Moral Issues in Business - Chapter 2 Notes

Kant also argued that the main idea of categorical imperative could be stated in another way, act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as simple means. This was intended as a replacement for the Christian command to love thy neighbor. To treat an individual as an end for Kant meant keeping in mind that they had a life of their own where they were seeking happiness and fulfillment and also, deserved honesty and fair treatment. The categorical imperative, Kant argued, is a logical self-speaking method. It is what man-kind truly believes when thinking sensibly, and what personal intelligence

The categorical imperative suggests that a course of action must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The course of action taken can also be reasoned by its ability to be seen as a universal law. Universal laws have been deemed as unconditional commands that are binding to everyone at all times. Kant

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

Immanuel Kant explains different concepts in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals; one includes “The Categorical Imperative” that I agree with. Kant states “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 113), which describes Categorical Imperative. The reason a person acts should be based on reason and if it were something they wanted to become universalized or not.

On its face, ethical egoism seems objectionable. Thus, on what basis or by what reasons might we legitimately support such a principle (Williams & Arrigo, 2008)?

W. D. Ross offers an intuitionist theory that includes seven basic moral duties. It resembles a deontological theory in that these duties prescribe general kinds of acts, and they do not rest on their possible consequences. Ross initially considers all of these duties to be conditional duties; when two or more duties conflict, one of them then will override the other, and the overriding duty becomes our actual duty in that situation.

Egoism: is a theory of ethics that focuses on achieving goals that benefit or brings pleasure or greatest good to oneself. In other words it focuses on self-interest, however egoism is opposite to Altruism, which is not strictly based on self-interest, but also includes the interest of others. There are two kinds of Egoism; Ethical Egoism, Psychological Egoism.

Consequentialism is a moral theory that claims that the wrongness of actions results in consequences (Baggini and Fosl, 56). It also is actions or rules that are right or wrong which depends on the result being a good or bad consequence.

Categorical imperative, unlike maxim which seems to be individual, is the universal law that applied to all rational beings. Imperative, from the perspective of Kant, is an order that tells us what we must do or mustn’t. Categorical indicates that this imperative is used for all rational beings, regardless where they are.

Kant's Categorical Imperative determines the right action to be the one that is capable of becoming a universal law. In this regard, Kant argues that when decisions are made on the basis of human rights and duties, they fit the definition of being ethical because if everyone follows the same action, the world becomes a better place. To apply this test, one should answer the question of "what kind of a world would it be if everyone behaved this way?"

In conclusion, although Kant shaped modern thought on moral decision-making, I’ve to disagree with his deontological system. Some circumstances are different as for my opinion consequence plays a major role in evaluating moral thoughts. A duty is not being ignored but, rather, outdone by the greater need.

As mentioned above, consequentialism is contrasted with theories of moral evaluation. It implies that consequences may not be pertinent to the morality of one's actions. Consequentialism lessens the moral quality of an action to the goodness of its consequences (WirelessPhilosophy, 2015). For instance, one ought to keep a promise although the secret does not promote the good.

Non-consequentialist theories of morality are based on something other than the consequences of a person’s actions. (Thiroux, 2012). A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences. Consequences do not, and in fact should not, enter into judging whether actions or people are moral or immoral. (Thiroux, 2012). Actions are to be judged solely on whether they are right and people solely on whether they are good, based on some other standard or standards of morality. Some Egomaniac’s believe that people should act in self-interest. Utilitarian’s are people who think that any act’s being done should be done with self-interest. Both Utilitarian’s and Non-consequentialist’s theories are considered goodness of an action as it serves the interest of someone.

1.     Immanuel Kant’s Duty/ Good Will Theory: This theory is a non-consequential theory because morality is based on duty and moral obligation. If one acts on the bases of duty than he/she is a moral individual, regardless of the consequences of his or her behavior.

Consequentialist theories of moral evaluation have two parts. One part is an account of what is good, and the other part suggests that how this good should be approached, which underlies the property such of being right. For e.g. A very well-known example of consequentialism is Utilitarianism, which holds that the right action is the action that maximizes pleasure, the action that has the overall best consequence in terms of production of pleasure.