What is the difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics? What role do values play in each of these two approaches to ethics? Provide examples to illustrate your points.
Descriptive ethics is founded on the belief that humans are ‘hard-wired’ to be selfish. That is, they are for the most part absorbed in fulfilling their own desires and goals. The capitalist economy is a good example of this instinct in humans, whereby, ‘greed is good’ is an accepted mantra for business corporations and individuals alike. Descriptive ethics promotes a ego-centric decision making model, whereby, an individual is morally entitled to pursue his own happiness through independent action. Cultural relativism is another term coupled to descriptive ethics. This school of thought contends that what is right or wrong is specific to the particular cultural milieu. Normative ethics, on the other hand, takes a more didactic approach to human action in that it prescribes ‘what’ is morally right through rational deliberation. While descriptive ethics merely documents what people believe to be morally right, normative ethics tries to ‘find out’ if there is merit in such beliefs. In this light, it is fair to claim that the normative ethical framework is more rigorous and rationalistic than the descriptive ethical framework. Normative ethics thus offers a better model for decision making.
In practice, what can be said for and against utilitarianism, or a results-based approach to ethics?
The utilitarian totem is ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’. This objective for the evaluation of ethics is very appealing intuitively. It is also politically consistent with principles of democracy. But the issues with Utilitarianism crop up due to qualitative factors. For example, what exactly does ‘happiness’ mean? Moreover, are the values and conditions that create happiness universally the same? Even further, why should happiness or pleasure or utility be the arbiter of morality? Indeed, the purpose of moral inquiry is not so much happiness but justice. Under utilitarian ethics, the ends always justify the means. But to the extent that the means involve human action and assent, normative ethical evaluation comes into play. So, practical issues such as this have given Utilitarianism the tag of being an idealistic or utopian ethical system.
In practice, what can be said for and against deontology, or ethical theories of the right?
Deontology is a sharp contrast to Utilitarianism, in that actions are deemed right or wrong not through their consequences. In the contrary, those actions that are considered to be duties, including obligations, responsibilities and commitments are valued as moral. Deontological ethics aligns very well with the mandates of major religions of the world, including Christianity. For this reason, the theory has drawn criticism. It is easy to see how the concept of ‘good will’ can be equated to divine grace and hence co-opted as a justification of religious dogma. But Deontology has certain clear merits, especially the logic behind the Categorical Imperative that Kant theorized. The main appeal of Categorical Imperative is their emphasis on universal laws.
What is a virtue? How can virtue-based moral reasoning help you resolve an ethical issue in business? Illustrate your points with one or two examples.
The basis of virtue ethics is the understanding that virtues promote human flourishing. Though all virtues have their merits and utility only some of them are relevant for moral-based reasoning. These moral virtues include justice, mercy, generosity, humility, tolerance, compassion, love, etc. Since moderation is a core principle of virtue ethics, it especially helps give moral direction for business leaders. For example, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) code of conduct asks businesses to focus on people, the environment and only then profits. Many of the virtues such as compassion, generosity and justice are as applicable to businesses as they are to individuals. It is fair to claim that our society would improve significantly if only all businesses would incorporate virtue ethics into their code of conduct. Since character building is central to virtue ethics, it fills the lacuna left by Deontological and Utilitarian ethical models.
Describe in some detail the two ways in which we can evaluate the morality of an (entire) economic system. Illustrate with examples.
Capitalism is criticized for its sole emphasis on profits and economic value of goods and services. Unfettered capitalism is intrinsically instable as repeated cycles of economic depression and recession clearly show. Each time such a crisis occurs, it is the workforce that bears the brunt in the form of layoffs or reduced remuneration. Capitalism also abets the process of accumulation of power in the hands of a few business corporations. Such monopolization (for example in the media industry) is never good for people as it deprives them of real choices. Hence, the economics of capitalism is pitted against their political effects. Socialism is a more comprehensive political system that tries to balance social considerations with economic imperatives. But so far in the two centuries since its conceptualization it has not proved a sustainable and successful model. The human lure for power has interfered with the noble objectives of Socialist politics. But in recent years, socialism in the form of popular uprisings has given new hope. The resurgence of populist governments in Latin America or the mass public rebellions in the Middle East are very promising.
Several different forms of responsibility were identified in the course materials. One of them was legal responsibility. What were THREE (3) others that you consider important in your own ethical reasoning as it applies to business? Give examples, whenever appropriate, to illustrate your points.
Alongside legal responsibilities, businesses are expected to fulfill their social, economic and environmental responsibilities. It is for this all encompassing purview of business actions that the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) code of ethics was formulated. Conventionally, businesses were solely expected to operate on the profit motive alone. But such a focus has led to negative consequences in the form of environmental degradation, weakening of democratic institutions and reduced social and intellectual capital. Rather than treating people as mere ‘consumers’ of products and services, businesses will have to treat them with more respect. If the cut-throat competition in the business environment would not permit such a model of business, then it is the duty of people to organize and collectively act for their rights. Ideally, there would come a time in the future when business corporations operate on the basis of morally considered outcomes and not merely for quarterly financial results. The focus should shift from short-term profits to long term sustainability of our species and environment.
In what ways may corporate social responsibility (CSR) be good for business, society, and the economy? In what ways may it be harmful?
CSR is ultimately good for businesses, for even they are part of the larger society. For example, if pollution levels rise due to lax environmental practices, then even the quality of breathing of the CEO of an energy company is affected. Or, say, if a company produces and promotes violence-ridden video games, then the children of the employees of the company also end up using this product. The reason why CSR is always good for business is that negative externalities cannot be swept under the carpet forever. Take say the simmering issue of global warming. Those companies that continue to promote a fossil-fuel dependent lifestyle may profit at the moment. But where is the question of profits when a major natural catastrophe is precipitated by global warming? One needs contended and safe people even for making profits. As for the economy, a CSR oriented business culture would prevent any financial crises like depression or recession.
In what ways or to what extent is ethical relativism true? In what ways or to what extent is ethical relativism false? Clearly define your assumptions and argue how your overall conclusions may affect a specific decision in international business. In your answer, draw on your own example.
Ethical relativism is the belief that culture is the chief arbiter of morality. What is morally right in one culture may not be so in another. In the dog-eat-dog world of modern business, leaders would adopt any tactic to stay in the game. If they do not toe the line then they will be on the losing side. Hence ethical relativism is often imposed upon people who otherwise mean well. In the modern geo-political context, the debate between Islamic and Western values were analysed under relativistic ethics. But there are no conclusive answers to the issues raised by relativism. There are classic examples from the business world where ethics were compromised with relativism as an excuse. Facebook and Google are two such examples. Both companies claim to protect the privacy of user data but have been sharing it with the American National Security Agency (NSA) on the pretext of an obscure legal obligation. This breach in public confidence has opened up numerous questions over the companies’ ethics.
The IMEV course covered three prescriptive responses to ethical problems or issues associated with businesses operating away from home. Describe these three ways in detail and apply each of them to the issue of child labour (the RugMark case as well as the child labour case in the shoe industry in Franca, Brazil [DG pp. 408-409] or you can find them in Google).
The first prescriptive response to an MNC’s ethical problem is ‘fundamental international rights’ that was formulated by Donaldson. His principle is to negate any exploitation of personnel on grounds of ethical relativism. For example, it is ethically sound to demand that sweatshop workers in Bangladesh should have the same medical, pension and working hour rights that workers in the US headquarters have. The second option for an ethically conscious MNC to adopt is Norman Bowie’s ‘Distinctive Obligations’. Thirdly, Caux’ Principles suggest that human dignity should be the utmost focus for an MNC’s agenda. It implores business leaders to place stakeholders ahead of shareholders. Globalization with a human face is the pretext behind Caux Principles. If any of these three ethical frameworks were to be followed then MNCs would shed their image as oppressive institutions and be welcomed wherever they seek to expand business operations.
Describe a methodology for rights analysis.
A methodology of Rights Analysis would typically have two components. The first is to ascertain if a claimed right is morally sound. One can use deontological, utilitarian and descriptive ethical standards (ideally a combination of these systems) in claiming the right as legitimate. The last straw for a claimed right that is morally weak is its acceptance under law. If neither of the supports are evident then the claimed right will have to be discarded. The second component of the methodology is finding ways for resolving conflicts between rights. A careful and balanced analysis of the importance of interests will help the process. By prioritizing which rights stand above which others, the hierarchy of rights could aid in resolving conflicts.