lecturer: prof. justice nyigmah bawole, ugbs contact ... · teleological / consequences theories:...

College of Education

School of Continuing and Distance Education 2014/2015 – 2016/2017

Lecturer: Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole, UGBS Contact Information: [email protected]

2016 / 2017 – 2017 / 2018

Session Overview

• The study of ethics has so many underpinning theories each of which aims to explain the ethical actions and behaviours of both public and private manager from different perspective.

• In this session, some of these relevant theories will be examined. Whilst some of these theories justifies ethical behaviors based in their outcomes, others are based on conformity to some pre-determined norms or rules.

PAHS 414-ICDE Slide 2 PAHS 414-ICDE 2018-Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole

Session Objectives

By the end of this session, students should be able to:

• Examine key ethical theories

• Explore how ethical theories shape the work of public managers

PAHS 414-ICDE 2018-Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole

PAHS 414-ICDE Slide 3

Session Outline

The key topics to be covered in this session include:

• Examine key ethical theories

• Explore how ethical theories shape the work of public managers

Slide 4 PAHS 414-ICDE 2018-Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole

PAHS 414-ICDE

Reading Lists

• Read the following materials for detailed information on this session:

1. Koven, S. G. (2015). Public sector ethics: theory and application. London: CRC Press.

PAHS 414-ICDE Slide 5 PAHS 414-ICDE 2018-Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole

Types of Ethical Theories

• Moral or ethical dilemmas can not simply be ‘solved’.

• Ethical theories that seem to provide clear cut solutions will leave out some aspects of moral life.

• Two main theories have been developed: teleological and deontological theories to help solve ethical problems.

• Each of these approaches is discussed in this section.

Slide 6 PAHS 414-ICDE 2018-Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole

PAHS 414-ICDE

Teleological / consequences theories:

• Teleology is a philosophy of science that promotes a focus on outcomes and consequences when studying various phenomena (Kagan, 1997).

• As such, theories based on this approach to the study of ethics are sometimes referred to as “consequential theories” (Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989).

• The notion behind such theories is that the morality of a behavior can be judged by the consequences of that behavior (Sidgwick, 1874; Smart, 1973; Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989).



• Many theories contend that the moral rightness of an action can be determined simply by looking at its consequences.

• If the consequences are good, the act is right; if bad the act is wrong. Consequential theories measure the morality of actions on the basis of their non-moral consequences (Barry, 1979).

• consequential ethics include, egoism, utilitarianism and situational ethics.



1. Egoism

• Egoism is a moral act which promotes the individuals best long-term interests.

• In determining the morality of an action, egoists use their best long-term advantage to measure the action’s goodness (Barry, 1979). Egoism measures the morality of a behavior by the extent to which the behavior promotes one’s own interests.

• Under this approach, an action that promotes a person’s knowledge and self-actualization is considered ethical, whereas an action that does not is considered unethical.



2. Utilitarianism • The theory most commonly associated with the

teleological approach is known as utilitarian theory (Cavanagh et al., 1981).

• Utilitarianism is based on the idea that ethical behaviors are those that result in the greatest amount of benefit for the largest number of people (Mill, 1863).

• In terms of organizational policies, utilitarianism holds that rules are ethical if they promote behaviors that maximize the benefit for all members and other stakeholders, and are unethical if they do not.



• Utilitarianism can be grouped into three types, thus, act utilitarianism, general utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

• Under act utilitarianism, one is to tell what is right or obligatory by appealing directly to the principle of utility or by trying to see which of the actions opened to him will or is likely to produce the greatest balance of good over evil in the universe.



3. Situational Ethics

• Situational ethics contends that the moral action is the one that produces the greatest amount of Christian love of all the alternatives available.

• Rules and principles are valid only if they serve love in a specific situation.

• Therefore it is critical when making moral decisions to be fully acquainted with all the facts surrounding the case, as well as the probable consequences that would attend each possible alternative.



Deontology:

• Deontological approach to the study of ethics on the other hand differ from teleological approaches in that they do not focus solely on consequences when assessing the morality of actions.

• Instead, this approach place more emphasis on the extent to which a person’s decisions and behaviors conform to existing standards of morality such as rules and rights (Kagan, 1997).

• The deontological school of thought focuses on the preservation of individual rights and on the intentions associated with a particular behavior, rather than on its consequences (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 1991).

PAHS 414-ICDE

2018-Prof. Justice Nyigmah Bawole


• Deontological views have a rich intellectual history dating

back at least as far as Socrates. Deontologists look for conformity to moral principles to determine whether or not an action is ethical.

• Standards to defend personal ethics are often developed from types of deontological philosophies (Velasquez, 1988).

• Deontologists feel that individuals have certain undeniable rights, which include freedom of conscience, freedom of consent, freedom of privacy, freedom of speech, and due process (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 1991).



1. Single-rule Non-consequential Theories

• The non-consequential theories contend that in evaluating the morality of an action, one should not consider the consequences of the action.

• One of such philosophers is Immanuel Kant. Under the single-rule non-consequential theories, the golden rule and Kant’s categorical imperatives would be discussed.



Golden Rule

• Studies have revealed that many managers propose the Golden Rule as the most important guide for ethical behavior in organizations.

• To Barry (1979) the “Golden Rule” is interpreted as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

• The “Golden Rule” approach is based on the notion that people should treat others as they wish to be treated (Tsalikis & Fritzsche, 1989).



• This school of thought holds that individuals’ actions are ethical if they would be comfortable having someone else behave similarly towards them.

• The theory of good will holds the opinion that a person’s actions are ethical if they are well-intentioned and in line with a person’s duty to society.

• If you want to be treated fairly, treat others fairly, if you want to be told the truth, tell others the truth, if you want your privacy respected, respect the privacy of others (Barry, 1979).



Kant’s Categorical Imperative

• Kant’s theory of categorical imperative is based on deontological ethics, that is, one that attempts to exclude a consideration of the consequences of moral decision making.

• Kant’s categorical imperative put in another way is, “Act in such a way that the action taken under the circumstances could be a universal law or rule of behavior” (Lacziniak, 1983).



2. The Multiple-rule Non-consequential Theories

• The multiple-rule non-consequential theories, the third categorization of Barry relies not on one rule but several rules or factors in determining the morality of an action.

• To Barry (1979) among these theories are three that warrant special attention because of their acknowledged place in the history of moral philosophy and of their applicability to business and organizational contexts.

• They are prima facie duties, the maximum principle of social justice and the proportionality, or limited responsibility theory.



Prima Facie Duties

• This theory believes there are duties or obligations which bind us morally. By prima facie duties, we mean duties that at first sight dictates what we should do when other moral factors are not considered.

• Stated differently, prima facie duties are ones that generally obligate us, that is, ones that ordinarily impose a moral obligation but do not apply in a particular case because of additional circumstances.

• Thus, prima facie duties must be distinguished from an actual duty, that is, what one should do after considering and weighting all the prima facie duties involved.



• Ross (1930) and Barry (1979) identified 6 (six) types of prima facie duties which are outlined as follows:

1. Duties of fidelity which include duty not to lie especially in conversation, to remain faithful in contracts, to keep to promises and to repair wrongful acts.

2. Duties of gratitude and this rests on acts of other people towards the agents. such as those between friends or between relatives and those between employers and employees.



3. Duties of justice which rest on the fact or possibility of distributing pleasure or happiness in a manner which is not in accordance with the merits of the people concerned.

4. Duties of beneficence which rely on the fact that there are other people in the world whose virtues, intelligence, livelihood or happiness can be improved by others.

5. Duties of self-improvement. This duty rest on the fact that we can improve our own condition of virtue, intelligence, or happiness.

6. Duty of non-injury (non-malfeasance), that is, those that do not injure others.



The Principle of Justice • The principle of justice is another form of deontological ethics

which has been used synonymously with ‘fair play’. The principle of justice could be understood as the obligation to give each party its due (Reeck, 1979).

• To Barry (1979) crucial to any theory of social justice is the determination of when inequality is permissible.

• After all, a just society is not one in which all are equal, but one in which inequalities are justifiable. This raises the question of “what kinds of inequalities are permissible?” It is significant to know under what conditions the equal liberty principle may be violated.



Principle of Proportionality

• Another multiple rule non-consequential ethics is the principle of proportionality or limited responsibility theory propounded by Thomas Garrett in his book Business Ethics, (1966).

• To Garrett, any moral decision revolves around three moral elements, that is, what we intend, how we carry out our intentions, and what happens, simply put, intention, means and ends.



Universalism

• Universalism states that the moral worth of an action cannot be dependent upon the outcome because those outcomes are so indefinite and uncertain at the time the decision to act is made.

• Instead, the moral worth of an action has to depend upon the intentions of the person making the decision or performing the act.

• The first duty of universalism is to treat others as ends and not as means.



• Other people should be seen as valuable ends in themselves, worthy of dignity and respect, and not as impersonal means to achieve our own ends.

• No actions can be considered ‘right’ in accordance with personal duty if it disregards the ultimate moral worth of any other human being.



Conclusion

We conclude this session with the following remarks:

• A behaviour may be either ethical or unethical based on the perspective of these and other several ethical theories discussed.



ACTIVITY

• What is the different between deontological and teleological positions on ethics?

• What is the argument of the principle of proportionality in ethics?



END OF SESSION 2



lecturer: prof. justice nyigmah bawole, ugbs contact ... · teleological / consequences theories:...

Documents