Ethical Issues that Arising in Various Business Organizations - Essay Example

Running Head: PROFESSIONALISM IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS Professionalism in Construction Business [Name of the Writer] [Name of the Institution] Abstract This paper argues that the analysis of ethical issues in construction business is legitimate and important. It argues that it is meaningful to search for universal moral principles. It then presents a comprehensive framework for making judgments about construction business ethics that consists of five complementary moral principles that have been developed and studied by philosophers: utilitarian ethics, rights ethics (using Kant's categorical imperative), distributive justice ethics, care ethics, and virtue ethics. Professionalism in Construction Business Introduction The perceived lack of ethics in business is a subject of considerable concern to the public (Bird & Waters, 1989, 70; Hanson, 1985, 242). The constructors can generate some of the most challenging ethical dilemmas in business. For example, a survey of 747 professionals constructors by the Society in 1998 for constructors found that 54% of the human resource professionals had observed conduct in the workplace that violated the law or the ethical standards of the professional's organization. The survey respondents reported observing misconduct that included violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, violations of the Fair Labour Standards Act, violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, constructors receiving gifts or entertainment in violation of the organization's policies, engaging in fraud, accepting kickbacks or bribes, lying to supervisors, abusing drugs or alcohol, lying on reports or falsifying work records, conflicts of interest, stealing, altering the results of product tests, and misusing insider information. These examples of misconduct are sometimes more than the isolated behaviours of a few employees in an otherwise ethical organization. For example, the Society for constructors in 1998 survey found that 47% of the professionals reported that they felt pressured by other employees or managers to compromise their organization's standards of ethical business conduct in order to achieve business objectives. The respondents also reported that they did not always report observed misconduct because of factors such as a desire to be seen as a team player, feelings that nothing would be done, fears of retribution or retaliation, lack of trust in the organization's procedures, and a feeling that no one else in the organization cared about ethics. The most effective way to grapple with ethical issues in any profession is to apply a framework of moral principles that have been examined and successfully used to analyze ethical issues. Moral principles are guidelines people use to make moral judgments to decide what is ethical and what is unethical. In this article, here we are examining five moral principles that have been widely studied by philosophers (Pojman, 1989, 60; Rachels, 1999, 73; Velasquez, 1998, 30). These moral principles are also commonly used by people, even though they may not be aware of the formal arguments used by philosophers in developing and studying the principles. Moral Principles This paper develops a framework for making moral judgments concerning construction business that consists of five complementary moral principles. The five moral principles have been selected for inclusion in the framework for three primary reasons (Pojman, 1989, 63; Rachels, 1999, 52; Velasquez, 1998, 32). Here we are briefly discussing theses principles, the first moral principle judges whether an action is ethical by examining whether the action produces the most good and the least harm for everyone who is affected by the action (Bayles, 1968, 75; Bentham, 1789, 46; Brandt, 1979, 39; Mill, 1957, 43; Singer, 1993, 37). In particular, the principle of utilitarianism can be summarized as follows: The morally correct action is the one that maximizes net social benefits, where net social benefits equals social benefits minus social costs. This principle focuses exclusively on judging the ethics of the action in terms of the result produced by the action. While the first moral principle, utilitarianism, focuses on the ends (results) of the action, the second moral principle evaluates the means to the ends (methods) by ensuring that the person performing the action has the moral right to do so (Pojman, 1989, 59; Rachels, 1999, 82; Velasquez, 1998, 29). In particular, the moral principle of rights can be summarized as follows: The morally correct action is the one that the person has a moral right to do, that does not infringe on the moral rights of others, and that furthers the moral rights of others. A right is an entitlement. That is, if a person has a moral right to perform some action, then that means that the person is entitled to perform the action. The third moral principle examines whether or not the results produced by the action in question create a fair distribution of benefits and costs, good and harm (Pojman, 1989, 60; Rachels, 1999, 83; Velasquez, 1998, 30). In particular, the distributive justice moral principle may be summarized as follows: The morally correct action is the one that produces a fair distribution of benefits and costs for everyone who is affected by the action. A fair distribution is one in which individuals who are similar in relevant respects receive similar benefits and costs (Perelman, 1963, 56). The challenge in applying this principle is in deciding on what bases individuals are similar. The fourth moral principle emphasizes the importance of the special relationships that may exist among individuals by examining whether or not care is shown for the people with whom the person performing the action in question has special relationships (Rachels, 1999, 77; Velasquez, 1998, 35). In particular, the ethics of care moral principle may be summarized as follows: The morally correct action is the one that expresses care in protecting the special relationships that individuals have with each other. The care principle emphasizes that ethics is more than impartiality; it also involves caring showing partiality for the people with whom one has special relationships. For example, the care principle would justify a parent showing more love, concern, compassion, and kindness for a son or daughter than to a stranger. The fifth moral principle emphasizes that we evaluate a person's morality by examining the person's character (Pojman, 1989, 63; Rachels, 1999, 80; Velasquez, 1998, 33). In particular, virtue ethics can be summarized as follows: The morally correct action is the one that displays good moral virtues, and does not display bad moral vices. A virtue can be defined as a trait of character that manifests itself in the actions of an individual (MacIntyre, 1981, 12; Rachels, 1999, 77). Other ethicists have emphasized that we should look at the person's character without necessarily examining the person's actions (Pincoffs, 1986, 43). Integration of Moral Principles Note that each of the five moral principles examines morality from a different perspective. The utilitarian principle focuses on the results (ends) of the action and examines whether or not the action produces the greatest good and the least harm possible from the perspective of everyone who is affected by the action. The rights principle focuses on the methods (means) used and examines whether or not the person performing the action in question has the moral fight to do the action. The distributive justice principle focuses on whether or not the action produces a fair distribution of good and harm. The care principle focuses on protecting and nurturing the individuals with whom the person performing the action in question has special relationships. Finally, the virtue principle focuses on the character traits of the person performing the action in question. Since each moral principle examines ethics from a different perspective, no one principle captures the full range of relevant issues (Velasquez, 1998, 35). Therefore, by using all five principles together (see Table 1 in appendix), we are more likely to consider all of the relevant issues in deciding what constitutes the ethical course of action. Conclusions It argued in this article that business ethics is important; that construction business is an area rich in ethical dilemmas, and that business ethical dilemma can be analyzed using a framework of five moral principles. The five moral principles I have included in the framework are general principles that have been developed and studied by philosophers. The principles are also ones that people commonly use to debate ethical issues even though they may not be familiar with the formal arguments used by philosophers in developing and studying the principles. Each of the five principles analyzes ethics from a different perspective. Thus, by combining the five principles into a framework, our analysis of ethics is more likely to be complete. The challenge for future authors on the subject of business ethics, and the challenge for practicing constructors, is to apply the framework to the practical problems that they see in the field of construction. The analysis of construction business ethical issues will help managers understand what distinguishes ethical from unethical conduct. As noted previously, constructors an obligation to protect the interests of the business while conforming to both the law and ethics. Therefore, if they are to conform to ethical requirements, then they have an obligation to learn how to apply a consistent, comprehensive moral framework. It hopes that this article helps constructors to understand how to use one such framework. Finally, while here we support a particular moral framework made up of five complementary moral principles, we do not suggest that agreement on the framework will eliminate all debate. People can and do disagree on the appropriate social benefits and costs to consider. People can and do disagree on what rights individuals have, and on which rights should take precedence when the rights of one individual conflict with the rights of others. People can and do disagree on how best to define fairness. People can and do disagree on how best to express care for those with whom they have special relationships. People can and do disagree on how best to characterize the traits of individuals in terms of virtues and vices. People can and do disagree on the order of precedence among the moral principles when the principles reach irreconcilable conclusions. Rather than eliminating debate, the framework of five moral principles serves to provide a comprehensive structure for that debate. With the structure provided by the framework, we are better able to understand the true source of our disagreements, and thereby position ourselves to begin to work toward consensus and agreement on important ethical issues in construction business. References Bayles, M. D. (1968). Contemporary utilitarianism. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. pp. 75 Bentham, J. (1789). The principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. pp. 46-47 Bird, F. B., & Waters, J. A. (1989). The moral muteness of managers. California Management Review, 32, 73-88. Brandt, R. B. (1979). A theory of the good and the right. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. pp. 39 Hanson, K. (1985). Ethics and business: a progress report. In: C. McCoy (Ed.), Management of values. Boston: Pitman. pp. 280-288 MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. pp. 11-15 Mill, J. S. (1957). Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. pp. 43 Perelman, C. (1963). The idea of justice and the problem of argument. New York: Humanities Press. pp. 56 Pincoffs, E. L. (1986). Quandaries and virtues. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. pp. 43-44 Pojman, L. P. (1989). Ethical theory: classical and contemporary readings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. pp. 59-63 Rachels, J. (1999). The elements of moral philosophy (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. pp. 47-86 Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 33-40 Velasquez, M. G. (1998). Business ethics: concepts and cases (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N J: Prentice-Hall. pp. 26-35 Appendix Table 1: Framework of moral principles 1. Utilitarian Principle: What action will do the most good and the least harm for everyone who is affected? a. Who are the stakeholders? b. What are the alternative courses of action? c. For each alternative, what are the benefits and costs (good and harm) for each stakeholder now and in the future? d. Which alternative creates the most benefits and the least costs for all stakeholders considered together? (To help answer this question, consider what would happen in a competitive market in which all stakeholders have complete and accurate information and are free to make their own choices in mutually beneficial negotiations with each other.) 2. Rights Principle: What action do you have the moral right to take, that protects the rights of others, and that furthers the rights of others? a. Do you have a moral right to take the action in question? (1) Reversibility: Are you willing to have the action in question done to yourself if the roles were reversed? (2) Universalizability: Are you willing to live in a world, can you even conceive of a world, in which everyone did the action in question? (3) Respect and free consent: Are you treating people with respect? Are you treating people in ways that they have freely consented to be treated? b. What moral rights do other stakeholders have? (To help answer this question, apply the reversibility, universalizability, and respect/free consent principles.) c. Are there conflicts among the moral rights that you and the other stakeholders have? If so, which moral right should take precedence? (1) What interests are being protected by each competing right? (2) Which competing interest is more important? (3) Give precedence to the right that protects the more important interest. 3. Distributive Justice Principle: What action produces a fair distribution of benefits and costs for all of the stakeholders? a. Egalitarianism: What action produces an equal distribution of benefits and costs? b. Capitalism: What action produces a distribution of benefits and costs based on the contributions of each stakeholder? c. Socialism: What action distributes benefits based on need and costs based on abilities? d. Libertarianism: What action has been freely chosen by the stakeholders? e. Rawls' Principles: What action provides all stakeholders with equal liberties and equal opportunities (but allows for differences in results based on differences in contributions) while helping those in need to the greatest extent possible? 4. Caring Principle: What action cares for those people with whom you have special relationships? a. What action cares for your own needs? b. What action cares for the needs of those people with whom you have special relationships (e.g., family, friends, co-workers, employees, customers, stockholders)? (1) What action helps those who are vulnerable and dependent on you? (2) What action nurtures the ability of those with whom you have special relationships to make their own choices and live their own lives? (3) What action avoids basing relationships on domination, oppression, hatred, violence, disrespect, injustice, or exploitation? 5. Virtue Principle: What action displays virtuous character traits? a. Does the action display virtues such as benevolence, civility, compassion, conscientiousness, cooperativeness, courage, fairness, generosity, honesty, industriousness, loyalty, moderation, self-control, self-reliance, or tolerance? b. Or does the action display vices such as cowardice, deceit, dishonesty, laziness, neglect, or selfishness? c. Take the action that displays virtues, not vices. 6. Resolve Conflict Among the Five Moral Principles: Do all five moral principles reach the same conclusion, or do they reach conflicting conclusions? a. If they reach what appear to be conflicting conclusions, then examine the nature of the apparent conflict to determine if the conflict can be resolved by choosing a previously unconsidered course of action. b. If the apparent conflict among the principles cannot be resolved with a different course of action, then decide which principles should take precedence by examining your values. For example, if you believe that the ends can never justify the means, and then give precedence to the rights principle. Read More