Three Classic Ethical Theories in Business - Term Paper Example

Ethical Theories Probably, practically everybody who has worked in an organization has faced with various ethical issues. One of the most common issues arising at work can be referred to corporate whistleblowing, whereas somebody discloses information about some malpractice to an employer, manager, media, etc. When such situations arise, many people are confused and challenged with ethical considerations, as they are not sure how to manage this situation. It might be useful to apply ethical theories and perspectives to the case of whistleblowing in business in order to decide what the most appropriate behavior in such situation is. Whistleblowing in business, also called corporate whistleblowing, is a process of disclosing information about some malpractice or misconduct. There is wide range of disclosures, which may be occurring within an organization (for example, where employees report to managers/employer) as well as outside an organization (for example, employees report to governors or to media) (Treviño, n.d.). The major ethical concern, which arises in such a situation, is whether a person who knows about such malpractice or misconduct needs to disclose this information or to keep this issue unknown to the employer or other responsible decision-maker. In order to resolve this ethical issue, it is possible to apply the theory of utilitarianism to a given case. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that among a variety of choices, the ethical choice will the one that has the best outcomes or consequences for the largest number of people affected by this choice (Mosser, 2013). As one can clearly see from the very name, one of the major concepts that are employed by this theory deals with utility. In other words, every action is evaluated according to the amount of utility that it is able to bring to the subjects. Another term that might substitute for this is happiness. As a result, every action is checked whether it is able to bring the biggest amount of happiness. It must be noted that the latter is not restricted to the subject one. In other words, an action would be deemed to be unethical is case it is beneficial for one person, but it disadvantageous for a bigger group of people. From the utilitarian perspective, whistle blowing should be considered as fair decision as disclosure of misconduct by one or several people is more likely to harm greater number of stakeholders (customers, employees, investors, etc.). It is beyond any doubt that in theory whistleblowing is thought to be done for the good of the infinite number of people. In other words, it does cause some harm to a specific group of people, for example, the board of directors whose unethical practices are exposed, but ultimately is done to save other people. Of course, sometime whistleblowing might be performed out of the desire to hurt the company, but this term may not fully be applicable in this case. As a result, because of the nature of this phenomenon, namely to achieve a greater good for a bigger number of people versus causing small harm to a small group of people, whistleblowing will always be considered to be a positive phenomenon. For example, if an employee of a cosmetics company finds out that in order to produce a hair shampoo there is used some toxic element, which is very dangerous for health but it makes hair grow faster, from the utilitarian position he should report about this disclosure. In this situation, the company’s management and shareholders may benefit from increased sales, but the number of consumers who will suffer from using this shampoo will be much greater. In this case, disclosure of information (whistleblowing) produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, as there is an opportunity to aver the disaster and prevent people from using/buying this product. This example shows that there are two broad and unequal groups of subjects that are engaged in this case. On the one hand, there is a company that conducts unlawful and unethical practices. To its advantage, the malpractices have not been disclosed and the enterprise is able to carry on without being interrupted. On the other hand, there are people who will be consuming the product and harm their health without even knowing it. There is no doubt that no one would like to use cosmetics that is harmful to one’s body. However, the consumers are being deceived and that is exactly what the whistleblowing is against. Deontological approach implies that while evaluating ethical behavior, it is necessary to look at the reason for which an act is done, rather than at the consequences of this act (Mosser, 2013). This means that reason is proclaimed to be the major guiding principle that is thought to shape the behavior of a person in every situation. Another significant term is should be engaged in the discussion about deontological approach is the concept of categorical imperative. The latter stands for a principle that makes a person perform the right action and choose the right option regardless of the circumstances and the negative consequences that one might experience because of it. In other words, this theory of Ethics argues that there are universal truths or maxims that should be adhered to in any case. Thus, from the deontologist perspective, whistleblowing is a moral act as the employee does what the rule says and what is right to do, regardless of what the consequences can be. Indeed, when a person is employed by a company, the former is expected to deliver the product of the highest quality and do everything to make sure that this is achieved. In other words, if a person gains knowledge about the fact that the company is not able to company with the standards that are set of the industry, it is one’s obligation to make sure that this practice is stopped. As a result, every employee should become a whistleblower as soon as one learns about the negative practice that is being conducted and is being concealed by the company. Furthermore, the act of disclose should always be performed and the person should not be afraid about the consequences. Thus, an employee who reports about disclosure does not violate the general rule that he needs to disclose information, as it is his duty. This position can be also justified with the principles of telling truth regardless the potential negative consequences or harm of this act (Padgett, 2003). What is more important is that this attitude should be promoted on every level of the organization. For example, it is largely thought top managers are not able to be whistleblowers since they are too afraid to looe the privileged position that they have. In other words, it is rather rare to see that people in the board of directors would become whistleblowers. However, it is important to note that every person in the company starting from a temporary worker to CEO should understand the responsibility that is vested into one and make sure that negative practices are exposed to the public so that the latter could put an end to them. The third ethical theory that should be engaged while considering the idea of whistleblowing is called virtue ethics. It is can be easily understood from the very name that this theory puts emphasis on the concept of virtue that is supposed to shape the decisions of a person. Thus, it is suggested that in very situations there are two extremes (excess or deficit of something) and virtue lies between them. This came to be known as the concept of the Golden mean which means that a person is able to find the perfect balance between the above mentioned two extremes (MacKinnon 93). From this point of view whistleblowing will be regarded as an ethical action as it stands for the best virtues that can be found in one’s character. Indeed, but doing so a person shows that one is able to stand for the right thing and is not afraid of the consequences. In addition to that, one was able to find the right balance between being a coward (not exposing the practice) and rashness (using the malpractice in question as an excuse for attacking the company in general). In other words, most people would agree that such behavior of a person is worth appraisal. It may be necessary to engage an example to show the application of this theory. Let us suppose that a person came to the knowledge of the fact that a company was performing tax evasion and has accumulated a large sum of money that was distributed among the senior managers. A person acknowledges that one is likely to face difficulties because of exposing this practice, but since there are important matters that are being engaged, one takes a bold step and exposes it. There is no doubt that this person will be recognized as a courageous one and many companies in the world would like to have such employees since they ultimately contribute to the quality of performance of the company. In addition to the classic ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics, it is possible to apply the ethical perspective of ethical egoism to the case of corporate whistleblowing. Ethical egoism is based on the idea of pursuing own interests of an individual. Therefore, the act is considered to be right if the whistle blower gains personal benefit from this act. This means that an individual is encouraged to perform actions which one thinks that will make him or her happier. This might sound as rather selfish, but from a broad perspective, it does make sense. Many people truly believe in the humanitarian principles and think that they are happy when they help others. In other words, ethical egoism is not egoism in the negative means that people know it. As a result, the emphasis on the amount of happiness that is generated by an action makes this perspective close to the utilitarian ethical theory. However, one of the major differences between them lies in the fact that ethical egoism is more concerned on the happiness of a specific person first; however, it does not restrict it to one person only (Osterberg 88). Thus, for example, if the company encourages whistleblowing as part of its code of conduct, an individual can whistle the blow expecting that a company will reward him. However, if whistleblowing may danger his job or his reputation at work, this individual should not disclose this information, taking thus safe position. One would make no mistake that losing one’s job is a situation that has a negative impact on one’s life. That is why it is logical that no one would like to experiences. However, this kind of thinking does not mean that whistleblowing is rejected by ethical egoism in general. Quite the opposite, there are might be situations when a person thinks that experiencing negative consequences of the disclosure of the malpractice will be better for one if compared to receiving more that are obtained from an practice that one considers to be unacceptable. For example, if an employee will report about use of toxic ingredients in the products the company produces, this employee will more likely lose his job. However, if this act increases his happiness as he feels ought to do so, he should blow the whistle. Therefore, the perspective in question is not able to give a simple answer to the question whether a person should do it or not. This means that this decision should be made on individual basis. This might be regarded as one of the difficulties of the application of it as the perspective is somewhat ambivalent. However, there is nothing wrong with it. It simply shows that the control over one’s actions is in the hands of the person and one should be able to enjoy the absolute freedom when it comes to making such an important decision. It is quite obvious that blowing the whistle on a large company means a dramatic change in one’s life, but it may be whether for the good or for the bad. The next perspective that offers a rather interesting view on the issue is called relativism. One is able to guess from the name that is stands from the idea that different actions might receive a different evaluation according to their nature. In other words there are not absolute rules that dictate what is right and what is wrong. This means that what can be beneficial and acceptable for one group may be disadvantageous and unacceptable for the other group. That is why one is not able to blame a person for a particular action as there will always be a side that would suggest that there is nothing wrong with it. Similar kind of thinking might be witnessed when it is applied to the issue of whistleblowing. On the one hand, some might think that this is an honorable act that is performed by a person that is thought to reflect the high level of commitment to the corporate ideals in general. On the other hand, some might argue that it ruins the corporate logic and should be regarded as a violation of compliance since it exposes a company to a punishment because of a single employee or a group of them. For example, the public might praise a person who blew the whistle on the negative practices that were performed by a company. The people will think about such person as a hero who was not afraid to face the consequences and help others. Nevertheless, on the other hand, some might suggest that such a person is actually a traitor that betrayed one’s company and authority and brought more harm that good since the situation could have been taken care of without the unnecessary publicity. As a result, such a person will be condemned for not supporting the team spirit and may be even stigmatized or referred to as the black sheep. Finally, there is one more perspective that should be mentioned with regard to the issue in question. It is called emotivism and it primarily operates with the emotions about a particular action rather than an ethical position behind it. In other words, some might say that lying is wrong not because that they truly believe that lying is wrong and concluded this as a result of careful investigation: they just like the emotions that this statement brings up. Nevertheless, this position may not be regarded as a shallow one since the desire to experience a particular emotion may be seen as a powerful instrument that will urge one to behave in a proper way. Considering the issue in question, one should note that emotivism also holds an ambiguous position with regard to it. For example, some people might be willing to be seen as heroes or knights in the shining armor and, therefore, they will be engaged in whistleblowing because they truly believe that this will make them experience positive emotions. On the other hand, some might think that they will feel better while staying loyal to their company and concealing its secrets. There is nothing wrong with the fact that a person might choose to do so: one will simply think that these emotions will make one feel better and, therefore, his or her position will be justified completely. For example, a company many be dumping industrial waste in the river. There is no doubt that multiple people know about it: at least the crew of a truck that brings and dumps the waste. In addition to that, the supervisor who oversees this procedure knows it. So, there are several people who are knowledgeable of this. However, only one will decide to blow the whistle on the company because one wants to be become the savior of the environment. It does not mean that others are not ethical people: they simply like the fact that they conceal the secret of their company more that they would like to appear as knights to fight for the justice. An application of three classic ethical theories to whistleblowing in business indicates that from utilitarian, deontological and virtue ethics perspectives, this practice is viewed as ethical and moral even though the motives are different. From the utilitarian perspective, whistleblowing is right thing to do if the consequences of this act incur harm/threat to greater number of people affected. From the deontological perspective, whistleblowing is right thing to do because it is the duty of an employee to tell the truth, regardless of the consequences. From the perspective of ethical egoism, whistleblowing can have absolutely two different views, which depend solely on the employee’s own perception of what will make him happy or satisfied. References: MacKinnon, B. (2013). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues, concise edition,. Sydney: Wadsworth / Cengage Learning. Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/ssologin?bookcode=AUSOC120.13.2&sessionKey=2B1D1B618D0DC1AF9343BF6C94ACE24E32307ACBE811A125A788C66E1CA1016F Osterberg, J. (1988). Self and Others a Study of Ethical Egoism. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Padgett, B. (2003). Educating the whistle-blower, Teaching ethics. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.uvu.edu/ethics/seac/Padgett-Educating%20the%20Whistle-blower.pdf Treviño, L. (n.d.). Whistle Blowing. Ethicalsytems.org. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from http://ethicalsystems.org/content/whistle-blowing Read More