your job at the other
extreme is to (3) whistleblow. Whistle blowing involves an
accusation (usually anonymously, such as through an ethics hotline) of some
wrongdoing by someone. The
whistle-blower is an employee who feels that she has been asked by the
organization or a superior to engage in certain activities or has acquired
information that the organization is involved in certain unethical
activities. The charge is brought
through the defined organizational hierarchy, typically before the
accuser’s boss’ boss (skip-level management reporting), to the Human Resources
Department, or to an ethics compliance officer or ombudsman (often through an
ethics hotline/helpline), so that allegations can be thoroughly verified. If the matter isn’t internally resolved, or
where there is no internal reporting mechanism, one can report the legal or
moral violation to outsiders such as the press, the police, or a legal
authority, in order to attract attention, apply pressure, and get support in
the hope that the company will be forced to do the legally or morally right
thing. However, this can often cost you
your job too.
Perhaps your best option is (4) try to
convince that person that the unethical course of action wouldn’t be prudential, i.e., pragmatically
wise. That is, convince them that in the
long run they or the organization won’t be well served by that course of
action. This can be effective because it
appeals to self-interest. In
effect, you tell them, “You’re asking me to hurt or destroy you.” You must convince them that the likelihood of
getting caught and the negative ramifications if caught. Then, propose a creative ethical
alternative that you see as better serving that person in the long run but
yet is ethical. Note: Don’t
moralize/sermonize; It doesn’t convince unethical people and might turn them
against you.
Pray to God for wisdom in dealing
with an unreasonable boss—God can provide you with a creative solution
or otherwise get you off the hook if you do not doubt His ability to do
so. If He thinks you should quit, He’ll
make that apparent too.
<A
Method to Create Ethical Relationships in Marketing>