Principles of Ethical Decision Making, Experience on Consensus Approach, Utilitarianism and Ethical Theories - Case Study Example

Consensus Approach and Ethical Theories Name Institution Date STEP 2 Principles to Ethical Decision Making The attainment of a common ground, consensus, to a particular problem requires mutual and intimate inclusion of members where members unboundedly contribute their opinions with regard to the issue under concern and best opinions or suggestions are picked to counter the problem or concern. In expressing their opinions, the members must show high level of honesty, togetherness, loyalty and concern for others (Donner, 2015). Ethical decision making process consist of mutual inclusion of members where all members should be given a chance for equal contribution without discrimination or exclusion. Secondly, all members must participate in each and every activity of the group and in the decision making process (Ford & Richardson, 2013). Additionally, corporation within the team members is a vital virtue where decisions made not only favor the interest of the majority but for everyone within the group. Further, it would be morally right for the group to apply egalitarianism which maintains that no idea or opinion is greater or superior than the others. Finally, the group should seek solution mindedness in each people collaboratively shape proposals until every member becomes contentiously satisfied. STEP 4 Reflection and Experience on Consensus Approach As I have learnt, consensus approach aims at considering the inputs of each and every individual to the determined group concerns and emanating issues. The approach aims at having every member involve actively in the group processes with the major aim of arriving to better solutions to business or group problems (Ford & Richardson, 2013). The approach as I have understood, aims at devising solutions that are friendly and acceptable to everyone within the group not necessarily to the majority. The central mission of consensus approach to decision making as I have learnt is cooperative where members willing to work together are brought together with main intention of exploiting each others’ ideas and the selecting or coming up with the major idea. Initially, I believed that best decisions are arrived at when majority of the team concur with the selected solution, however, from what I have learnt from the course, every person’s idea and viewpoint is equally important and necessary in decision making processes. Instead of disdaining opinions of the minority, the majority should work towards convincing them on the strengths and weak-points of their points of view and why it is necessary for them to embrace the ideology from the majority (Ford & Richardson, 2013). From my experience, I have learnt that at times the minority is at times right. One time, I was a staunch member of a business development team. The team had the goal of setting up a new business outlet within the town. In one of our meetings, a concern arose on the specific strategic place to locate the business. Majority of the team were of the opinion that it should be situated at the central business district as I was of the opinion that it should be located at the city outskirts, competition level being the main factor. Despite convincing them having taken long, I managed to change their perception, gratitude to consensus approach. QUESTION 2 Applicability of Ethical Theories in case Study analysis Utilitarianism Theory According to Utilitarianism, the main purpose of morality is to make life better rather than worsening it off. Act utilitarianism addresses the effects of an individual’s actions on another individual as rule utilitarianism aims at focusing on the effects of types of actions such as killing, and stealing on other people (Scheffler et al 2017). The case presented in the case-study is falls under act utilitarianism where Stephen, the farm owner is bewildered on what actions to take on his worker, Ralph, who has been loyal to him for over 20 years. It is evident that Stephen has an outstanding desire to improve his farm strategies. Having received Grant from the government, Stephen had done much, from sectioning the farm into paddocks, sustain the pasture and reduce drought effects on the farm. The government cutbacks had really impacted adversely on Stephen’s farming strategies since he had inadequate funds support his farm projects having spent much on buying his father’s land. If Stephen would fire Ralph from the farm job, he would have enough resources to fund his project. Therefore, Stephen has a numerous factors to consider in responding to the scenario. Should he disown Ralph and Maximize on the development? What shall be the outcomes to Ralph’s financial situation in case he decides to dismiss him? What moral worth shall he achieve by concentrating on development and discerning Ralph? What moral worth shall he garner lest he retains Ralph and discard development project? Shall it be up to justice in case he completely fires Ralph who has been certainly loyal and devoted to him for over 20 years despite having him as a part time worker? The concern around human response to morality was first derived by the Hedonistic theorists where they purported that morality leans upon people’s utility. They recognized that the main source of human positivism to morality is accomplishment of their pleasure. They attempt to define the boundaries of pleasure with respect to what is good and what is bad for to general human generosity. The hedonistic theorists maintain that a rationally upright man shall only derive his pleasure from doing at least what is morally right but not what is morally wrong (Sheng, 2012). The theorists hold that in all, only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and in all, only pain is intrinsically not valuable. With respect to the ideologies of the theorists it shall be morally right for Stephen to only that is intrinsically valuable to him and desist from what shall cause pain to him. Something is intrinsically valuable if in itself it leads to other benefits. Retaining Ralph is intrinsically valuable because it shall lead to increased pleasure on the side of Ralph and dismissing Ralph to invest in the farm development is as well intrinsically valuable because it shall lead to increased pleasure on the side of Stephen. Therefore, what is morally right in this condition of dilemma? The value hedonism and prudential hedonism, however explain that pleasure is highly derived from things that have instrumental value such as money. In explaining further, the theory states that the fact that money can buy pleasuring materials such as food, and shelter amongst others is a clear I indicator that it is intrinsically valuable. However, it maintains that money tend to lose its intrinsic value if not spent (Shafer-Landau, 2012). Charles Darwin and John Stuart Mill, some of the motivational hedonism theorists, purports that people’s conscious and unconscious desires to increase their own pleasure and reduce pain are the main determinants of their behaviors (Fletcher, 2013). For the case of Stephen therefore, it would be morally right for him to increase his money sources so as to increases his chances of achieving pleasure rather than maximizing on pleasure for another individual. The normative hedonists in their theory of the right action maintain that happiness should be pursued rather that achieved. Achieving happiness from making Ralph happy has insignificant intrinsic value as compared to a condition where Stephen personally goes for it. The ideology if further supported by hedonistic egoism which maintains that a morally upright individual would seek for whatever is for their own interest before attempting to meet other people’s interests. Utilitarianism, an enhancement of hedonism maintains that authentic happiness is built on three pillars consisting of a pleasant life which is concerned with pleasure, a good life concerned with engagement and meaningful life. With repect to these three pillars, it would be morally right for Stephen to invest in the development and retain Ralph concurrently but because of money constraint, it would be at least right if not wrong for Stephen to go for his own pleasure and let Ralph seek his. The ideology brought forward by contractarianism theory is backed up by the natural law which recognizes the deep relationship between law and morality if not their similarity (Stanlis, 2015). The theory applies the ideology that the “natural-Law” derives its meaning from the belief that human morality is shaped by nature since everything provided by the nature has a meaning and a purpose. According to the theory, human purpose is defined by their ability to have a good life and be happy hence actions against this principality should be considered immoral and unnatural (O'Connell & Day, 2016). According to the theory, humans are the drivers of their own happiness and rarely do other people shape another person’s life. Hence according to the theory, Stephen should resort to making himself happy and his life better before embarking to any other thing. If developing his farm would make him happy, let him go for it. If retaining Ralph would make him happy, let him do the necessary. After all, “Man is for himself and God for us all!” Act Utilitarianism resorts to a world free from imposed jurisdiction and focuses on encouragement of personal will. The theory bases its discussions on the ideology that moral life flourishes when bad things stop happening. The theory purports that constraining measures such as taboos, customs, traditions and orders are morally unnecessary and instead suggests that the fruits of morality shall only be achieved if human actions justify positive significant contribution to fellow human beings and perhaps non-human beings (Scheffler et al 2017). With respect to the act utilitarianism therefore, Stephen has to let go of development and retain Ralph because according to the theory, that is what is morally right to do. The theory would expound that dismissing Ralph, despite the fact that he has other sources of income, shall reduce his income in the long run and hence shall upshot to his unhappiness which is an insult to morality. Having caused Ralph pain, Stephen shall become morally unworthy and unjustified. According to this theory, disowning Ralph is an erroneous idea as the worthiness of a man is to make a fellow man happy (Ford & Richardson, 2013). However, this theory is susceptible a number of questions. Should you make other people happy at your own expense? Is it morally right to subject yourself to suffering and pain just to make other people happy and contented? Stephen believed that developing his farm is what is right for him but is constrained by morality concerns as expressed in the theory. The answers to these questions remain overlooked by the act utilitarianism theory. References Donner, W. (2015). Huei-chun Su, Economic Justice and Liberty: The Social Philosophy in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. xx+ 214. Utilitas, 27(03), 384-388. https://www.amazon.de/Economic-Justice-Liberty-Philosophy-Utilitarianism/dp/041569275X Fletcher, G. (2013). A fresh start for the objective-list theory of well-being. Utilitas, 25(02), 206-220. http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/14409788/Fletcher_A_Fresh_Start.pdf Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02074820 Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W., & Dodds, S. (2014). Introduction: What is vulnerability and why does it matter for moral theory. Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, 1-32. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.001.0001/acprof-9780199316649-chapter-1 O'Connell, M. E., & Day, C. M. (2016). Sources in Natural Law Theories: Natural Law as Source of Extra-Positive Norms. http://eltalondeaquiles.pucp.edu.pe/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Studies-in-Feminist-Philosophy-Catriona-Mackenzie-Wendy-Rogers-Susan-Dodds-Vulnerability_-New-Essays-in-Ethics-and-Feminist-Philosophy-Oxford-University-Press-2013.pdf Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012). Ethical theory: an anthology (Vol. 13). John Wiley & Sons. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002852.html Sheng, C. L. (2012). A new approach to utilitarianism: A unified utilitarian theory and its application to distributive justice (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media. http://www.springer.com/br/book/9789401054089 Read More