Business Ethics, Sustainability and Culture - Literature review Example

Business Ethics, Sustainability and Culture Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Introduction Ethics can be defined as a philosophical approach that involves recommending, defending and systematising concepts that champions and different wrong from right behaviour (Fernado, 2009). Ethical requirements are common and it is important to analyse ethical outcomes of an issue before proceeding addressing an ethical issue (Martocchio, 2009). Numerous theories, hypothesis and views exists that aims to present why some people takes certain ethical direction rather than another (Fernando, 2010). These numerous comes with its strengths and weaknesses in ensuring that ethical obligation is achieved. Thus, the aim of this paper is to address three important views that are related to ethical decisions. The paper compares and contrasts between deontological and teleological approaches, between rule and act utilitarianism, and between rule utilitarianism and Kantian theory. Deontological and Teleological Approaches to Ethics Ethics can be defined as a branch of philosophy that deals with right and wrong. This means that it deals with the bad and good in moral obligation and duty. Before proceeding to evaluate the relationship between teleology and deontology, it is important to clarify what ethics is (Pollock, 2011). Deontology ethics bases its study on moral obligation even though morals are associated with numerous perspectives with also varying perceptions. On the perspective of deontology, it is the wrongfulness or rightness of the action, which defines it (Betsler, 2008). According to Fernado (2009), this perspective is different from teleological ethic since teleological ethical system concentrates more on the good or bad of the individual committing the action and the action itself. It means that an approach championed should not be based on the rule of law rather should be based on morality of the approach and thus human reason alone can play an important role in observance of ethics (Martocchio, 2009). Ethical formalisation defines the logic approach but does not factor in the human benefits versus the law, rather bases it on the action and whether the action is wrong or right (Pollock, 2011). Another important aspect associated with deontological ethics is the component of egoism in that the action should benefit the person committing the action. This approach is different from the case of teleological system because it determines the outcome of an action on the potential morality rather than the form on which the action is taking (Fernando, 2010). On the other hand, teleological ethics incorporates views of religious ideals of ethics versus logical and rational mindset (Pollock, 2011). The main difference between teleological from deontological is what any action aims to promote rather than the outcome of the action. This means that theory emphasise on excellence and virtue cultivation as the end goal of any action (Martocchio, 2009). The classical virtues associated with teleological ethics include justice, temperance, courage while those virtues championed by theology includes love, hope and faith , which shows that human was made from the image of God (Fernando, 2010). In addition, teleological ethics promotes ones character rather than rules when addressing issues associated with ethics (Pollock, 2011). Teleological ethics promotes religious aspects in accomplishing certain ethical obligations meaning that sometimes the belief itself cannot allow for societal situation correction in which people finds themselves. An example of this situation is evident when it comes to the controversial abortion issue in which most of the pro-life supporters are also religious persons (Pollock, 2011). Moreover, Fernado (2009) states ethics of care also brings into consideration logical consideration. For example, it is easily overlook an issue affect a loved one, and ready to prosecute another person who is affect by the issue (Martocchio, 2009). The two views presents to divergent aspects, which are the action and outcome of the action (Fernando, 2010). Teleological system views the other of the action in terms of morality rather than the benefit of the action or why something was done. It is important to different between the person doing the action and the action itself (Martocchio, 2009). Sometimes a person may do something based on numerous reasons in which teleological system does not incorporate rather, the deontological system associates the action with the outcome (Pollock, 2011). Rule and act utilitarianism Act utilitarian views support the principle of utility should be utilised in each individual situation (Fernando, 2010). This was an idea championed by Bentham after he established that pain and pleasure were crucial qualities for defining what was moral from immoral (Betsler, 2008). This means that the wrongness or rightness of an action is usually considered in terms of its usefulness (Fernado, 2009). The aim of act utilitarianism is to determine the action that brings the best results in greatest number of situations based on the arisen issues (Pollock, 2011). For example, if a person is in a situation that requires lying since lying would bring the greatest good, it is prudent for the person to lie (Martocchio, 2009). In addition, act utilitarians argue that the consequences of a given action of a particular action counts, so for example, if someone does something illegal and the illegality leads to the greatest benefit for the majority then it is imperative to do the illegal action (Fernando, 2010). Another unique feature associated to act utilitarianism is its flexibility compared to other views such as rule utilitarianism (Martocchio, 2009). This means that it allows an individual to analyse a specific decision and formulate strategies that would result in the greatest happiness. Jeremy Bentham and Hedonic Calculus are directly associated with act utilitarianism (Fernando, 2010). This is attributed to the fact that action is associated to the amount of pain or pleasure achieved (Pollock, 2011). Some important components associated with ethics that are discussed by Hedonic Calculus include intensity, remoteness, richness, certainty, extent, duration and intensity. However, rule utilitarianism on the other hand follows on general rules that every person is supposed to follow with the aim of making greatest good for all the people (Fernando, 2010). Compared to act utilitarianism, it allows for establishment of the best overall rule that the whole community should pursue (Pollock, 2011). The rule utilitarianism champions following the rules set even if the rule does not appeal to most of the individuals at the time (Fernado, 2009). Thus, it means that it focuses on following the rule that will allow for the greatest benefit for the community. For example, if rule utilitarianism allows doctors to decide whether to end the human life, would this rule allow the deaths of patients based on advice of doctors or if allowing euthanasia would translate into a bad rule that could scare ill patients or old people pressured into dying (Martocchio, 2009). This means that it is paramount to analyse each situation differently and based on the laws in place to determine the appropriate strategy to ensure the good for the community (Fernando, 2010). To keep the society tolerable, it is important to define rules and boundaries that apply in all situations (Pollock, 2011). In addition, in the case of rule utilitarianism, both strong and weak situations can be associated with rule utilitarians. This means that there are certain rules if they are followed fully may result in decrease in happiness (Fernado, 2009). For example, laws are formulated that states killing a person is wrong and it seems to be a good rule but in certain scenarios, self-defence against aggressor determination becomes tricky. Some rules allows for killing when it come to self-defence against aggressors (Fernando, 2010). When it comes to such situation, weak component of rule utilitarian is evidenced and from another perspective may be seen associated with act utilitarianism (Martocchio, 2009). Criticism analysing the two theories may say that this approach may fall under act utilitarianism and thus shows flaws associated with rule utilitarianism since a person is looking at individual case (Fernando, 2010). On the other hand, strong rule of utilitarianism does not allow for flexibility (Pollock, 2011). Generally, the two theories present different approaches towards accomplishing ethical dilemmas (Pollock, 2011). Action utilitarianism bases the decision of outcome of the actions while rule utilitarianism bases its decision on the law (Fernando, 2010). In addition, rule utilitarianism has both its weak and strong aspects in that weak aspect lowers its philosophical foundation to near act utilitarianism perspective (Pollock, 2011). Rule utilitarianism and Kantian theory Numerous similarities exist between the ethics of rule of utilitarianism and Kant and also there are numerous differences that exist between the two ethical approach. The differences of these two ethics begin with the approaches in which each of the ethics approach an issue (Fernado, 2009). Kant approach champions deontological approach that encourages absolutist approach while rule utilitarianism is based on situationist and consequential when it comes to dealing ethical dilemma (Martocchio, 2009). Generally, these two theories come from opposite ends when it comes to philosophical spectrum (Fernando, 2010). Comparing and contrasting between rule utilitarianism with Kantian views can be understood easily through utilisation of specific examples. Kant aimed at finding a principle, Categorical Imperative that would be ethical judgment foundations (Fernando, 2010). Moreover, the imperative aspect could not be based on preference (Pollock, 2011). Other the other hand, rule utilitarianism will be based on preferences (Martocchio, 2009). An example is when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant and it comes to idea of having an abortion, the difference of having or not having an abortion will be understood easily through utilisation of Kant and rule utilitarianism (Fernando, 2010). If the woman follows the views of Kant, the woman will not want to have abortion because it does not follow hypothetical reasons but in the case of utilitarianism, the women would wish to have abortion because she has a right to choose from preferences of either pain or pleasure (Fernado, 2009). Therefore, if the women use utilitarianism will determine whether the approach will result in more pleasurable condition in aborting and hence follow that route (Pollock, 2011). In the perspective of Kant, this approach is not appropriate because Kant does not support situationist ideals. Hedonic Calculus that presents its views through seven principles further expounds the nature and philosophical components in utilitarianism (Fernando, 2010). These principles include certainty, duration, intensity, fecundity, remoteness, extent and purity (Martocchio, 2009). Kant’s view on the other hand has fewer guidelines and the major one is for someone to act in a manner that may contribute to universal law (Fernado, 2009). However, from this perspective the views of rule utilitarianism and Kant theory have some similarity since both aims at ensuring the outcome of any action is acceptable and pleases the masses (Fernando, 2010). Generally, the rule utilitarianism and Kant ethical views differ a lot in terms of its basic philosophical approach to ethics and also when it comes to human nature and the capacity in which priorities are employed by people when they are faced with ethical decision (Fernado, 2009). The outcome of comparing and differentiating the two theories results in ending up on the opposite site of ethical and philosophical spectrum (Martocchio, 2009). Conclusion Ethics is an important component that defines how people should relate with each other and how they relate with the environment. Theories such deontology and teleology provides different means in which an individual can handle an issue. In addition, act and rule utilitarianism allows an individual to choose an action based on its legality and other actions relevant to the scenario. Moreover, rule utilitarianism comes either as strong or weak depending on the situation and approach in which certain requirement should be accomplished. Moreover, Kant views and rule utilitarianism approaches an issue differently because of its differences when it comes to philosophical approach. These two approaches at ends of a philosophical spectrum because Kant champions universally accepted behaviour while rule utilitarianism bases its on situations. References Betsler, M. (2008). Kant's Ethics of Virtue. London: Walter de Gruyter Fernado, A. (2009). Business Ethics: An Indian Perspective. London: Pearson Education India Fernando, A. (2010). Business Ethics and Corporate Governance. Jakarta: Pearson Education India Martocchio, J. (2009). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 28. London: Emerald Group Publishing Pollock, J. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, 7th Ed. London: Cengage Learning Read More