Analysis of the Ethical Theories and Principle - Research Paper Example

?The ethical principles and theories that govern our lives and bind our actions to moral and ethical consequences are categorized as the Utilitarian,Rights and Justice Ethics. In the paper that follows, these principles are discussed and then weighed in the context of literature by renowned authors. The Utilitarianism ethics is based on the premise that individual’s course of action should be evaluated in terms of the costs and benefits that will be imposed on the society as a result of those actions (Mill). Thus, according to Utilitarian view, the correct course of action is one that maximizes the net benefit to the society(Mill). This is done when the costs are minimized and the benefits are maximized. The term Utilitarianism is derived from the word “Utility” which refers to the net benefits of any action on the society(Mill). According to this theory, individuals are seen as rational and utility maximizing entities. Several business decisions today are based on this principle; that is, the correct business decision is one that maximizes the net benefit to the society. Thus, the decision which is in the best interests of the society is one that maximizes the net benefit to the society. The founder of traditional Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, argued that best and most valuable judgments are those that are based on objective considerations (Scarre). Thus, the benefits and costs of each public policy should be weighed and then the policy should be executed only if the benefits outweigh the costs. The Rights Ethics, on the other hand, is based on Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative that states that every individual’s right to freedom should be respected and that all individuals ought to be treated equally (Butler). According to him, each individual has a moral right to this and that this moral right of individuals translates into duties for other individuals. The first foundation of this imperative is based on the principles of “universibility” and reversibility (Butler). Thus, individuals must ask themselves how they would feel if other treated them the same way and how would they feel if everyone did the same. Thus, according to Kant, the immoral decisions and actions were those that one wouldn’t want for oneself(Butler). The second imperative states that individuals ought not to be treated merely as means; that is, their capacity to choose freely for themselves must also be developed. This clearly demonstrates that while the Utilitarians imply an ‘economically rational’ justification for actions, Rights Ethics correctly captures the human values and goes beyond the traditional cost-benefit analysis. Thus, according to Utilitarians, individuals could be deprived of their right to liberty simply because the net benefit isn’t maximized. Hence, Rights Ethics takes a step forward by respecting not only the positive but also the negative rights of individuals (that is, the freedom from coercion). Thus, the Rights Ethics many of the flaws associated with the Utilitarian view. Firstly, the utilitarian view simplistically assumes that all the consequences of an action can be quantitatively measured(Smart and Williams). This is not always the case. For instance, how could one assign a value to one’s life? Secondly, it deals insufficiently with rights, morals and justice(Smart and Williams). Rawl’s theory explains the principles of distributive justice by arguing that people in the original position would prefer the principles of justice, which includes equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference principle(Poel and Royakkers). Thus, Rawls theory succeeds because it preserves the fundamental human and moral values. Furthermore, it supports the market system and the employment of minorities and disabled by ensuring equality of opportunities (Poel and Royakkers). Thus, this theory goes further beyond the Rights Ethics and can be viewed as an extension of the Rights Ethics theory because it condemns the immoral activities of bribery, nepotism, corruption. It goes beyond the traditional Utilitarian line of thinking by arguing that individual’s freedom to enter into contracts would be reduced if activities such as bribery and nepotism existed in the society. The principle of equal liberty works towards this end of reducing social evils such as bribery. In his book, Matthew Crawford has rightly pointed out that that in a workplace relationship, much unlike a Master/Apprentice relationship, the authority of those above- the senior management, is always seen skeptically by the sub-ordinates and where preference is given to a participative culture, with empowerment and the Right to Speak and voice ones opinion, than on an aggressive, authoritative one (Crawford). The ethical aspect to fixing motorbikes, according to the author, was that diagnosing the problem with a machine requires more than just mere assertiveness- it requires consideration to the machine. This is deeply ingrained in the concept of “meta-cognition” that is used by psychologists to refer to the re-thinking of one’s own thinking process (Crawford, The Case for Working With Your Hands ). It is that phase whereby we are in the process of arriving at a solution. During this phase it is quintessential to realize one’s flaws and the fact that one may be mistaken. This very realization is deeply rooted in moral and ethical values. Hence, according to Crawford, there lies an ethic of “paying attention” to the object at hand (Crawford, The Case for Working With Your Hands ). In another piece of work by Edward Hoagland, ethics is seen in a different dimension- as one where the plight of children in Africa is used to portray how this segment is deprived of their fundamental human right- the right to live. It explains how children in Africa are plagued with adversities associated with diseases, droughts, famines and malnutrition and how this contradicts with the quality of life of children living in the Western, developed countries (Hoagland). Part of the principles associated with Distributive justice can be seen here- the Western part of the world is bestowed with major benefits and, to a large extent has a quality of life better than the children of Africa. Hence, one part of the world is consistently endowed with all the benefits and comforts of life, whereas, the other is not. This deprivation has lent itself to unequal distribution of benefits. In yet another book by Jeffrey Wattles, the power of Rights Ethics is demonstrated and the story is based on the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Wattles). The question that is discussed is whether this rule pertains to specific religions or whether it is a universal or a golden rule. Towards the end of this discussion, Wattle reaches the conclusion that by no means is this rule a universal rule; in fact, according to him it is foolish to base one’s life on this rule (Wattles). According to Wattle, there is no such thing as a rule in ethics and that each individual is bestowed with his/her conscience that determines what he/she judges to be right or wrong. He extends his line of thinking by saying that it is necessary that others may want the same thing as you’d want for yourself (Wattles). By viewing it in a different light, Wattles goes on to say that such thinking ignores possibility of thinking bad for oneself (which would translate to thinking bad for others) as well as the overriding concern for oneself which results in being self-centered (Wattles). To conclude, it may not be wrong to say that, although ethics provides us with a guideline on which to base our lives, it is far more necessary to be open-minded and view each decision holistically. Confining oneself to one line of thinking is not a wise idea. On the other hand, one must not ignore the fact that inequalities exist and that distributive justice is, in fact, difficult to achieve. The ethical theories and principles, however, do provide a thorough, comprehensive framework in the light of which decisions ought to be seen. The ultimate decision is not always the most ethical one. The mounting pressure to keep all stakeholders on board is a pressing issue and results in decisions that are not always morally correct. References: Butler, Clark. Human rights ethics: a rational approach. Purdue University Press, 2008. Crawford, Matthew. "The Case for Working With Your Hands ." 21 May 2009. The New York Times. 13 April 2012 . —. The Case for Working with Your Hands: Or Why Office Work is Bad for Us and Fixing Things Feels Good. New York: Penguin Books Limited, 2009. Hoagland, Edward. "Children are diamonds." 2007. The University of Portland Magazine. 13 April 2012 . Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn, 1963. Poel, Ibo van de and Royakkers. Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introduction. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 1996. Smart, John Jamieson Carswell and Bernard Arthur Owen Williams. Utilitarianism; for and against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Wattles, Jeffrey. The Golden Rule. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Read More