Ethical and Unethical Behavior - Coursework Example

Ethical and Unethical Behavior Ethics is an incredibly complex subject: one which has been the focus of philosophical discussion for millennia. Although it seems that all people in a given community are aware of what is “moral” or what is “immoral” in the context of certain situations, commonplace beliefs and attitudes on the subject can easily be shown wrong. Moral philosophers, in their work, attempt to cut through the cultural relativism that many laypeople believe to be most reflective of the way ethics really is: the view that although my culture (or community) does something is “moral”, another community may be equally right by doing it a different way. Moral philosophers try to find eternal truths about right action and argue for their objectivity and applicability to all human beings. Of course, it seems exceedingly rare to find case examples in modern society (especially by news outlets which focus almost exclusively on unethical behavior) of ethical behavior. Nevertheless, this is because, I believe, our notion of what is moral and what is ethical is a bit ill-defined. After defining a working notion of a teleological utilitarian ethic, I shall illuminate this concept with two case studies which are to be designated as “ethical” and “unethical” respectively. Ethical theories are often divided according to their fundamental natures; deontological ethics are primarily typified by a commitment to established rules of morality—duties. It is the responsibility, then, of the moral agent to recognize his or her duties in a moral context and make the correct choices in regards to these commitments. Acting in accordance with these duties forms the moral action, and consequently, failing to do so constitutes immoral action. In contrast, teleological ethics are characterized by a pervading focus upon consequences of actions. Hence, if the consequences are the overriding standard for moral action, it is the responsibility of the agent to evaluate the consequences of action before acting. Acting in accordance with correct consequences is thus moral action and acting voluntarily in such a way which results in incorrect consequences is immoral action (Vallentyne). Our standard of moral evaluation here will be centered in a teleological framework, or, more specifically, a utilitarian system of ethics. In such a framework, we evaluate actions based on the agent’s responsibility to act in accordance with correct consequences, and the agent’s responsibility to determine the correct consequences before acting. In a classical utilitarian context, the notion of “correct consequences” consists of utility- or happiness-maximization in compliance with J. S. Mill’s “greatest happiness principle”. Note that this moral theory possesses two components: a theory of right action and a theory of value. The value evaluated here will be pleasure or happiness for the most individuals. The theory of right action is one focused upon consequences—saying that the rightness of action is dependent upon consequences (Martin). With these views in mind, let us examine two case examples of unethical and ethical behavior according to this framework. Recently, sub-prime mortgages have wreaked havoc on the world economy. In Britain, a former broker has admitted to doing the same thing. The broker said he worked alongside others targeting home-owners who traditional lenders could not afford to lend to, and remortgaging them based solely on benefits. Although this broker and his company knew the actions were wrong, the broker admits, they could not resist. By remortgaging, home-owners could capitalize on rising house values and release assets to pay off their debts. But the broker knew that these customers would struggle to pay back their new sub-prime mortgages once the fixed rate deals expired. However, with cash bonuses and luxury holidays on offer for hitting targets, he persisted with immoral tactics. Mortgage watchdog groups reported that “many of the people who were selling these loans have had umpteen warnings and nothing's become of it”. The broker admitted guiltily, “today I can see people losing their houses and I was part of that” (Worricker, 2008). Why were the broker’s (and his organization’s) actions immoral in this teleological framework? Because, primarily, the consequences of his actions were devastating. Nevertheless, while saying that the consequences of their actions were bad is necessary to calling them “unethical”, saying so is not sufficient. These actions must also violate the utilitarian standard of happiness or pleasure in its theory of value. Teleologically, these actions achieved an end which is not consistent with this value by virtue of the consequences, and is, in fact, contradicts that value. The broker brought much suffering to those he swindled and tricked by telling them the immediate benefits of remortgaging while leaving out the long-term harms of doing so. And the harms were not limited to only those who were victimized. The entire world economy felt the impact of this problem in the housing market, and has dipped into a slow-down because of it. In terms of an ethic focused exclusively upon consequences, the blameworthy brokers and lenders acted unethically to an extreme degree. Through the job losses and loss of capital which the economic underwent as a result of the housing crisis, much more pain and suffering has been caused than good. Another ethical current event can be found in Britain as well, where socially responsible investing has finally begun to turn a profit for financiers. Bridges Ventures is an organization making plenty of capital returns for its investors while making considerable social benefits. Michelle Giddens, a director at Bridges, says, “All our investments have a dedicated social or environmental goal at their core… But we aren't doing this out of the goodness of our heart… We are here to make money for our investors too…” (Evans, 2008). Ventures holds that there is a growing disparity in society between the rich and the poor which needs to be addressed, and that it is a real danger that in the midst of a financial crisis, people will take their attention of the environmental crisis. Although Ventures is one among few “ethical investors”, with its success it is spurring others on to join in the movement to make money and make a better world (Evans). The ethical components of Bridges Ventures, and the movement towards “ethical investing” in general, are not hard to identify within our consequentialist ethical framework. Ventures maximizes utility (pleasure or happiness) for both those individuals who invest with the organization and those individuals who benefit from the organization’s actions. The simultaneous maximization of value is in accordance with the greatest happiness principle, which holds that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Copleston, 1999, p. 32). And while bringing benefits to those who are acted upon directly by Bridges Ventures, by virtue of the capitalistic context in which the organization operates, the entire society runs more smoothly—giving jobs, circulating currency, and motivating individuals to work and contribute. It is also apparent that Bridges Ventures is creating a paradigm shift in the financial industry. Consumer demands are changing, and it is becoming apparent that more and more people favor organizations with a social and/or environmental conscience. By following Bridges Ventures’ example, the entire industry will make the shift to creating products and services which not only benefit investors but also entire societies, both directly and indirectly. Using our teleological, classical utilitarian framework for ethical analysis, we evaluated two case studies in which the actions of the moral agents were found to be unethical and ethical respectively. The morality of an action, using this standard, is evaluated using the two aspects of teleological theory: a theory of right action (consequentialism—the view that morality is determined by the consequences of the agent’s actions) and a theory of value (utility, pleasure or happiness—according to utilitarianism’s “greatest happiness principle”). In cases where utility is maximized by the consequences of an action, such as the second case, the action is moral regardless of motivation. In cases such as the first, where the action is committed despite the agent’s knowing of the terrible consequences, an action is considered wholly unethical insofar as it limits utility. Works Cited Copleston, F. (1999). A History of Philosophy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Evans, S. (2008, November 2). Ethical investing learns how to turn a profit – at last. The Independent . Martin, R. (1972). A Defence of Mill's Qualitative Hedonism. Philosophy, Vol. 47, No. 180 , 140-151. Vallentyne, P. (1987). The teleological/deontological distinction. The Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 21, No. 1 , 21-32. Worricker, J. (2008, October 13). Broker admits to immoral lending. BBC News . Read More