NORMATIVE THEORIES

OF ETHICS
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1. TO DISCUSS THE DIFFERENT NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVES AND ETHICAL

PRINCIPLES.
2. TO DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO MORAL DECISION
MAKING IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT.
CONSEQUENTIALIST AND NONCONSEQUENTIALIST
THEORIES
 Normative theories propose some principles for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions. It
divided into : consequentialist and nonconsequentialist.

Consequentialist theories
 The moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its results. If its consequences are good, then
the act is right; if they are bad, the act is wrong.
 Consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will
produce.
 Two other theories under consequentialist are Egoism and Utilitarianism. Both theories agree that
rightness and wrongness are solely a function of an action’s results.
Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) theories
 Contend that right and wrong are determined by more than the likely consequences of an action.
 Believe that other factors are also relevant to the moral assessment of an action.
e.g. Kevin break his promise to Cindy (the action is viewed as wrong because of the character
itself. Even if the consequences are more good than bad, the nonconsequentialist still
view it as wrong).
EGOISM
 Egoism advocates individual self-interest as its guiding principle.
 An act is morally right if and only if it best promotes the agent’s own interests. (Agent – can be
single person or a particular organization or group).
 Egoism makes personal advantage (both short and long term) the standard for measuring an action’s
rightness. If an action will produce more good for the agent than the alternative action – the action
is morally right to perform.
 Two kinds of egoism:
 Personal egoists (claim they should pursue their best interests, but they don’t say what others should do).
 Impersonal egoist (claim that everyone should let self-interest guide his or her conduct).

Misconceptions About Egoism

 Egoists cannot act honestly, be gracious and helpful, or otherwise promote other people’s interests.
However, egoism requires us to do whatever will best further our own interests, and doing this
requires us to advance the interests of others.
Psychological Egoism
 Egoism does not preach that we should never assist others but rather that we have no basic moral duty to do so.
- All actions are in fact selfishly motivated.
Example: Self-sacrificial acts – main aim to avoid guilt.
Blowing the whistle on your organization’s misdeeds – main aim to
revenge.

Problems with Egoism

1) Psychological egoism is not a sound theory
- Not everyone is motivated by self-interest.
Example: Volunteers in voluntary service organization.

2) Ethical Egoism is not a moral theory at all.

- Morality restrain our purely self- interested desires so we can all live together.

3) Ethical egoism ignores wrongdoing

- Self interest acts like stealing, murder, racial and sexual discrimination , false advertising and
pollution would be allowed.
UTILITARIANISM
 Developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
 Is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good
over bad for everyone affected by our action.
 I tells us to bring about the most happiness or pleasure for everyone affected by our actions.
 The greatest happiness constitutes the standard that determines whether an action is right or wrong.
 Act Utilitarianism states that we need to ask ourselves what are the consequences of a particular act
in a particular situation will be for all those affected.
 If the consequences bring more good then this action is the right one and should be performed.
Six Points About Utilitarianism

1)The greatest happiness for the greatest numbers – besides happiness must consider unhappiness or
pain.

Example:
a) Action One: 8 units of happiness
4 units of unhappiness
Net worth: 4 units of happiness

b) Action Two: 10 units of happiness

7 units of unhappiness
Net worth: 3 units of happiness

In conclusion, choose the action that brings fewer units of unhappiness

2) Actions affect people to different degrees – add up the various pleasures and pains and go
with the action that brings about the greatest net amount of happiness.

Example:
Playing radio loudly
Enhance a little pleasure – 2 persons
Cause significant discomfort – 2 persons

3) Actions produce different results in some particular circumstances, almost anything might, in
principle, be morally right in some particular circumstances
Example : Breaking a promise generally produces unhappiness but under certain
circumstances , happiness can be produced by breaking a promise than by
keeping it.
4) Long-term effect of an act must be considered
Example: Lying might seem a good way out of a tough situation, but if and when the people we
deceive find out not only will they be unhappy but our reputations and our relationship with them
will finally damage.

5) Choose the act that can give the likely or expected happiness which is as great as possible.

6) Do things sincerely and honestly. Morally principled.

Utilitarianism in an Organizational Context

 Features about utilitarianism that appeals as a standard for moral decisions in business and non business
organizations.
1) A clear and straightforward basis for formulating and testing policies
2) An objectives and attractive ways of resolving conflict of self-interest
3) A flexible result-oriented approach to moral decision-making
Nonconsequentialist (or deontological) theories

KANT’S ETHIC
 Only when we act from duty that our actions have moral worth.
 Nothing is good in itself except Good will. Kant believed that their goodness depends on the will that
makes use of them.
e.g. Intelligence – is not good when exercised by an evil person.
 “will” – human capacity to act from principle. Contained in the notion of good will is the concept of
duty.
 Only when we act from a sense of duty does our action have moral worth.
 When we act out of feeling, inclination, or self-interest, our actions do not have moral worth.
Example: Act of shopkeeper returning the extra cash.
The Categorical Imperative
 An act is morally right only if we can will the principle of our action to become a universal law.
Example: A law that allowed promise breaking would contradict the very nature of a promise.
 A law that allowed lying would contradict the very nature of serious communication.

Universal Acceptability
 The moral rules that we obey are not imposed on us from the outside. They are self-imposed and
self-recognized, fully internalised principles.
 To see whether a rule or principle is a moral law – ask if the rule would be acceptable to all
rational beings acting rationally. 
 The test of the morality of a rule is not whether people in fact accept it but whether all rational
beings thinking rationally would accept it regardless of whether they are the doers or the
receivers of the actions.
Humanity as an End, Never as Merely a Means
 Every human being should treat everyone the way they themselves would want to be treated.

Kant in an Organizational Context

 Application for organization:
(1) Categorical imperative provides firm rules to follow in moral decision-making, rules that
do not depend on circumstances or results and do not permit I individual exceptions.
Example: Lying. Exposing uninformed workers to the risk of lung disease could not be
justified to advance medical knowledge.

(2) Kant introduces a humanistic dimension into business decisions – business organizations involve
human beings working to provide goods and services

(3) It stresses the importance of motivation and of acting on principle.

 Sometimes when individuals and organizations believe that an action promotes not only their own
interests but those of others as well, they are actually rationalizing – doing what is best for
themselves and only imagining that somehow it will promote happiness in general.

Critical Inquiries of Kant’s Ethics

(1) What has moral worth?
 Kant’s view is too restrictive - emphasize on the sense of duty.
Example: A clerk returns RM10.00 extra change to a customer.

 If motivated by self-interest, to show that he or she is honest – No moral worth

 If out of habit or sympathy – No moral worth
 If out of a sense of duty – Has moral worth
(2) Is the categorical imperative an adequate test of right?
 Kant said that a moral rule must function without exception.
 Kant universalization formula can be interpreted flexibly enough to meet commonsense objections.
Example: “Never steal except starving”
Stealing is wrong EXCEPT when hungry is all right.

(3) What does it mean to treat people as means?

 Individuals considered as ends not as means.
Example: Prostitution is immoral because, by selling their sexual services, prostitutes allow
themselves to be treated as means.
 Anyone who work for a wage – treated as a means
Prima Facie Principles
 A prima facie obligation is an obligation that can be overridden by a more important obligation.
Example: Keeping of promises is morally important.

However, under certain circumstances, for example, when a life is at stake – it would be
morally permissible to break a promise.

 Prima facie obligations could be divided into seven basic types:

 Duties of fidelity
 Duties of compensation (for previous wrongful acts)
 Duties of gratitude
 Duties of justice
 Duty of beneficence (that is, to make conditions of others better)
 Duties of self-improvement
 Duties not to injure others
Assisting Others
 We have a stronger duty not to violate people’s right or injure them than we do to assist people.
 Assisting others is good, such as volunteering at the orphanage – bring many children happiness but do
we have time for this.

Moral Rights
 A right is an entitlement to act or have others act in a certain way.
Example: If you claim a “right” to drive, others have a duty to permit you to drive.

 Moral rights, which are not the results of special relationship, are called human rights.
 Characteristics of human rights:
(1) Universal
(2) Equal rights
(3) Not transferable
(4) Natural rights
Nonconsequentialism in an Organizational Context
 Moral decision-making involves the weighing of different moral factors and considerations.
 Acknowledges that the organization has its own legitimate goals to pursue – there are limits to the
demands of morality and an organization that fulfils its morally free to advance whatever ends it
has.
  Organization must consider carefully how its actions will impinge on the rights of individuals – not
just the rights of its members, such as stockholders and employees, but also the rights of others,
such as consumers.

Critical Inquiries of Nonconsequentialism

 How well justified are these nonconsequentialist principles and moral rights?
 Can nonconsequentials satisfactorily handle conflicting rights and principles?
  Example: Medical care and taxes in a welfare state
Limiting property rights
UTILITARIANISM ONCE MORE

Rule Utilitarianism
 Maintains that the proper principles of right and wrong are those that would maximize
happiness if society adopted them.
 The adoption of moral principles that guide individual action.
 
MORAL DECISION MAKING: A PRACTICAL APPROACH
Concerns common to most ethical systems:
Obligations
 Every significant human action – personal and professional – arises in the context of human
relationships.
 These relationships can be the source of specific duties and rights – obligated to respect people’s
human rights
Ideals
 An ideal is some morally important goal, virtue, or notion of excellence worth striving for.
 Different cultures impart different ideals .
Example: tolerance, loyalty, fairness

Effects of actions
 When reflecting on a possible course of action, one needs to take into account its likely results.

Guidelines when handling cases of conflicting obligations, ideals, and effects:

(1) When two or more moral obligations conflict, choose the stronger one.
(2) When two or more ideals conflict, honor the more important one.
(3) When rival actions will have different results, choose the action that produces the greater
good.