Business Ethics & Professional Values

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Introduction Man is a social animal - Man, the human animal, must satisfy his basic needs in order to survive. He must eat, drink, excrete, sleep, maintain adequate health and procreate. These needs constitute the innate nature of man. All other animals have certain instincts and powers so that they can survive ex. Strong muscles, sharp teeth, fast running, etc.

But Man is a tiny creature and cannot live alonehe must enter into relationship with his fellows if he is to develop and maintain adequate mental and physical health. We know that this dependency of man on others is exhibited in his social behaviour. He has to make constant compromises to carry on the affinity and affiliation with the group. In short, man as an individual leads look at him as a social being one who lives in a group, has to follow uniform ways of acting that are called as customs. Customs are passed on from one generation to succeeding generations by limitations and by precept. The early group was a family, clan or tribe. Mans rights and responsibilities were fixed by the group. In dealing with outsiders, the primitive group was a unit. There was joint responsibility and mutual support. The customs followed by the group created a base for customary morality. And the same was called as group morality. Some acts under customary morality were forbidden and some were accepted as rules. These rules helped man to be fearless and stay in a group. Survival Social Esteem Power Choice To be or Not to be As population increases and societies become more complex. Under customary morality, where customs and habits play vital role in human life, the margin of freedom is comparatively small. Conflicts between kinship groups may continue until some leader succeeds in gaining control over entire area. Power gives rise to opposition.

When man stays in a group, his need for esteem grows high. A few members of the group expect to gain control over the group and convert the customary morality into statutory law. Thus the leader becomes a ruler and gathers army to face the opposition. Moral Judgments A question of choice between to be or not to be arises through the war power v/s opposition. The war ends up in destruction and not the survival. One of the earliest attempts to meet this conflict was by an appeal to conscience. The capacity to feel a moral obligation is called Moral Judgment.

We need certain science to develop the norms to maintain the group cohesiveness to survive in the nature. Ethics is a normative science that helps us to build Moral Judgment and leads us to stay together without affecting the mankind. Relevance to Business Business is an arena which busies one, or that which engages the time, attention, or labor of any one, as his principal concern or interest, whether for a longer or shorter time; constant employment; regular occupation; as, the business of life; business before pleasure. Some of the most serious moral problems of our time are connected with business and industry. Two-three centuries ago the isolated home-trades and cross-road villages were largely economically self-sufficient. There was an intimate, personal relationship among the workers and each worker owned his tools, which were simple. The men made articles for use, one man performing the entire process, and then they usually sold the products of their labour to someone they knew. The businessman of these days usually operated on the policy of caveat emptor means let the buyer beware. Also the earlier businessman believed in honesty to survive in his trade. He was following the policy of fair trade. In contrast, the businessman today, has lost customer orientation.
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

With the spread of Industrial Revolution and the growth of factory system, each of these conditions was changed. Industry became more impersonal. Articles were made to gain the economy of investment in machines and for profits. Goods were sold to distant buyers. Theodore Roosevelts campaign against unfair trade and practices and Franklin Roosevelts New Deal both are called as the beginning of movement against unfair trade and practices. Definition of Ethics The term Ethics been derived from the Greek word ethos. Ethos means fundamental values of people and culture. It also includes the customs or rituals. Ethical means accepted moral standards in terms of personal and social welfare. Where do these moral standards come from? According to the various arguments of philosophers when such standards come from our conscientious or the inner voice, they are called as the moral standards. They are based on the eternal values. Some philosophers distinguish ethics from morality. In their view morality refers to the human conduct and values, and ethics refers to the study of those areas. The term Ethics is defined as follows Ethics is a normative science and known as moral philosophy. It is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality that is - concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, what to do and what not to do etc. Historical Perspective of Ethics The origin and development of morality can be understood easily if one studies the origin and development of social life. The moral standards observed by the primitive man are not much different from reasoned theory of modern theories of moral standards. The history of mankind would focus on the evolution of Ethics. Invasions and Wars The basic purpose of the primitive societies was collective hunting. The hunting grounds were regarded as the private property of the tribe. The insecurity of this possessions gave rise to the invasions and wars till the agrarian civilizations evolved during the time. Devastation of some civilizations and Emergence of newer civilizations Many of the civilizations were devastated in wars and new civilizations came into existence. Increasing Power Groups The agrarian civilizations settled at one place for longer time and power groups were established. They became emperors and created their own rules as ethical conducts for a number of activities. Newer Inventions Various discoveries like rules of gravity, relationship of Earth with the solar system, new lands and islands on the Earth and inventions like steam engine, machines, wheels, weapons etc. brought rapid change in the society and consequently in the behaviours of the people. Mechanizations and Revolutions The Industrial, Technological, and Atomic revolutions now generate a society which is mechanically efficient but threatens to destroy itself. Some fear that we may be creating a Frankenstein or Bhasmasur that may destruct us. Two world wars Last century witnessed two World Wars in one generation. These wars, other cold wars and a few Civil wars following them have undermined traditional morality. Modernization and Impersonal feelings The new class of Rationalists or Progressives challenged traditional beliefs. So many isms shook the societies all over the world. The people who lost old social orders failed to keep pace with the new ones. Fascism followed by Marxism and Communism are the movements that helped the people to recover grom the shock of modernization. Media Revolution The growth of mass media and communication technology caused a profound effect on manners and morals. I Q of masses is always calculated as 100 / no of people in the crowd. Any powerful group can affect the masses positively or negatively through television, motion pictures or print media. Mass
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

media tends to dull mans critical faculties and reinforces or stimulates his nonrational interests and drives. Complexities of E-World Today, we have entered into this e-world. It is so new to us that no one has any clear picture of this futuristic society. Ethical issues are getting more importance in this e-world.

The theories of ethics throw light on the moral rightness of an action. Traditional philosophers elaborated their theories based on Virtue Ethics. Virtue ethics is a broad term and it emphasizes the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing ones duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation. Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her/his character and not because she/he wants to maximize utility or gain favours or simply do her duty. Virtue ethicist insist on the fact that helping the people should be charitable or benevolent. The rise of Industrialization created many problems in deciding over what is right and what is wrong. The theories then were divided in two approaches as 1] non-consequential and 2] consequential ethics. Many philosophers have argued that moral rightness of an action is determined solely by its results. If its consequences are good, then the act is right; if they are bad the act is wrong. Non-consequentialists, by contrast, believed in the sense of righteousness. Their theories give more importance to the moral assessment. All theories of pre-industrialization era, belong to non-consequentialism.

Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Since its revival in the twentieth century, virtue ethics has been developed in four main directions: 1] Utilitarian, 2] Rights and Duties, 3] Justice and fairness and 4] Ethics of care. All these theories are based on the principles of consequentialism. Ancient philosophers Socrates (469 bc. To 399 bc.) Socrates is the first great Moral Philosopher of western Civilization. He was born in Greece around 469 B. C. and died in 399 B.C. He was the son of Sophroniscus, who was a sculptor, and Phaenarete, who was a midwife. One endearing thing about Socrates is that he realized that he knew nothing. The fact that he was aware of his own ignorance made him wise. Socrates used philosophy to help discover how we should live in order to be happy and fulfilled. Socrates felt that life is not worth living unless you examine your life to know whom you are, what you believe, and what you want to become. To know yourself should be a major undertaking in your life. If a person is happy simply to exist, then what is the point of life? Secondly, Socrates felt it was imperative to care for your soul. He believed that the soul is who you really are. It is your character; the real you. Intelligence is based on the condition of your soul because it is the basis for your decisions, values, and viewpoint. Therefore, if you are not constantly learning and gaining wisdom, your soul will not be healthy. Socrates felt that introspection was the way to a healthy soul, and that many people never realized their true potential. Lastly, Socrates taught that a truly good person is incapable of being harmed by others. He did not mean this in the physical way, but in a spiritual way. If your core, or soul, is good, then physical things will not change it. We can change our soul ourselves if we change our beliefs or values, but outward forces cannot. He said that, The unexamined life is not worth living. For 5000 years since the birth of civilization the history of mankind experienced and witnessed the agony, sufferings of man to earn the title Rational Animal. Plato (427 bc. To 347 bc. ) Plato was very much impressed by Socratess dictum Knowledge is Virtue. He strived to find an answer to the question What is Good life? In his writings he says that the life of reason is the happiest and best. The Knowledge produces a harmonious man. He furthers that when ones reason governs the desires and passions, an orderly personality results from him/her. According to Plato only knowledge can lead virtue. When a man is ignorant, his personality is disorganized. The wild desires and passions control him. By contrast, when a man truly knows what is good i.e. when what promotes harmony, he will do what is good, Hence, it is the virtuous man i.e. the rational man, who is truly happy. His teachings are summarized as under Knowledge is Virtue. Sensory experience is constantly changing; however Idea never changes. Everything in the universe has a purpose. Uncompromising assertion of validity is of high and absolute morality. Gaining Knowledge is a painful process; however transmitting Knowledge is more painful process.

Aristotle (384 bc. To 322 bc.) The principal idea with which Aristotle begins is that there are differences of opinion about what is best for human beings, and that to profit from ethical inquiry we must resolve this disagreement. He insists that ethics is not a theoretical discipline: we are asking what the good for human beings is not simply because we want to have knowledge, but because we will be better able to achieve our good if we develop a fuller understanding of what it is to flourish. In raising this questionwhat is the good?Aristotle is not looking for a list of items that are good. He assumes that such a list can be compiled rather easily; most would agree, for example, that it is good to have friends, to experience pleasure, to be healthy, to be honoured, and to have such virtues as courage at least to some degree. The difficult and controversial
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

question arises when we ask whether certain of these goods are more desirable than others. Aristotle's search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics: it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake. According to Aristotle man has three types of Virtues- viz. Vegetative (Irrational), Appetitive (Moral) and Intellectual (Rational)

While explaining Virtues he says that Moral Virtues are desire regulating character traits that are at a mean between more extreme character traits. From Internet -

[Aristotle made note (and Plato agreed) that moral virtue is about the exercise of control over natural feelings, and that good values is indicated through the use of good judgment in finding an effective balance between extremes. Aristotle thus had a personal value of moderation. In his Nicomachean Ethics, he gave examples:] VICE (Defect) VIRTUE (Mean) Courage Courage VICE (Excess)

Cowardice (too little confidence) Foolhardiness (too little fear) Insensibility (too little pleasure)

Rashness (too much confidence) Cowardice (too much fear)

Temperance Self-indulgence (too much pleasure) Liberality Prodigality or Wastefulness (too

Meanness or Stinginess (too little

Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

giving) Niggardliness (in giving out large sums of money) Undue Humility (too little honor) Inirascibility (too little anger) Shamelessness (too little shame) Surliness much giving) Magnificence Tastlessness and Vulgarity (giving out large sums) Proper Pride Empty Vanity (too much honor) Good Temper Irascible (too much anger) Modesty Friendliness Bashfulness (too much shame) Flattery

Benedict Spinoza (1632 to 1677) - Spinoza is the Dutch philosopher who is the founder of the Spinozistic or Naturalistic School of philosophy. He is, as Bertrand Russell described him, "the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers." Spinoza was of the belief that there is no dualism between God and the world; we need not go beyond the immediate present experience to seek for a being outside of it. God moves and lives in nature; the whole of it, the entire universe is God. Nature, or God is Its own cause and is self-sufficient. Man, in his egotistical way has imagined God to be like him; to be anthropomorphic in character; and, further, man imagines that the God has a special interest in, and concern for man. The Spinozistic God does not love nor hate. The totality of existence, Nature, God, is far above us, and is indifferent to our desires and aspirations. As for the notions of good and evil, they exist, but only to the extent that they fit our own personal inclinations. "Such things as please us, we denominate good, those which displease us, evil." The mental capacity to reason is naturally available to all. Reason is a powerful instrument by which one is able to guide one's life. Each of us has a capacity to reason, and, so, therefore, Spinoza was of the belief that each of us might, on our own, conclude that life in a governed community, - the state might be helpful to curb anti-social passions. Like Socrates, Spinoza claimed that the act of a person might be labelled by another, or by society as good or as evil, but when a person acts outside the accepted norm, does an "evil" thing, he does it because he knew no better and "that the only remedy for that is to teach him or to punish him." Emanuel Kant (1724 to 1804) - Immanuel Kant (17241804) is the central figure

in modern philosophy. He united early modern rationalism and empiricism, set new terms for the nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy. The fundamental idea of Kant's critical philosophy is human autonomy. He argues that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience; and that human reason gives itself the moral law, which is our basis for belief in God, freedom, and immortality.
Although everything naturally acts in accordance with law, Kant supposed, only rational beings do so consciously, in obedience to the objective principles determined by practical reason. Of course, human agents also have subjective impulsesdesires and inclinations that may contradict the dictates of reason. So we experience the claim of reason as an obligation, a command that we act in a particular way, or an imperative. Such imperatives may occur in either of two distinct forms, hypothetical or categorical.
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command (e.g., Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.) More precisely, it commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way, not to perform some action or other. It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. Categorical means uncompromising or unconditional Categorical Imperative is categorical in virtue. Every human being possesses rational wills. According to Kant will means the human capacity to act from principle. Categorical Imperative has Universal Acceptability.

There are oughts other than our moral duties, but these oughts are distinguished from the moral ought in being based on a quite different kind of principle, one that is the source of hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is a command that also applies to us in virtue of our having a rational will, but not simply in virtue of this. A hypothetical imperative is thus a command in a conditional form. Hypothetical Imperative means the Oughts or Commands in a conditional form. It requires us to exercise our wills in a certain way given we have antecedently willed an end. Willing an end involves more than desiring or wanting it. It requires the exercise of practical reason and focusing oneself on the pursuit of that end.

Bhagwadgita Material civilization- Krishna explains that material desire is not good. It is like a fire. If you pour out ghee in the fire, it will make the fir bigger. Though the ghee is expensive it is of no use in our life goal. Material desires can never be quenched by any amount of sensory satisfaction. The soul is searching for that loving relationship with God that is dormant with the heart of every living being. The Gita addresses the discord between the senses and the intuition of cosmic order. It speaks of the Yoga of karma and a detached outlook. The term Yoga covers a wide range of meanings, but in the context of the Bhagavad Gita, describes a unified outlook, serenity of mind, skill in action and the ability to stay attuned to the glory of the Self (Atman) and the Supreme Being (Bhagavan). According to Krishna, the root of all suffering is the agitation of the mind caused by selfish desire. We should not deviate from the truth [atma] to satisfy sensory wants.

Budhism Nothing is lost in the universe Everything Changes Law of Cause and Effect There is Suffering Suffering is common to all. We are the cause of our suffering. End of Suffering means stop doing what causes suffering. Path to end Suffering Everyone can be enlightened

1. Right View. 2. Right Thought, 3. Right speech, 4. Right conduct, 5. Right Livelihood, 6. Right effort, 7. Right Mindfulness, & 8. Right concentration. Sufism The word Sufi is derived from susai means wisdom.

Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Sufism is a school for the actualization of divine ethics. It involves an enlightened inner being, not intellectual proof; revelation and witnessing, not logic. To explain the Truth is indeed a difficult task. Words, being limited, can never really express the perfection of the Absolute, the Unbound. Thus, for those who are imperfect, words create doubt and misunderstanding. Yet:If one cannot drink up the entire ocean, one can drink to one's limit. Philosophers have written volumes and spoken endlessly of the Truth, but somehow their efforts have always fallen short. For the sufi, philosophers are those who view the Perfection of the Absolute from a limited perspective; so all they see is part of the Absolute, not the Infinite in its entirety. It is indeed true that what philosophers see is correct; nevertheless, it is only a part of the whole.

Capitalism Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture. Karl Marx defines capitalism as People sell their labouring-power to a buyer, not to satisfy the personal needs of the buyer, but to augment the buyer's capital. Other writers define capitalism as a system in which all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely as one in which merely "most" are in private hands. Some define capitalism as a system governed by capital accumulation regardless of the legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including the determination of how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property. However, there may be an abandonment period of time, after which resources return to unowned status. An economic system that relies on private property and market relations but also contains a significant degree of government intervention is sometimes called a mixed economy. Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights. Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, class and emphasize capitalism as a unique historical formation. There is general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies. Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe, although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages. Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism. Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world. Today the capitalist system is the world's dominant economic model. Marxism - Marxism is an economic and socio-political worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centres upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid-19th century by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism encompasses Marxian economic theory, a sociological theory and a revolutionary view of social change that has influenced socialist political movements around the world. The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, of which the
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

economic system forms the base. As the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production; the bourgeoisie, and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services; the proletariat. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, the inevitable result being a proletarian revolution. Marxism views the socialist system as being prepared by the historical development of capitalism. According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not however, an inevitability). In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through worker's revolution. Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use. Eventually, socialism would give way to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates for the creation of such a society. A Marxist understanding of history and of society has been adopted by academics studying in a wide range of disciplines, include theatre, history, sociological theory, art history and theory, cultural studies, education, economics, geography, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical psychology, and philosophy. Socialism Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or apolitical philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs. Socialist economies are based upon production for use and the direct allocation of economic inputs to satisfy economic demands and human needs (use value); accounting is based on physical quantities of resources, some physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Goods and services for consumption are distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on the principle of individual merit/individual contribution. As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of the State socialist form of socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, either arise spontaneously or be built from the bottom up utilizing the strategy of dual power. They promote direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives. Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (17711858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (17601825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning. SaintSimon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production that results in instability and cyclical crises of overproduction. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as MarxistLeninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a singleparty state that owns the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production). Utilitarianism 1. 2. 3. 4. Weighing Social Costs & social Benefits Value judgment that would provide a common and publicly acceptable norm for determining social policy Problems

Utility is a subjective concept Values cannot be quantified Utility may lead to any act which is unjust to some class Fails to evaluate moral reasoning

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the greatest number of individuals. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism was felicity principle". described by Bentham as "the greatest happiness or greatest

Utilitarianism can be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It is a type of naturalism. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics(which do not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth), pragmatic ethics, and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. Act utilitarian and Rule utilitarian Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he or she looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequential calculation specific to a case or generalized to rules. 'Also to achieve the greater good for the greater number of people.' Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that, in some specific circumstances, happiness decreases. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but one has to break the rule in self-defence case. Rule utilitarian adds, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rulebreaking increases happiness, one example being self-defence. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarian retort that rules in the legal system (i.e., laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defence is legally justified, while murder is not. However, within Rule utilitarianism there is a distinction between the strictness and absolutism of this particular branch of utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist theory, which frames strict rules that apply for all people and all time and may never be broken. John Stuart Mill proposed Weak Rule utilitarianism, which posits that, although rules should be framed on previous examples that benefit society, it is possible, under specific circumstances, to do what produces the greatest happiness and break that rule. An example would be the Gestapo asking where your Jewish neighbours were; a
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

strong rule utilitarian might say the "Do not lie" rule must never be broken, whereas a weak rule utilitarian would argue that to lie would produce the most happiness. Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with heuristics (rules of thumb), but many act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation whose consequences are difficult, costly or time-consuming to calculate exactly. If the consequences can be calculated relatively clearly and without much doubt, however, the rules of thumb can be ignored. Collapse of rule utilitarianism into act utilitarianism It has been argued that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, because for any given rule, in the case where breaking the rule produces more utility, the rule can be sophisticated by the addition of a sub-rule that handles cases like the exception. This process holds for all cases of exceptions, and so the rules have as many sub-rules as there are exceptional cases, which, in the end, makes an agent seek out whatever outcome produces the maximum utility. Rights and duties Right is an entitlement to something. A person has a right when that person is entitled to act in a certain way or is entitled to have others act in certain way toward him or her. There are three types of rights

1. Moral rights 2. Negative and Positive Rights 3. Contractual Rights What is a Right? Many moral controversies today are couched in the language of rights. Indeed, we seem to have witnessed an explosion of appeals to rightsgay rights, prisoners' rights, animal rights, smokers' rights, fatal rights, and employee rights. The appeal to rights has a long tradition. The American Declaration of Independence asserted that "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In 1948, the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating that all human beings have "the right to own property,...the right to work,...the right to just and favorable remuneration,...[and] the right to rest and leisure." What is a right? A right is a justified claim on others. For example, if I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a duty or responsibility to leave me alone. If I have a right to an education, then I have a justified claim to be provided with an education by society. Moral Rights The Rights that impose prohibitions on others and thereby enable individuals to choose to pursue certain interests or activities are called moral rights. The moral rights identify those activities or interests that the individual is empowered to pursue, or must be left free to pursue, or must be helped to pursue, as he/she pursues. These moral rights have three important features 1. Moral Rights are tightly correlated with duties. To have a moral right necessarily implies that others have certain duties toward the bearer of that right. 2. Moral Rights provide individuals with autonomy and equality in the free pursuit of their interests. 3. Moral Right provide a basis for justifying ones actions and for invoking the protection or aid of others. Negative and Positive Rights One of the most important and influential interpretations of moral rights is based on the work of Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher. Kant maintained that each of us has a worth or a dignity that must be respected. This dignity makes it wrong for
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

others to abuse us or to use us against our will. Kant expressed this idea in a moral principle: humanity must always be treated as an end, not merely as a means. To treat a person as a mere means is to use a person to advance one's own interest. But to treat a person as an end is to respect that person's dignity by allowing each the freedom to choose for himself or herself. Kant's principle is often used to justify both a fundamental moral right, the right to freely choose for oneself, and also rights related to this fundamental right. These related rights can be grouped into two broad categoriesnegative and positive rights. Negative rights, such as the right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right to do what one wants with one's property, are rights that protect some form of human freedom or liberty, . These rights are called negative rights because such rights are a claim by one person that imposes a "negative" duty on all othersthe duty not to interfere with a person's activities in a certain area. The right to privacy, for example, imposes on us the duty not to intrude into the private activities of a person. Kant's principle is also often used to justify positive or, as they are often called, welfare rights. Where negative rights are "negative" in the sense that they claim for each person a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are "positive" in the sense that they claim for each person the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of human well-being like health and education. In moral and political philosophy, these basic human needs are often referred to as "welfare" concerns. Contractual Rights Contractual rights and duties arise when one person enters an agreement with other person. Contractual rights and duties are distinguished first by the fact that they attach to specific individuals and the correlative duties are imposed only on other specific individuals. Secondly, Conflict of Rights Sometimes the rights of individuals will come into conflict and one has to decide which right has priority. We may all agree, for example, that everyone has a right to freedom of association as well as a right not to be discriminated against. But suppose a private club has a policy that excludes women from joining. How do we balance the right to freedom of associationwhich would permit the club to decide for itself whom to admitagainst the right not to be discriminated againstwhich requires equal treatment of women? In cases such as this, we need to examine the freedoms or interests at stake and decide which of the two is the more crucial for securing human dignity. For example, is free association or equality more essential to maintaining our dignity as persons? Rights, then, play a central role in ethics. Attention to rights ensures that the freedom and well-being of each individual will be protected when others threaten that freedom or well-being. If an individual has a moral right, then it is morally wrong to interfere with that right even if large numbers of people would benefit from such interference. But rights should not be the sole consideration in ethical decision-making. In some instances, the social costs or the injustice that would result from respecting a right are too great, and accordingly, that right may need to be limited. While morality does call on us to respect the uniqueness, dignity, and autonomy of each individual, it also invites us to recognize our relatednessthat sense of community, shared values, and the common good which lends itself to an ethics of care, compassion, and concern for others. Justice and Fairness Justice means the acts that Guarantee a Just. It should be morally acceptable to society. It guarantees the right of each person to have the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the liberty of others.

Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

It states that social and economic positions are to be [a] to everyones advantage and [b] open to all.

Principles of Justice The most fundamental principle of justiceone that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years agois the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injusticea form of discriminationbecause race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theatre is given first choice of theatre tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criterianeed, desert, contribution, and effortwe acknowledge as justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous. On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered. And the people involved in the "brown lung hearings" felt that it wasn't fair that some diseases were provided with disability compensation, while other similar diseases weren't. Different Kinds of Justice There are different kinds of justice. Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people differently on the basis of race. A second important kind of justice is retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Yet a third important kind of justice is compensatory justice. Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that was at stake in the brown lung hearings. Those who testified at the hearings claimed that the owners of the cotton mills where workers had been injured should compensate the workers whose health had been ruined by conditions at the mills. The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a societyor any group, for that matterdepends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated. Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favour of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals. Ethics of Care A movement in twentieth century normative ethical theory. The view that we have an obligation to exercise special care toward those particular persons with whom we have valuable close relationships, particularly relations of dependency is called as Ethics of Care. It forces us to focus on the moral value of being partial.

The ethics of care is a normative ethical theory; that is, a theory about what makes actions right or wrong. It is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of relationships. The basic beliefs of the theory are: 1. All individuals are interdependent for achieving their interests 2. Those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to 1. the level of their vulnerability to one's choices 2. the level of their affectedness by one's choices and no one else's 3. It is necessary to attend to the contextual details of the situation in order to safeguard and promote the actual specific interests of those involved. Ethics of care is sometimes called "ethics of love" or "relational ethics". While ethics of care is considered a virtue ethics, it is also different from traditional Aristotelian virtue ethics. Although some care ethics theorists reject generalization, ethics of care has some notable common characteristics.[1]
Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Dependency and interdependency of human existence Traditional ethical theories presuppose that a moral agent is an autonomous, independent individual. Care ethics, however, points out the fact that a human being is essentially dependent on others. Children are dependent upon parents, the elderly is dependent on their children or other care takers, and handicapped persons have to rely on others. Each human being goes through a process of dependency according to his or her age or physical or mental conditions. Human life presupposes and is possible only by the care and support humans offer each other. Parents have a moral responsibility to care for their children and children have moral responsibility to care for the elderly. Thus, human beings exist in interdependent relationships that entail ethical responsibilities. Emotion as the essential human nature Traditional ethics are built upon the primacy of reason. They value reason as a stable faculty of mind over emotion, which they viewed as unstable, changeable, ephemeral, and less important. While care ethics recognizes the value of reason, it recognizes the importance of feeling or emotion and related virtues such as benevolence, compassion, sensitivity, responsiveness, and sympathy. The emotions that traditional ethics have rejected are egoistic, impartial emotional attachments which brings about favouritism, resentment, hatred, and other negative or destructive feelings. Prioritization of human relations Traditional theories focus on establishing abstract, universal rules and principles in consideration of impartiality. Yet, in human life, not all human relationships are equal. For example, while caring for all children on the earth is noble and important, caring for one's own child is an immediate and direct responsibility the parent. Care ethics recognizes the importance of limited impartiality and prioritization of human relationships.

Virtue Ethics

Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

The four main kinds of moral standards i.e. Utilitarian, Philosophy of Rights and Duties, Ethics considered under principles of Justice and Fairness, and the Ethics of Care failed to capture all the factors that must be taken into account. Utilitarian standards consider only the aggregate social welfare, however ignore an individual and how the welfare is distributed. Moral rights consider the individual, however markdown both aggregate well-being and distributive considerations. Standards of Justice consider distributive justice, but ignore aggregate social welfare and an individual. Ethics of care considers the principles of partiality that must be shown to those close to us but ignores the demands of impartiality.

In spite of the fact that these four kinds of moral considerations play a crucial role in business ethics for 6-7 decades, they could not provide a universal rule or any comprehensive moral theory to the business world. These four approaches to business ethics do not seem to be substitutable to each other, yet all comprise necessary parts of morality. That is some problems can be approached through utilitarian considerations, however some other types of problems justice of distributive justice can be decisive. This suggests that moral reasoning should incorporate all four kinds of approaches, although only one or other may seem to be relevant or decisive in particular situation. For example - One might ask a series of questions about an action that he/she is considering a] Does the action, as far as possible, maximize social benefits and minimize social injuries?, b] Is the action consistent with moral rights of those whom it will affect?, c] Will the action lead to a just distribution of benefits and burdens? And d] Does the action exhibit appropriate care for the well-being of those who are dependent on oneself? In short, all these four approaches relate to each other. Studying the relationship of each kind of consideration to other approaches, a comprehensive moral theory can be introduced to the businesses, which would be capable of determining precise moral standards. This new approach is called as Ethics of Virtue or Virtue Ethics.

Kalpana Bhagwat

Business Ethics & Professional Values

Kalpana Bhagwat