Ethics Sustainability and Culture - Essay Example

Introduction In nature, a person’s preference is completely selfish although it seems to be an oversimplification. The individual preferences of people are particularistic in nature since they tend to give more weight for their self interests, members of the family and close friends than to other people. This contrasts to our moral value judgment, or what we are expected to be, “universalistic, in the sense of giving the same weight to everybody’s interests” (Farina, Hahn & Vannucci 1992). Universalistic means that our moral preferences should guide our moral value judgment; our preferences should be that of having a look at social situations from an impartial and impersonal point of view. A moral point of view, according to Ferrell & Fraedrich (2005), holds impartiality, judging a situation from a perspective that is not biased. Unlike judging a situation by a direct participant, who will definitely do so from his or her own side taking into consideration of personal interests, a moral point of view is basically that of an outside observer whose personal interests are not affected. Thus, a problem of complying with the requirements of such a universalistic morality arises since our individual preferences tend to be particularistic unlike the moral values which are usually universalistic in nature. This is a major ethical problem that more often leads to ethical issues in a workplace, either between individual workers or among all workers within an organization. An ethical issue can be defined as a situation or a problem that requires one to make an appropriate decision based on what he or she evaluates as right (ethical) and what is wrong (unethical) between alternatives (Hartman 2005). The case of the Trouble at Mill (Smithers 1996), appears to raise some issues of ethical concern since there seems to be some kind of conflict in making an appropriate decision with regard to what is right or wrong. Robert, the Human Resources Manager of the Mill, is in a very complex situation which involves some apparent mental conflict in moral imperatives. If he obeys the corporate senior management, that he should not inform anyone over the closure of the mill after a year, then he will not be able to let James (an applicant who had relevant skills and experience from the previous jobs he had) know the truth about the company’s plans. It is the company’s interest, of not letting both the staff and others know about its closure since quality production will be compromised. Besides, it has a year of operation before its operations are terminated. Richard may also choose to work in favor of his self interests. Having been promised a senior Human Resources position at the company’s head office, he may chose not to tell anyone over the issue. If he does against the will of the senior management, he will definitely not comply with the privacy policy of his professional ethics, and they may loose his trust. On the other hand, the applicant needs to be assured over the security of the job so that he can fully settle and work in maintaining the sophisticated inventory system of the organization. From his past experiences the applicant, James, does not want to lose his job once more so that he can be able to meet his own interests. Such kind of situation requires the Human Resources manager, Robert, to either be honest or deceive him for the interests of the organization since it can not do without such a crucial position. Robert has been compromised in a conflict of either going for his self interests and those of the company at the expense of the applicant or deciding to tell the truth, being honest. Besides, James is the most appropriate candidate to take up the position. Therefore, such a case can be regarded as an ethical dilemma within the company and more especially to the Human Resources Manager. It is also unethical for the senior management to disclose the information of the closure of the company to only one person in the organization. It could have been appropriate for them to inform everybody or as well not inform anyone. In making moral decisions, the moral judgements should be based on facts, be logical and appeal to sound moral principles. We therefore use the normative theories of ethics in an attempt of looking for appropriate principles to which our moral judgement should rely upon. Some are consequentialist while others are not. Among them are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Shaw & Sansbury (2008) points out that their purpose is to “determine, and to provide guidelines to resolve, conflicting individual interests and the conflict between societal and individual interests.” According to Truscott & Crook (1987), a utilitarian approach (both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism) does not follow a code of ethics, but instead considers the utility of the probable outcome on every situation faced. He says that this type of consequentialist theory underlies the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit considerations used by administration in making decisions. Farina, Hahn & Vannucci (1992) highlights that the goal of morality is to “serve the common interests of the society by maximizing social utility or, more exactly, by maximizing expected social utility. This is also referred to as principle utility. The structure of utilitarianism consists of the focus on utility (an objective and intrinsic value) which leads to pleasure or happiness. Morality is considered to be a requirement of maximizing the value or good. Utilitarian point of morality is doing something that can produce much goodness or pleasure as possible (Bentham 1789). Another characteristic of utilitarianism is harm principle. This characteristic holds that morality can be justified in coercing a person’s behavior so as to prevent him or her from injuring others. Kantianism normative theory holds that there should be “respect for persons” principle which emphasizes the purity of a person’s intentions in acting morally (Bowie 1999). According to Kantianism, the highest good is the good will. This means that as we act from good will, we are acting from duty. Thus, the intention of Kantianism is looking behind one’s action and not looking at the consequences. Doing things out of good will becomes one’s duty and not for any other reason. It doesn’t look for the consequences but only emphasizes on duty. Therefore Kantianism is a non-consequentialist theory. The question which arises then is; what is the Kantian morality view on duties. In most cases, we do things so that we can get something else. An example is working to get a pay. This is a hypothetical imperative kind of duty whereby the duty of working depends on the desire to earn a pay. Another form of duty is the categorical imperative where there are no ifs, ands or buts. Reason provides a basis for this categorical imperative of morality. Thus, the characteristics of Kantianism, according to Fritzsche (2005), include acting on maxims with a will of universal laws of nature, treating a person’s humanity as an end rather than as a mere means, and acting as a member of an ideal community of ends where one is both a sovereign and subject at the same time. Kantianism has a belief that only human beings can act rationally (i.e. follow laws of their own choosing). Since human beings are the only free creatures, they are moral and rational. According to principle autonomy, it is the free will possessed by individuals that give them their dignity and worthiness. The Kant’s ethics seem to be of duty rather than of ethics. An ethical person has to act from right intentions since he or she has free will. In applying the utilitarian approach to the case of Trouble at Mill, we should consider the possible outcomes of every situation. It is vital for us to look at the consequences of all the situations and by weighing them ethically; we would be able to find an appropriate solution on what should be done rather than looking at the dimension of our moral judgment action. Bowie (1999) says that "we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions”. This means that in judging what is either right or wrong, we should look at what the greatest number regard as greatest good or wrong. The ethical question here is; is it order for Robert to inform James over the closure of the Mill? Let’s consider the consequences that will arise if he decides to tell the truth. Firstly, the production manager, part of the staff, will know about the company’s plans. Secondly, the applicant who wants to have a secure job will definitely know that it is not the right job for him. Thirdly, there will be no trust between Robert and the senior management of the company if they get to know. Fourthly, other stakeholders, including the larger society, will know the plans and this may lead to the community’s backlash and the worker’s industrial action. Fifthly, he may lose the other chance as a top manager in the head office which he was told to apply for. Considering this, it will be against business ethics since the economic production may be lowered. What will be the consequences if he lies? The applicant will be happy that he has gotten his dream job and that he can be able to settle with her wife in the rural area. Thus, he will be intrinsically motivated to work with greater competence and diligently to produce better results. Taking him up for the job will render that there will be an efficient production in the company since he is most experienced in that position. Another possible outcome of not speaking out the truth is, Robert will be trusted by the senior management and probably be able to meet his self interests (i.e. securing the other job). When we consider the consequences for the manager, the applicant and the general company, we realize that the outcomes are far good if he doesn’t let anyone know about the company’s plan than letting the stakeholders know. In addition, in applying the harm principle of utilitarianism, there will be less negative consequences if the closure plan is not told. This means that if we conduct a cost benefit analysis or a cost effectiveness analysis, it will be ethical for him, Robert, not to talk over the company’s closure. He should instead answer James’ question in a line that he doesn’t realize the secrets of the company. Besides, he should be made to understand that all employees should be ready for any uncertainties that may arise within the business setting and that anybody, including the managers themselves, may face the same. This will be ethical in the business setting if maximum production need be achieved. Taking this action means that there will be greatest amount of good over the bad produced in long run. The Kantianism approach to such a situation implies that we consider Kant’s argument. “The highest good is the good will. To act from a good will is to act from duty. Thus, it is the intention behind an action rather than its consequences that make that action good” (Bowie 1999). According to Kantianism, every action has its maxim which should either be considered as a universal law or not. The Mill Company is desperately in need of an experienced person to take the left store person’s position vacancy. Should Robert, the Human Resources Manager, seize to tell James the truth on the company’s plan? Will this justify any lying promise? To find out the answer we should universalize this action if it is morally permissible in such a situation to make a lying promise. Definitely the answer we get is no. Such a lying promise is incoherent if adopted by everyone (Bowie 1999). The categorical imperative duty of Kantianism sees if the maxim in which an action depends upon is morally permissible. Any action taken should pass through the test of categorical imperative. Lying is universally not acceptable and thus this maxim is self defeating. Hence, it is morally wrong. Human beings should act from laws required by reason. It is therefore morally wrong to use a person to satisfy one’s own interests. “Always treat the humanity in a person as an end and never as a means merely” (Boatright 2007). He points out for the “respect for persons” principle. Deception is regarded as wrong doing according to the formula of humanity. This humanity of viewing a person as an ends rather than a means, requires that (in a business context) the staff is not deceived. Also, the company and its practices should be put in a manner that contributes to the development of moral and human rational capacities, rather than inhibiting them. Therefore, it is morally wrong for the senior management to keep to themselves a secret of the company’s closure and letting only the Human Resources Manager know. Everybody is supposed to be made aware. In fact, Robert should also inform James about it during the recruitment. According to me, I see utilitarian as the most appropriate approach to the above ethical issue in the “Trouble at Mill”. First and foremost, this is a business setting and we have to understand that a business is aimed at achieving quality and more production. Any appropriate action taken with regard to the business itself should be geared towards enhancing production with employees given a good working environment, regardless of the time of operation till the closure of the company. It is for everybody will to see that the company keeps on running. The goodness that is brought by such decision of withholding the company’s secrets can not allow any form disintegration among the employees. Also, the community which is being served can not have a backlash on the Mill Company. Robert also needs to have his own pleasure, and he will do so by keeping the trust with the top management. In summary, there are more benefits associated with the use of utilitarian approach to such a situation than applying the Kantianism approach. Conclusion There are many normative theories which can be applied in solving a given ethical issue in the workplace. What matters is the choice of the most appropriate theory by considering the consequences or even the universality of the moral action or obligation. These theories have distinct characteristics upon which an ethical decision can be made. For instance, it is evident that utilitarianism involves the use of principle of utility, harm principle and the principle of consequences. On the other hand, Kantianism uses principle of autonomy, principle of ends and categorical imperative principle. Utilitarianism concentrates more on the consequences while Kantianism insists on purity of morality and autonomy. References Bentham, J. (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation in the Works of Jeremy Bentham, (John Bowring ed.). London: Prentice Hall Bowie, N. E. (1999). Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Boatright, J. R. (2007). Ethics and the Conduct of Business. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Farina, Hahn & Vannucci (1992). Ethical Challenges in Businesses. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Hartman, L. P. (2005). Perspectives in Business Ethics. (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2005). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Fritzsche, D. (2005). Business Ethics: A Global and Managerial Perspective. New York: McGraw Hill. Shaw, W. Barry, V. & Sansbury, M. (Eds) (2008). Moral Issues in Business (1st Asia- Pacific ed.), Melbourne, Australia: Thomas Nelson. Truscott, D &Crook K. (2000). Ethics for the Practice of Psychology in Canada. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Read More