Management of Ethics in Non-Governmental Organizations - Literature review Example

Management of Ethics in NGOs Introduction Badiou (2002, pg 32) defined ethics as “a set of principles and concepts that guide individuals, businesses, institutions and the community among others in determining what is right or wrong.” Ethics are the moral principles in various traditions and groups that enable individuals to live and work in peace and harmony with the community set-up or the organizational set-up. Schneeman (2000) stated that ethics is an important branch of philosophy, which involves defending, systematizing, and recommending perceptions of what conducts can be considered right or wrong within the society. Ethics is important in organizations as they help individuals to know their boundaries and the expectations from their employers at the work place. In institutions like schools, ethics enable students to know what is required of them and the consequences of breaking the stipulated codes of ethics. In the writings by Preston (2007), he noted that ethics is applied in the management of majority of organizations to ensure that stockholders, business owners, employees, and the public are treated with the respect they deserve. Organizations that have good ethics prosper and make more profits since their employees are protected by the ethical code of conducts. The ethical code of conduct ensures that individuals work towards achieving the goals and objective of the businesses. Additionally, the ethical codes of conduct ensure that employees dress decently when they are at work, and they behave in an appropriate manner. According to the writings by Appiah (2005), he argued that an organization, which has ethical behaviors, is able to improve the general atmosphere at the work place, assists in the motivation of the workers and create a good image for the company. Studies conducted by Polman (2010) indicate that government organizations as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) experience challenges in upholding their ethical values, depending with the situations, which could create possible conflict of ethical practices are adhered. For example, a medical practitioner whose ethical obligation is treat individuals who are sick or those who have been injured may find it difficult to treat a child-rapist who has been injured during his forceful sex activity, this after considering the harm the rapist has done to the innocent child. Based on such challenges this paper is set to present a discussion on various issues that deal with ethics in non-governmental organizations and in particular it draws its premise from the writings by Polman (2010m, p 91), who wrote that “once inside a war zone, it’s essential to have a blind spot for matters of ethics.” Polman’s quote suggest that certain scenarios or circumstances makes it impossible to adhere to ethical practices. Theoretical background of ethics From the definition given earlier ethics is considered a moral doctrines that govern individual’s or a group’s behavior. Ethics address disputes of moral diversity in the society, which enables individuals to know what is considered right and wrong. Reamer (2006) noted that there are three major types of ethics, which include meta-ethics, applied ethics, and normative ethics. Meta-ethics Smith (2001) stated that meta-ethics is a branch of ethics that asks individuals how they understand and what they contemplate when talking about what is considered right or wrong by a particular society. Meta ethical questions are conceptual and relate to many practical queries. This branch of ethics explores the nature of moral first-order debates and is concerned with what individuals are doing when they engage in moral talks and thoughts. Bredeson (2012) stated that there are three problems that explain Meta ethics and they includer explaining the meaning of judgments that are considered in morality, nature of moral judgments and how morality can be defended. According to the writings by Tannsjo (2008), meta ethics can be grouped into moral semantics, moral epistemology, moral ontology, and moral psychology. Moral semantics is concerned with the meaning of typical ethical sentences, for instance ‘killing is ethically wrong’. The Cognitive theories of Meta ethics support the moral semantics. Geirsson and Holmgren (2000) stated that Cognitivist theories involve sentences that express various propositions that can be false or true while non-cognitivism rarely expresses propositions. Moral ontology defines moral properties and facts (Prenzler, 2009). Individuals who answer moral questions in a negative manner are known as moral nihilists while the positive ones are called moral realists. Moral epistemology defines how individuals can have moral knowledge of what is right and wrong in the society. Moral psychology in Meta ethics explains whether a person’s decision to accept moral judgment is a matter of being in a non-cognitive or cognitive mental state (Jennings, 2012). Normative ethics Normative ethics is one of the branches of philosophical ethics and it is involved with investigation of various questions that arise when considering how individuals are supposed to act morally (Redner, 2001). Normative ethics focuses on metaphysics of morality facts and moral language, which is different from Meta physics that explains the moral behaviors that are considered right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of ethical action, which involves three parties, an agent who is doing the act, the action, and consequences of the action (Larsen, 2008). There are three types of theories that explain normative ethics that include deotological, virtue, and the consequentialist theory. Virtue theory Kumar and Steinmann (2000) stated that the virtue theory focuses on the moral characters of the individual. According to this theory, it is expected that agents possess positive character traits such as generosity, compassion, love, and courage among others, which are supposed to be manifested in their actions. In normative ethics, individuals and groups in society are expected to exhibit the virtues even if other people think that they bring about adverse consequences. Deontology Frederickson and Ghere (2013) stated that deontological theories focus on the action being done. According to this theory, some actions are considered intrinsically bad or good in themselves. The good actions ought to be performed regardless of the consequences. Consequentialism Consequentialism is a normative ethics theory that states that individuals ought to do actions that bring about positive rewards. The purpose of ethics in this theory is to make the society a better place by doing what is right. Applied ethics Banerjee (2005) defined applied ethics as the philosophical assessment from a moral perspective of various private and public issues in life that are matters of moral judgment. Individuals use applied ethics to identify the correct measures in dealing with various issues that concern human life. Business ethics for example is concerned with code of conducts in organizations to improve the behavior of the employees and Bioethics is concerned with identifying the right approach to issues like euthanasia, mercy killing, and use of human body parts like embryos in research. Environmental ethics is concerned with the duty of community members towards the life of various species and landscapes and clinical ethics is concerned with the duties of medical practitioners in improving the basic health needs of people in the society (Trevino and Nelson, 2011). There are three theories that explain applied ethics, utilitarianism, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. Menzel (2012) stated that utilitarianism is the process whereby practical costs of different policies are assessed on the hypothesis that the right policy will make majority of the individuals happy. Deontological ethics focuses on the need for society members to perform the right actions regardless of the consequences and virtue ethics focuses on the need for individuals to choose the right actions in matters concerning morality. Ethics in the management of NGOs NGOs play a major role in the society by helping societies that people are dying of hunger, floods, and other manmade and natural disasters. Mele (2012) stated that NGOs have proved to be effective and selfless in achieving their social objectives hence enabling them to address various new opportunities. The NGOs have had challenges such lack of financial resources to address problems in countries that have major problems, and lack of improved technology to cope with advanced technology in the world hence they have had to adapt and change their values. The NGOs advocate for solidarity, volunteering, awareness, and compassion to help the disadvantaged communities. Grebner (2009) stated that the success of NGOs has been made possible with the use of codes of ethics, recommendations, codes of conducts and good practices. Ethics are used by NGOs to define acceptable behaviors in the organization, set high standards of their operations, and provide scales for self-assessment and a structure for the responsibilities and conducts of employees. The types of ethics used by NGOs are normative and applied ethics whereby the employees of the organizations are focused on doing what is morally right regardless of the consequences. The normative and applied ethics in NGOs have enabled them to be responsible and accountable since their increase in the world makes them key players in the world (Horton and Roche, 2010). NGOs use their ethical codes to meet high standards in their operations and to gain the trust of the individuals who are working with them in the society. Challenges in upholding ethics in management of NGOs The managers in NGOs experience many challenges when making decisions as they help countries solve their issues during war and periods of natural disasters. Lewis (2007) stated that managers of NGOs have duties such as organizing, planning, communicating, and motivating individuals among others and face challenges in considering what are wrong and right, injustice or justice and unfairness and fairness in their decisions. The statement” (NGOs) Once inside a war zone, it’s essential to have a blind sport for matters of ethics” (Polman, 2010, p.91) is a true statement since the various employees for NGOs experience this dilemmas in their operations in the war zone. The United Nations (UN) is an example of an international NGO that experiences a lot challenges in making decisions on helping the people or the government of particular countries during crises such as war (Abu-Sada, 2012). The UN is obligated to help the governments of countries in crises and side with the leaders who call for help when their military and the organizations lack enough resources to save their citizens. It is difficult for the UN to help governments that mistreating, killing, and torturing their own citizens since their obligation is to help save the lives of the people (Hanekamp, 2007). It is essential for the UN to have a blind spot for matters of ethics, when they find injured individuals for the rival groups who need medical help. The organization have a right to help the injured people since that is their part of their moral obligations apart from helping the country fight their enemies. Case study of the crisis in Syria In 2011, the people in Syria were protesting for the release of various political prisoners and their government responded negatively by using the security forces to fight the demonstrators (Tencati and Perrini, 2011). The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad encouraged the attacks and the subjected innocent civilians to torture and arbitrary detention. This action led some people of Syria to form opposition organizations such as Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian National Council (SNC) to overthrow the regime of the hostile president. This led to more violations of human rights and the UN had to intervene. It was difficult for the UN to choose sides to help since the Syrian government and the people contributed to the killing of their fellow citizens. Johnson (2012) stated that Kofi Annan who had been appointed as the Joint Special Envoy for the UN resigned since the organization lacked political stability hence making it difficult to find a solution to the crisis. Case study of war in Darfur Darfur is a region in Sudan and the place was politically unstable in February 2003 when the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) began fighting the government because of the oppression of the people who were non-Arabs. In response, the government led by President Omar al Bashir, attacked the non-Arabs in the name of ethnic cleansing and killed many innocent individuals, women and young boys and girls were raped during the entire nights and people displaced from their homes. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sent their people to help enforce peace in Sudan but the government opposed the resolution and continued killing people. The government of Sudan made it clear that they wanted to solve their issues in their own ways by asking the UN to leave the country (Barry and Rosenthal, 2009). Settling disputes and peace keeping in countries such as Sudan and Syria is challenging since even the people trying to help the injured individuals can be shot or killed in the process. The employees of the United Nations need to have a blind spot in the war zones since they need rescue the homeless individuals, provide food for the people since during war industries and transport systems are collapsed, provide tents to shelter the homeless and to ensure that the rescued victims are protected from attacks in the camps (Murithi,2009). The employees for the UN are obligated to have a blind spot when they encounter vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women from the opposition side who need help. According to the normative ethics, the UN is supposed to help the individuals who need help regardless of the consequences. The UN employees face challenges when they make an initiative to go and help other countries in war zones since they can be injured and killed in the process of helping other people (Preston et al, 2002). Maintaining peace in war zone for organizations lack resources to protect their people and the victims they rescue. In the case study about the war in Darfur, the military men for the United Nations could be killed and their means of transport back their country destroyed. Bochorishvili (2005) stated that the UN has a blind spot for their own safety during war zones since their main purpose is to help the people without considering their own lives. For instance during the outbreak of various diseases like typhoid and cholera in developing countries, the UN is quick to sent medical practitioners in those areas to sensitize the people on ways to avoid the disease and provide medical care for the infected individuals. It is an ethical dilemma for the employees of the UN put themselves at risk by travelling to places prone to attacks by terrorists to protect the people against terrorist attacks. This is an ethical dilemma because the terrorists are brutal and kill people especially those who are trying to prevent them from doing their activities. Conclusion Ethics is an important branch in Philosophy that involves defending, systematizing, and recommending perceptions of what conducts are considered right or wrong in the general society. Ethics is divided into three branches, which include, meta-ethics, normative and applied ethics. Ethics is applied in the management businesses to ensure that the employees work toward achieving the goals and objectives of the business. In NGOs, ethics is applied to ensure accountability and responsibility in its operations and gain the trust of community members. Normative and applied ethics are used by NGOs since they advocate for individuals to perform actions that right regardless of the consequences. Individuals who work in NGOs for instance the United Nations experience difficulties especially when they have to make decisions that do not side with the government in order to save the lives of individuals in war zones. The employees of NGOs have an obligation to feed hungry individuals, treat the injured rescue and protect victims involved in war crises regardless of their cultures and backgrounds since it is their ethical duties. This factor therefore makes employees in NGOs have a blind spot in war zones since they are supposed to help people whether they are enemies or friends according to their ethical codes of conduct. References Abu-sada, C. (2012). Dilemmas, challenges, and ethics of humanitarian action: reflections on Médecins Sans Frontières Perception Project. Appiah, A. (2005). The ethics of identity. Princeton, NJ [u.a.], Princeton Univ. Press. Badiou, A. (2002). Ethics: an essay on the understanding of evil. London, Verso. Barry, C., and Rosenthal, J. H. (2009). Ethics & international affairs a reader. Washington, Georgetown University Press. Banerjee, B. P. (2005). Foundations of ethics in management. New Delhi, Excel Books. Bredeson, D. (2012). Applied business ethics. Mason, Ohio, South-Western. Bochorishvili, T. (2005). Politics, ethics and challenges to democracy in new independent states. Washington, DC, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. Frederickson, H. G., and Ghere, R. K. (2013). Ethics in public management.Armonk,New York: M.E. Sharpe,Inc Geirsson, H., and holmgren, M. R. (2000). Ethical theory: a concise anthology. Peterborough, Ont, Broadview Press. Grebner, L. A. (2009). Ethics case studies for health information management. Australia, Delmar Cengage Learning. Hanekamp, G. (2007). Business ethics of innovation. Berlin, Springer. Horton, K., and Roche, C. (2010). Ethical questions and international NGOs: an exchange between philosophers and NGOs. Dordrecht, Springer. Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: casting light or shadow. Thousand Oaks, Calif, SAGE. Jennings, M. (2012). Business ethics: case studies and selected readings. Australia, South- Western, Cengage Learning. Kumar, B. N., & Steinmann, H. (2000). Ethics in international management. Berlin, Ge, Walter de Gruyter. Larsen, O. (2008). Right to dissent: negative discourse ethics & deliberative democracy in a divided globalizing world. Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum. Lewis, P. S. (2007). Management: challenges for tomorrows leaders. Mason, OH, Thomson/South-Western. Melé, D. (2012). Management ethics: placing ethics at the core of good management. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England], Palgrave Macmillan. Menzel, C. (2012). Ethics Management for Public Administrators Leading and Building Organizations of Integrity. M E Sharpe Inc. Murithi, T. (2009). The ethics of peacebuilding. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Preston, N. (2007). Understanding ethics. Annandale, N.S.W., Federation Press. Preston, N., Sampford, C. J. G., and Connors, C. (2002). Encouraging ethics and challenging corruption: reforming governance in public institutions. Annandale, N.S.W., Federation Press. Prenzler, T. (2009). Ethics and accountability in criminal justice: towards a universal standard.Bowen Hills, Qld, Australian Academic Press. Reamer, F. G. (2006). Social work values and ethics. New York, Columbia University Press. Redner, H. (2001). Ethical life: the past and present of ethical cultures. Lanham [u.a.], Rowman & Littlefield. Schneeman, A. (2000). Paralegal ethics. Albany, NY, West Legal Studies/Thomson Learning. Smith, K. E. (2001). Ethics and foreign policy. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. Tannsjo, T. (2008). Understanding ethics: an introduction to moral theory. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Tencati, A., and perrini, F. (2011). Business Ethics and Corporate Sustainability. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Pub. Treviño, L. K., and nelson, K. A. (2011). Managing business ethics: straight talk about how to do it right. New York, John Wiley. Read More