Ethics Midterm Complete with Justice

Family and Personal Issues

Family and personal issues are those situations and conditions that, though not directly related to work, can affect someone's ability to perform. People simply can't leave their personal and family problems at home. The difficulty in situations like these is achieving a balance between maintaining a worker's right to privacy and ensuring fairness to coworkers. The yardstick is that if someone is performing well, and his or her attendance is satisfactory, there's probably no cause for action by the manager, beyond offering assistance if the worker wants it. Personal illnesses and chemical dependencies of employees present a different set of issues. These situations can affect work schedules as well as an individual's ability to perform. Most corporations have explicit policies for managing employee illness. It's important to remember that illnesses of any kind—depression, cancer, AIDS—are private and should be kept confidential. These conditions cause no danger to coworkers, and many people who suffer from them can resume normal or modified work schedules. Managers can help these employees by protecting their privacy and by being fair and compassionate.

Intention

Maybe the moral difference lies not in the effect on the victims—both wind up dead—but in the intention of the person making the decision. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 342-343). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Obligations

So one way of deciding between the voluntarist and narrative conceptions of the person is to ask if you think there is a third category of obligations--call them obligations of solidarity, or membership--that can't be explained in contractarian terms.

Contribution

So, despite the talk about effort, it's really contribution, or achievement, that the meritocrat believes is worthy of reward. Whether or not our work ethic is our own doing, our contribution depends, at least in part, on natural talents for which we can claim no creit

Collective Selfishness

Some argue that so-called obligations of solidarity are actually just instances of collective selfishness, a prejudice for our own kind. These critics concede that we typically care more for our family, friends, and comrades than we do for other people.

Alternative

Some critics of egalitarianism believe that the only alternative to a meritocratic market society is a leveling equality that imposes handicaps on the talented.

Principle

Some people reject torture on principle. They believe that it violates human rights and fails to respect the intrinsic dignity of human beings. Their case against torture does not depend on utilitarian considerations. They argue that human rights and human dignity have a moral basis that lies beyond utility. If they are right, then Bentham's philosophy is wrong. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 582-584). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 581-582). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Neutral

The notion that we are freely choosing, independent selves supports the idea that the principles of justice that define our rights should not rest on any particular moral or religious conception; instead, they should try to be neutral among competing visions of the good life.

Ethical problems (workplace)

are not caused entirely by bad apples. The're also the product of bad barrels--work environments that either encourage unethical behavior or merely allow it to occur

Primary Stakeholders

those groups or individuals with whom the organization has a formal, contractual relationship. In most cases this means customers, employees, shareholders or owners, suppliers, and perhaps even the government.

Good Life (Polis--Aristotle)

"If the spirit of their intercourse were still the same after their coming together as it has been when they were living apart," Aristotle writes, their association can't really be considered a polis, or political community. "The end and purpose of a polis is the good life, and the institutions of social life are means that end."

Imaginary Contract

"an idea of reason, which nonetheless has undoubted practical reality; for it can oblige every legislator to frame his laws in such a way that they could have been produced by the united will of a whole nation," and obligate each citizen "as if he had consented." Kant concludes that this imaginary act of collective consent "is the test of the rightfulness of every public law."47

Less Utility (older versus younger)

$3.7 million per life saved due to cleaner air, except for those older than seventy, whose lives were valued at $2.3 million. Lying behind the different valuations was a utilitarian notion: saving an older person's life produces less utility than saving a younger person's life. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 670-672). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Rejects (Libertarian rejection policies and laws)

1. No paternalism: Libertarians oppose laws to protect people from harming themselves. 2. No Morals Legislation. Libertarians oppose using the coercive force of law to promote notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority. 3. No Redistrubtion of Income or Wealth. The libertarian theory of rights rules out any law that requires people to help others.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest occurs when your judgment or objectivity is compromised. The appearance of a conflict of interest—when a third party could think your judgment has been compromised—is generally considered just as damaging as an actual conflict.

Preconventional (Stage 1 and 2)

A level I individual (labeled the preconventional level and including stages 1 and 2) is very self-centered and views ethical rules as imposed from outside the self. Unfortunately, a small percentage of adults never advance beyond this stage, and managers must be ready for that possibility. Stage 1 individuals are limited to thinking about obedience to authority for its own sake. Avoiding punishment by authority figures is the key consideration. It's easy to imagine a child thinking, "I should share my toy because, if I don't, Mom will yell at me" (i.e., I'll be punished). A stage 1 response to the Evelyn situation might argue that it would be wrong to contradict her boss because she must obey her superiors, and she would certainly be punished if she disobeyed. At stage 2, concern for personal reward and satisfaction become considerations in addition to a kind of market reciprocity. What is right is judged in terms of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" reciprocal relationship. A stage 2 child might think, "If I share my toy with my brother, he might share his with me later." A stage 2 response in the Evelyn situation might argue that Evelyn should support her boss because he is responsible for her performance appraisals; and, if she lets this one go, hemight overlook some of her problems from the past. Also, if her boss has been kind or helpful to her in the past, she may consider her obligation to repay the favor. In general, a level I person can be expected to consider questions like "What's in it for me?" At stage 1, the questions might be "Can I get away with it?" or "Will I get caught, punished?" At stage 2, the questions might be "How will I benefit or what will I get in return if I do this?"

Postconventional (Step 5 & 6)

A level III (postconventional, sometimes called principled reasoning—stages 5 and 6) principled individual has developed beyond identification with others' expectations, rules, and laws to make decisions more autonomously. Such an individual looks to ethical principles of justice and rights (similar to the deontological principles we discussed in Chapter 2). Note that stage 6 is thought to be a theoretical stage only, so we focus below only on stage 5. At stage 5, the emphasis is still on rules and laws because these represent the recognized social contract, but stage 5 thinkers are willing to question the law and to consider changing the law for socially useful purposes. When deciding what to do, a stage 5 person would likely ask, "What does the law say?" and then "Is the law consistent with principles of justice and rights? and "What's best for society?" Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles; Following ethical principles of justice and right. Acting in accord with principles when laws violate principles.

The Importance of Trust

A more elusive benefit of ethics is trust. Although it's difficult to document, trust has both economic and moral value. Scientists are beginning to understand the "biology of trust." In trusting relationships, neuroscientists have found that the brain releases a hormone, oxytocin, that makes cooperating feel good. Trust is essential in a service economy, where all a firm has is its reputation for dependability and good service. Individuals and organizations build trust accounts that work something like a bank account. 43 You make deposits and build your trust reserve by being honest and by keeping commitments.

Distorting Consequences

A second category of moral disengagement mechanisms has to do with distorting consequences or reducing personal responsibility for bad outcomes. For example, with displacement of responsibility, individuals will reduce personal accountability by thinking of their actions as resulting from an authority figure's dictates ("my boss made me do it"). With diffusion of responsibility, individuals will reduce personal accountability by looking to others or the group ("it's not my job," or "my team made the decision"). With distorting consequences, individuals will think of negative consequences as less serious than they are (it's "no big deal" to fudge the numbers on my expense report).

Social Contract

A second distinctive feature of Kant's political theory is that it derives justice and rights from a social contract—but a social contract with a puzzling twist.

Ethical Dilemma (definition)

A situation in which two or more "right" values are in conflict.

Stakeholder Model

Abrahams' model identifies three primary stakeholders—business partners, customers, and employees—and three secondary stakeholders—opinion formers, community, and authorities. He maintains that by analyzing a company and its business using those six groups as a guide, one can begin to identify how a variety of calamities might affect a company's reputation and the value of its brand, and how much those calamities might ultimately cost.

Intention

According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. What matters is the motive, and the motive must be of a certain kind. What matters is doing the right thing because it's right, not for some ulterior motive. "A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes," Kant writes. It is good in itself, whether or not it prevails. "Even if . . . this will is entirely lacking in power to carry out its intentions; if by its utmost effort it still accomplishes nothing . . . even then it would still shine like a jewel for its own sake as something which has its full value in itself."4 For any action to be morally good, "it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law—it must also be done for the sake of the moral law."

Due Care Theory

According to some observers, products and services should be produced and delivered according to the "due care" theory. 10 This theory stipulates that due care involves these elements: Design. Products and services should meet all government regulations and specifications and be safe under all foreseeable conditions, including misuse by the consumer. Materials. Materials should meet government regulations and be durable enough to withstand reasonable use. Production. Products should be made without defects. Quality control. Products should be inspected regularly for quality. Packaging, labeling, and warnings. Products should be safely packaged, should include clear, easily understood directions for use, and should clearly describe any hazards. Notification. Manufacturers should have a system in place to recall products that prove to be dangerous at some time after manufacture and distribution.

Meritocractic Conception

According to the meritocratic conception, the distribution of income and wealth that results from a free market is just, but only if everyone has the same opportunity to develop his or her talents. Only if everyone begins at the same starting line can it be said that the winners of the race deserve their rewards. Rawls believes that the meritocratic conception corrects for certain morally arbitrary advantages, but still falls short of justice. For, even if you manage to bring everyone up to the same starting point, it is more or less predictable who will win the race—the fastest runners. But being a fast runner is not wholly my own doing. It is morally contingent in the same way that coming from an affluent family is contingent. "Even if it works to perfection in eliminating the influence of social contingencies," Rawls writes, the meritocratic system "still permits the distribution of wealth and income to be determined by the natural distribution of abilities and talents."12 If Rawls is right, even a free market operating in a society with equal educational opportunities does not produce a just distribution of income and wealth.

Libertarians

According to this objection, taking money from Gates and Winfrey without their consent, even for a good cause, is coercive. It violates their liberty to do with their money whatever they please. Those who object to redistribution on these grounds are often called "libertarians." Libertarians favor unfettered markets and oppose government regulation, not in the name of economic efficiency but in the name of human freedom. Their central claim is that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty—the right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people's rights to do the same. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 900-905). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Personal Responsibility

Another basic customer right involves our taking personal honesty and responsibility for the products and services that we offer. There's probably no issue that will more seriously affect our reputation than a failure of responsibility. Many ethical disasters have started out as small problems that mushroomed. Especially in service businesses, where the "products" are delivered by individuals to other individuals, personal responsibility is a critical issue.

Veil of Ignorance (John Rawls)

Additional moral rules come from the work of the highly regarded American political philosopher John Rawls. Rawls proposed that decision makers use a veil of ignorance exercise to arrive at fundamental principles of justice that should guide ethical decision making. In his approach, imaginary people come together behind a hypothetical veil of ignorance. These imaginary people do not know anything about themselves, their identities, or their status. They don't know if they (or others they are thinking about) are male or female, young or old, rich or poor, black or white, the CEO or a janitor, intelligent or mentally retarded, physically fit or disabled, sick or healthy, patient or doctor. According to Rawls, rational people who use this veil of ignorance principle will be more likely to develop ethical rules that do not unfairly advantage or disadvantage any particular group. 4 Because humans are fundamentally risk averse and wary of being the worst off, such neutral people would arrive at fair principles that grant all individuals equal rights to basic liberties and equality of opportunity and that benefit the least advantaged in society. This approach was designed to be used as a guide in any ethical decision, but it may be most useful when fairness concerns are central to the decision at hand. It offers yet another way to broaden your view and urges you to consider the needs of those who are less advantaged than yourself. .

Emotions (in Ethical Decision Making)

Age-old philosophical prescriptions assume cool, rational, ethical decisions, but we are also beginning to understand how important emotions are to the ethical decisionmaking process. 56 Importantly, emotions are not just an interference to good ethical judgment, as many used to believe. Instead, emotions often lead to right action. 57 For example, when we consider hurting someone, our brain reacts with a visceral negative emotion ("an internal alarm") that keeps violence in check. 58 And these reactions tend to happen very quickly, before we even have time to engage in rational thought. The bottom line here is that we often act not because we have coolly and rationally decided on the best course of action, but rather because it "feels" like the right thing to do at the time. Often, emotions can lead us to act ethically. But emotions can also interfere with good decision making when they lead to a (perhaps irrational) desire for revenge.

National Boundaries

Almost everyone recognizes a distinction between welfare and foreign aid. And most agree that we have a special responsibility to meet the needs of our own citizens that does not extend to everyone in the world. Is this distinction morally defensible, or is it mere favoritism, a prejudice for our own kind? What, really is the moral significance of national boundaries? In terms of sheer need, the billion people around the world who live on less than a dollar a day are worse off than our poor.

Choosing Self

An early version of the choosing self comes to us from John Locke. He argued that legitimate government must be based on consent. Why? Because we are free and independent beings, not subject to paternal authority or the divine rights of kings. Since we are "by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. A century later, Immanuel Kant offered a more powerful version of the choosing self. Against the utilitiarian and empiricist philosphers, Kant argued that we must thing of ourselves as more than a bundle of preferences and desires. To be free is to be autonomous, and to be autonomous is to be governed by a law I give myself. Kantaian autonomy is more demanding than consent. When I will the moral law, I don't simply choose according to my contingent desires or allegiances. Instead, I step back from my particular interests and attachments, and will as a participant in pure practical reason. In the twentieth century, John Rawls adapted Kant's conception of the autonomous self and drew upon it in his theory of justice. Like Kant, Rawls observed that the choices we make often reflect morally arbitary continegncies. Someone's choice to work in a sweat shop, for example, might reflect dire economic necessity, not free choice in an meaningful sense. So if we want society to be a voluntary arrangement, we can't base it on actual consent; we should ask instead, what principles of justice we would agree to if we set aside our particular interests and advantages, and choose behind a veil of ingnorance.

Locus of Control

Another individual characteristic that has been found to influence ethical action is locus of control. 32 Locus of control refers to an individual's perception of how much control he or she exerts over life events. Locus of control can be thought of as a single continuum from a high internal locus of control to a high external locus of control. An individual with a high internal locus of control believes that outcomes are primarily the result of his or her own efforts, whereas an individual with a high external locus of control believes that life events are determined primarily by fate, luck, or powerful others. If an individual takes personal responsibility for his or her behavior, it seems likely that person will also behave more ethically. For example, studies have found that internals are more likely to help another person, even if there's a penalty for doing so. doing so. Internals see themselves as being in charge of their own fates. Therefore, they should also be less willing to be pressured by others to do things they believe to be wrong. One interesting study asked subjects to complete a story in which the main character was pressured to violate a social norm. The more internal the subject's locus of control, the more likely the story completion had the hero resisting the pressure. an internal locus of control and more principled thinking are generally associated with ethical action,

Current generation

Anyone can deplore an injustice. But only someone who is somehow implicated in the injustice can apologize for it. Critics of apologies correctly grasp in the moral stakes. And they reject the idea that the current generation can be morally responsible for the sins of their forebears.

Overt Bribe or Kickback

Anything that could be considered a bribe or kickback is a clear conflict of interest. It doesn't matter whether the bribe or kickback is in the form of money or something else of substantial value that is offered in exchange for access to specific products, services, or influence.

Purpose (Social Institution)

Arguments about justice and rights are often arguments about the purpose, or telos, of a social institution, which in turn reflects competing notions of the virtues the institution should honor and reward. What can we do if people disagree about the telos, or purpose, of the activity in question?

Personal Virtues (Virtue Ethics-Ethics Toolkit)

Aristotle It helps me become a better person. Who am I? What kind of person would this action make me? Let's consider what kind of organizational identity we want to covey to the public.

Justice (Aristotle)

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) does not think justice can be neutral in this way. He believes that debates about justice are, unavoidably, debates about honor, virtue, and the nature of the good life. Seeing why Aristotle thinks justice and the good life must be connected will help us see what's at stake in the effort to separate them. For Aristotle, justice means giving people what they deserve, giving each person his or her due. But what is a person due? What are the relevant grounds of merit or desert? That depends on what's being distributed. Justice involves two factors: "things, and the persons to whom things are assigned." And in general we say that "persons who are equal should have assigned to them equal things."2

distributive justice (aristotle)

Aristotle reminds us that all theories of distributive justice discriminate. The question is: Which discriminations are just? And the answer depends on the purpose of the activity in question. So, before we can say how political rights and authority should we distributed, we have to inquire into the purpose, or telos, of politcs. We have to ask, "What is political association for?"

Reasoning (aristotle--telos)

Aristotle's point is that, in distributing flutes, we should not look for the richest or best-looking or even the best person overall. We should look for the best flute player. The most obvious reason for giving the best flutes to the best flute players is that doing so will produce the best music, making us listeners better off. But this is not Artistotle's reason. He thinks the best flutes should go to the best flute players because that's what flutes are for--to be played well. The purpose of flutes is to produce excellent music. Those who can best realize this purpose ought to have the best ones. Now it's also true that giving the best instruments to the best musicians will have the welcome effect of producing the best music, which everyone will enjoy--producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But's it's important to see that Aristotle's reason goes beyond this utilitarian consideration. His way of reasoning from the purpose of a good to the proper allocation of the good is an instnace of telelogical reasoning. (Teleolgical comes form the greek word telos, which means purpose, end, or goal) Aristotle claims that in order to determine the just distribution of a good, we have to inquire into the telos, or purpose, of the good being distributed.

Citizenship (Aristotle)

Aristotle's vision of citizenship is more elevated and strenuous than ours. For him, politics is not economics by other means. Its purpose is higher than maximizing utility or providing fair rules for the pursuit of individual interest. It is, instead, an expression of our nature, an occasion for the unfolding of our human capacities, an essential aspect of the good life.

Buck Stops with Managers

As a manager, you can design your own little insurance policy to help protect you and your organization from employees who might cause problems. You can begin to protect yourself by understanding and internalizing the idea that the people who report to you are looking to you for guidance and approval. That means that you need to actively manage ethics. Your employees want to know what your rules are, so you need to think carefully about your standards and consciously try to communicate and enforce them. Most important, you need to understand that you are a role model and your employees will follow your example. Set Clear Standards The very best way for managers to gain credibility and respect among employees is to set clear standards, live by those standards, very deliberately communicate them, and insist that everyone adhere to them. And, don't be afraid to set ethical standards that say "how" you want your people to behave. Remember, ethical standards are needed in order to balance the financial goals that can narrow employees' attention to just focusing on bottom line outcomes rather than how those outcomes are achieved. It's important to understand that, as a manager, you are setting standards and communicating organizational culture all the time. In fact, failing to deliberately set ethical standards is a standard in itself, since your employees may very well interpret it as meaning you have no standards. In this era of teams and empowered employees, managers need to be very deliberate in spelling out what they stand for and "how things are going to be done around here." Those ethical standards have to be demonstrated by the manager and enforced, or people won't believe them. It's what "walking the talk" really means. Plus, employees figure out what really matters to an organization by observing manager behavior. This is how culture gets baked into an organization (and once employee perceptions are baked in, they are very difficult to change).

Moral Reasoning (Utilitarian)

As a test of utilitarian moral reasoning, however, the ticking time bomb case is misleading. It purports to prove that numbers count, so that if enough lives are at stake, we should be willing to override our scruples about dignity and rights. And if that is true, then morality is about calculating costs and benefits after all. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 588-591). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Ethical Assumption

As human beings and members of society, all of us are hardwired with a moral and ethical dimension as well as self-interested concerns. People care about ethics for reasons that stem from both of these sources.

Realm of reason

As we encounter new situations, we move back and forth between our judgments and our principles, revising each in light of the other. This turning of mind, from the world of action to the realm of reasons and back again, is what moral reflection consists in. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 431-433). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Conventional (Stage 3 & 4)

At level II (labeled the __________ and including stages 3 and 4), the individual is still externally focused on others but is less selfcentered and has internalized the shared moral norms of society or some segment like a family or work group. What's ethically right is explained in terms of living up to roles and the expectations of relevant others, fulfilling duties and obligations, and following rules and laws. At stage 3, what's right is thought to be that which pleases or helps others or is approved by those close to you. Interpersonal trust and social approval are important. For example, a stage 3 response to the Evelyn dilemma might say that Evelyn shouldn't contradict her boss because he would perceive her as disloyal, and she might lose the social approval and trust of her boss and peers. On the other hand, what if Evelyn shares her dilemma with close family members whose opinions are important to her, and they feel strongly that she must contradict her boss? In this case, she would likely reason that she should contradict her boss because the people she trusts and whose approval she values say that it's the right thing to do. At stage 4, the perspective broadens to consider society. The individual is concerned about fulfilling agreed-upon duties and following rules or laws that are designed to promote the common good. A stage 4 person recognizes that rules and laws often exist for good reason, and she follows them because the social system works better when everyone does that. Therefore, a stage 4 response might say that Evelyn should contradict her boss because of her duty to society. What if the noises do represent a safety problem? She has a responsibility as a good member of society to report it. She would feel particularly strongly about this if she were aware of product safety laws that required her to report the problem.

Escalation of Commitment

Because you've already made the decision to buy the car, and you've already invested a lot of money in it, your tendency will be to continue your commitment to this previously selected investment. This tendency has been called "escalation of commitment to a losing course of action" or "throwing good money after bad." A perfectly rational decision maker would consider the time and expenses already invested as "sunk costs." They aren't recoverable and shouldn't be considered in a decision about what to do. Only future costs and benefits should be considered. But this is difficult. Norms in our society and in our organizations support trying, persisting, and sticking with a course of action. Also, if others are involved, we're likely to feel the need to justify our original decision—whether it was to buy a car, a piece of equipment, or land. So when you're in a situation that involves decisions about whether to continue to invest in an ongoing project, be careful! One way to overcome escalation of commitment is, as with many biases, to recognize that it exists and try to adjust for it. Ask yourself explicit questions about whether you're committed to a decision just because failure would make your original decision look bad.

escalation of commitment

Because you've already made the decision to purchase, your tendency will be to continue your commitment to this previously selected investment. This tendency has been called "escalation of commitment to a losing course of action" or "throwing good money after bad."

Confirmation Trap

Being overconfident can make you fail to search for additional facts or for support for the facts you have. 42 Even if you gather additional facts or support, another cognitive bias termed the confirmation trap may influence your choice of which facts to gather and where to confirmation In an attempt to overcome the confirmation trap, it's important that you consciously try to think of ways you could be wrong. Incorporate questions in your individual and group decision-making processes such as, "How could I/we be wrong?" "What facts are still missing?" and "What facts exist that might prove me/us to be wrong?" You may still miss some important facts, but you'll miss less of them than if you didn't ask these questions at all.

Justice (Deontology--Ethics Toolkit)

Benefits and costs are equitably distributed. Will this decision be fair to all involved? Will any of our stakeholders feel this decision is unfair to them?

Betham

Bentham, an English moral philosopher and legal reformer, founded the doctrine of utilitarianism. Its main idea is simply stated and intuitively appealing: The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain. According to Bentham, the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility. By "utility," he means whatever produces pleasure or happiness, and whatever prevents pain or suffering. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 504-507). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

employer-employee contract

Both parties have expectations, and rights, and offer consideration to the other—all are characteristics of a contractual relationship. Your employer pays you in salary and benefits to perform a job, and your organization expects you to behave in a certain way; you have a responsibility to be "part of the family" and exhibit loyalty and other corporate "virtues" and to refrain from other, less desirable behaviors. On the other hand, you expect not only a salary for the work you perform but also a modicum of fairness. Most people expect employers to treat them decently and to provide an appropriate work environment. Whenever we discuss the employer-employee contract in this chapter, it's this complicated set of expectations that we're referring to.

(Subtle) Bribes

Bribes can be interpreted to include gifts and entertainment. Some organization have instituted policies that allow no gifts at all, even gifts of nominal value. Accepting discounts on personal items from a vendor will also be interpreted as a conflict. The formula to use when determining whether to accept a discount is simple: if it's a formal arrangement between your company and a supplier and it's offered to all employees, it's probably acceptable; if the discount is being extended only to you, it's generally not considered acceptable.

Using Power Responsbily

Business is learning that it must use its power responsibly or risk losing it. Using power responsibly means being concerned for the interests of multiple stakeholders—parties who are affected by the business and its actions and who have an interest in what the business does and how it performs.

Moral Reasoning

But how exactly can we reason our way from the judgments we make about concrete situations to the principles of justice we believe should apply in all situations? What, in short, does moral reasoning consist in? To see how moral reasoning can proceed, let's turn to two situations—one a fanciful hypothetical story much discussed by philosophers, the other an actual story about an excruciating moral dilemma. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 313-316). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Equal (contracts)

But imagine a contract among parties who were equal in power and knowledge, rather than unequal; who were identically situated, not differently situated. And imagine that the object of this contract was not plumbing or any ordinary deal, but the principles to govern our lives together, to assign our rights and duties as citizens. A contract like this, among parties like these, would leave no room for coercion or deception or other unfair advantages. Its terms would be just, whatever they were, by virtue of their agreement alone. If you can imagine a contract like this, you have arrived at Rawls's idea of a hypothetical agreement in an initial situation of equality. The veil of ignorance ensures the equality of power and knowledge that the original position requires. By ensuring that no one knows his or her place in society, his strengths or weaknesses, his values or ends, the veil of ignorance ensures that no one can take advantage, even unwittingly, of a favorable bargaining position.

Duty (to tell the truth)

But suppose a friend was hiding in your house, and a murderer came to the door looking for him. Wouldn't it be right to lie to the murderer? Kant says no. The duty to tell the truth holds regardless of the consequences.

Just Society

But the notion that a just society affirms certain virtues and conceptions of the good life has inspired political movements and arguments across the ideological spectrum. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 307-308). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Free Will

But these are not moral principles, only prudential ones. Insofar as we exercise pure practical reason, we abstract from our particular interests. This means that everyone who exercises pure practical reason will reach the same conclusion—will arrive at a single (universal) categorical imperative. "Thus a free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same."27

Ultimate Test

Cannibalism between consenting adults poses the ultimate test for the libertarian principle of self-ownership and the idea of justice that follows from it. It is an extreme form of assisted suicide. Since it has nothing to do with relieving the pain of a terminally ill patient, it can be justified only on the grounds that we own our bodies and lives, and may do with them what we please. If the libertarian claim is right, banning consensual cannibalism is unjust, a violation of the right to liberty. The state may no more punish Armin Meiwes than it may tax Bill Gates and Michael Jordan to help the poor. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 1132-1136). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Universal Law

Categorical imperative I: Universalize your maxim The first version Kant calls the formula of the universal law: "Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."19 By "maxim," Kant means a rule or principle that gives the reason for your action. He is saying, in effect, that we should act only on principles that we could universalize without contradiction. To see what Kant means by this admittedly abstract test, let's consider a concrete moral question: Is it ever right to make a promise you know you won't be able to keep?

Persons as ends

Categorical imperative II: Treat persons as ends The moral force of the categorical imperative becomes clearer in Kant's second formulation of it, the formula of humanity as an end. Kant introduces the second version of the categorical imperative as follows: We can't base the moral law on any particular interests, purposes, or ends, because then it would be only relative to the person whose ends they were.

Political Philosophy (Aristotle)

Central to Aristotle's political philosophy are two ideas, both present in the argument over Callie: 1. Justice is teleological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos (the purpose, end, or essential nature) of the social practice in question. 2. Justice is honorific. To reason about the telos of a practice—or to argue about it—is, at least in part, to reason or argue about what virtues it should honor and reward. The key to understanding Aristotle's ethics and politics is to see the force of these two considerations, and the relation between them.

Ethics and Employees

Certainly, one of the key stakeholder groups in any corporate situation should be the employees of the organizations involved in the case. Organizations have myriad ethical obligations to their employees. Some of these could include the right to privacy, the right not to be fired without just cause, the right to a safe workplace, the right to due process and fair treatment, the right to freedom of speech (e.g., whistleblowing), and the right to work in an environment that is free of bias.

Behavior Economists

Classical economists assume that practically all human behavior, including altruism, is motivated solely by self-interest—that humans are purely rational economic actors who make choices solely on the basis of cold cost-benefit analyses. However, a new group of economists who call themselves behavioral economists have found that people are not only less rational than classical economists assumed, but more moral. Much evidence suggests that people act for altruistic or moral purposes that seemingly have little to do with cost-benefit analyses.

High Moral Managers

Cognitive moral development theory and research tell us that most of the people you manage are going to be strongly influenced by what you do, say, and reward. They can be thought of as "good soldiers" who are looking up and looking around for guidance from you and their peers, and they're likely to mimic what they see around them. Therefore, it's the manager's responsibility to structure the work environment in a way that supports ethical conduct. If you avoid this responsibility, these people will look elsewhere for guidance, probably to their peers, and the guidance they receive may not support ethical conduct at all. A small percentage of individuals may never advance beyond preconventional thinking. Such individuals can be thought of as "loose cannons." They will do whatever they can get away with. People like this require close supervision and clear discipline when they get out of line. Those individuals who have reached principled levels of moral reasoning should be singled out to lead key decision-making groups, to manage situations where ethical ambiguities are likely to arise, and to lead organizations. Research on ethical decision making in groups has found that when less-principled individuals lead a group, the group's ethical decision-making performance decreases. Also, when an organization's leader is high in cognitive moral development, the entire ethical climate of the organization is stronger. This is particularly true for leaders whose choices are consistent with their ethical reasoning capacity and for leaders who run young organizations that are more open to their influence. Finally, when employees and the organization's leader are similar in their level of cognitive moral development, the employees are more satisfied and more committed to the organization. Employee satisfaction and commitment are especially negative when the leader's cognitive moral development is lower than the moral development of employees.

allegiance

Collective apologies and reparations for historic injustices are good examples of the way solidarity can create moral responsibilities for communities other than my own. Making amends for my country's past wrongs is one way of affirming my allegiance to it.

Ethics and the Community

Companies are citizens in their communities, just as individuals are, and because of their size, companies can have an outsized impact on their communities. Therefore a major stakeholder in business must be the communities of which corporations and other organizations are a part. Perhaps the most obvious way a company can affect its community is through its approach to the environment The resulting public outcry resulted in the Environmental Protection Act in 1969 and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. The goal of both the act and the agency is to protect the environment—air, water, earth—from the activities of businesses and individuals. Of course, we all need to think long term about the health of the planet and its environs for ourselves, our children, and other generations to follow. In addition to environmental concerns, another issue that affects all of us as a society is relatively new: Internet privacy.

Managing a Diverse Workforce

Companies that best address the needs of a diverse population will probably be in a better position to succeed than companies that ignore this new reality. Managers must be able to deal with individuals of both genders and all ages, races, religions, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations. Managers need to have this ability themselves, and they need to encourage this ability in team members. Managers must become "conductors" who orchestrate team performance—sometimes teaching, sometimes coaching, and always communicating with employees and empowering them to learn and make good decisions. The second skill set required of the new manager involves positively influencing the relationships among other team members and creating an ethical work environment that enhances individual productivity. Since a bias-free person hasn't been born yet, managers also must be able to counsel team members in their relationships with one another. Because every team will include a wide range of personalities, a manager frequently needs to be a referee who mediates and resolves disputes, assigns tasks to the workers who can best accomplish them, and ensures that fairness is built into the working relationships of team members.

Fiduciary Responsibilities

Concern the obligations resulting from relationships that have their basis in faith, trust, and confidence. certain professions, such as banking, accounting, law, religion, and medicine have special obligations to customers. These obligations are commonly referred to as fiduciary responsibilities. The law and the judicial system have recognized these special obligations, and they are spelled out in the codes of ethics for those professions. Fiduciary responsibilities hold these professionals to a high standard, and when they violate those responsibilities, the punishment is often harsh.

Rival Theories (Distribution of Justice)

Consider, then, four rival theories of distribution justice: 1. Feudal or caste system: fixed hierarchy based on birth. 2. Libertarian: free market with formal equality of opportunity. 3. Meritocratic: free market with fair equality of opportunity. 4. Egalitarian: Rawls's difference principle. Rawls argues that each of the first three theories bases distributive shares on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view—whether accident of birth, or social and economic advantage, or natural talents and abilities. Only the difference principle avoids basing the distribution of income and wealth on these contingencies.

Harassment

Do compliments constitute harassment? They do when they embarrass someone and serve to undermine an individual's professional standing in front of coworkers. It's the manager's job to maintain a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group—in this case, the attempt by one individual to impose his or her opinions or behavior on other team members. The objectives are fairness and respect for each individual.

Dress Codes

Dress codes tend to raise some people's hackles. The intention of most dress codes is not to restrict individuality, but to ensure a professional appearance in the workplace. Ethnic garb shouldn't really be an issue, as long as it's modest. The aim of most dress codes is to eliminate clothing that could be viewed as immodest or too casual to a customer. Dress codes are also a very visible manifestation of your organization's culture, and how employees are advised to dress should be aligned with other elements of culture. For example, if a company is casual and egalitarian, informal dress is part of that. Managers may encourage formal dress in certain situations (such as when employees meet with conservative clients), but the reason should be explained. This issue is all about having words match actions.

Hiring

Effective managers need to be proficient at hiring the best people who fit the organizational culture, evaluating their performance, recognizing and praising excellence, and disciplining or even terminating poor performers. Hiring, promotions, and terminations should be based on qualifications, period. Talent and ability come in a variety of packages. When managers use anything other than those two factors to evaluate qualifications for hiring, promotions, or work assignments, they shortchange not only the individual but also their employer and their customers One way to hire is to deeply understand your own organizational culture and to hire based on how well a candidate will "fit" into the existing culture. Both the organization and the employee are likely to be more satisfied when a good fit is achieved. So, managers must strike a delicate balance. They need to hire people who fit the current culture, but also they need to be open to people who fit, but may be different. To be successful, organizations need to nurture strong cultures that have enough differences to encourage innovation and balance and that counter the tendency to hire to a "profile."

Customer Confidence Issues

Excellent customer service also means providing a quality product or service at a fair price, honestly representing the product or service, and protecting the customer's privacy. Customer confidence issues include a range of topics such as confidentiality, product safety and effectiveness, truth in advertising, and special fiduciary responsibilities. We use the term customer confidence issues as an umbrella to address the wide range of topics that can affect your relationship with your customer. These are ethical issues because they revolve around fairness, honesty, responsibility, truth, and respect for others. Customer relationships can't survive without these basics of trust. .

Potential for Harm (Ethical Awareness)

Finally, and perhaps most important, an issue or situation that has the potential to produce serious harm to others is more likely to be seen as an ethical issue. Thomas Jones proposed that individuals are more likely to recognize the ethical nature of issues that are morally intense. 8 The moral intensity of an issue is higher when the consequences for others are potentially large, the consequences are relatively immediate and likely to occur, and the potential victims are psychologically or physically close to the decision maker.

Agreement

First, the fact of an agreement does not guarantee the fairness of the agreement. Second, consent is not enough to create a binding moral claim. Far from an instrument of mutual benefit, this contract mocks the ideal of reciprocity. This explains, I think, why few people would say that the elderly woman was morally obliged to pay the outrageous sum.

Justice (Aristotle)

For Aristotle, justice is a matter of fit. To allocate rights it to look for the telos of social institutions, and to fit persons to the roles that suit them, the roles that enable them to realize their nature. Giving persons their due means giving them the offices and honors they deserve and the social roles that accord with their nature.

Purpose (of politics--aristotle)

For Aristotle, the purpose of politics is not to set up a framework of rights that is neutral among ends. it is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character. The democrats are wrong because political community isn't only about giving the majority its way. By democrats, Aristotle means what we would call majoritarians. He rejects the notion that the purpose of politics is to satisfy the preferences of the majority. For Aristotle, politics is about something higher. It's about learning how to live a good life. The purpose of politics is nothing less than to enable people to develop their distinctive human capacities and virtues--to deliberate about the common good, to acquire practical judgement, to share in self-government, to care for the fate of the community as a whole.

Categorical Imperative

For Kant, a categorical imperative commands, well, categorically—without reference to or dependence on any further purpose. "It is concerned not with the matter of the action and its presumed results, but with its form, and with the principle from which it follows. And what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may." Only a categorical imperative, Kant argues, can qualify as an imperative of morality.17

Respect

For Kant, self-respect and respect for other persons flow from one and the same principle. The duty of respect is a duty we owe to persons as rational beings, as bearers of humanity. It has nothing to do with who in particular the person may be.

Belonging

For MacIntye (as for Aristotle), the narrative, or telelogical, aspect of moral reflection is bound up with membership and belonging. We all approach our own circumstances as bearers of a particular social identity. I am someone's son or daughter, someone's cousin or uncle; I am a citizen of this or that city, a member of this or that guild or profession; I belong to this clan, that tribe, this nation. hence what is good for me has to be good for one who inhabits these roles. As such, I inherit from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my nation a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations. These constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point. This is in part what gives my own life its moral particuarlity.

Values

For individuals, values can be defined as "one's core beliefs about what is important, what is valued, and how one should behave across a wide variety of situations.

Telos

For liberal political theory, slavery is unjust because it is coercive. For teleological theories, slavery is unjust because it is at odds with our nature; coercion is a symptom of the injustice, not the source of it. It is perfectly possible to explain, within the ethic of telos and fit, the injustice of slavery, and Aristotle goes some way (though not all the way) toward doing so.

welfare state

For libertarians, a neutral state requires civil liberties and a strict regime of private property rights. The welfare state, they argue, does not enable individuals to choose their own ends, but coerces some for the good of others.

Slavery (Aristotle)

For slavery to be just, according to Aristotle, two conditions must be met: it must be necessary, and it must be natural. Slavery is necessary, Aristotle argues, because someone must look after the household chores if citizens are to spend time in the assembly deliberating about the common good. So Aristotle concludes that slavery is necessary. But necessity is not enough. For slavery to be just, it must also be the case that certain persons are suited by their nature to perform this role. Aristotle concludes that such people exist. Some people are born to be slaves.

Office Romance

From an ethics perspective, it's most important to avoid romance with anyone you supervise or who supervises you because of the conflict of interest involved and the potential for unfair treatment of other direct reports (and most companies have antinepotism policies). The supervisor's judgment is likely to be compromised by the relationship, and others in the work group are likely to lose respect for both parties and be concerned about preferential treatment. Honesty is another ethical issue that emerges.

Good Managers

Good managers do four things really well: hire good people, define clear expectations (including ethical expectations), recognize excellence and praise it, and finally, show their people that they care. To employees, managers are the company, and if managers are not able to manage the basics well, it will be extremely difficult to inspire people to meet business goals or live organizational values.

Harassment (is Discriminatory)

Harassment (sexual or otherwise) is considered to be a form of discrimination. It is therefore an ethical issue because it unfairly focuses job satisfaction, advancement, or retention on a factor other than the employee's ability to do the job. Most instances of sexual harassment have nothing to do with romance and everything to do with power and fairness..

Disctinction

Here Rawls makes an important but subtle distinction--between moral desert and what he calls "entitlements to legitimate expectations." The difference is this: Unlike a desert claim, an entitlement can arise only certain rules of the game are in place. It can't tell us how to set up the rules in the first place.

Compassion

Here is a case where compassion might point one way and Kantian respect another. From the standpoint of the categorical imperative, lying to your mother out of concern for her feelings would arguably use her as a means to her own contentment rather than respect her as a rational being.

end itself

Here, then, is the link between freedom as autonomy and Kant's idea of morality. To act freely is not to choose the best means to a given end; it is to choose the end itself, for its own sake—a choice that human beings can make and billiard balls (and most animals) cannot.

Autonomous Principled (Thinking & Action)

Higher-stage thinking is more independent of these external influences. The postconventional principled thinker looks to justice and rights-based principles to guide ethical decision making. Research has demonstrated that these individuals are also more likely to behave consistently with their principle-based decisions—they're more likely to carry through and do what they think is right. More principled individuals also have been found to be less likely to cheat, more likely to resist pressure from authority figures, more likely to help someone in need, and more likely to blow the whistle on misconduct.

Liberty (1859--free as long as no harm)

His book On Liberty (1859) is the classic defense of individual freedom in the English-speaking world. Its central principle is that people should be free to do whatever they want, provided they do no harm to others. Government may not interfere with individual liberty in order to protect a person from himself, or to impose the majority's beliefs about how best to live. The only actions for which a person is accountable to society, Mill argues, are those that affect others. As long as I am not harming anyone else, my "independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is soverign Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 748-752). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Star Employees

How companies manage "star" employees is one of the most telling characteristics of their ethical cultures. If an organization treats stars in a way that is consistent with their organizational values, the culture of the organization will be strengthened. On the other hand, if an organization states one thing in its values statement and permits star behavior to deviate from the organization's stated values, the entire culture can be undermined. Perhaps the biggest cultural question is who gets to be considered a star in the first place. Does only quantitative performance matter, or does performance based upon ethical values also figure in (as we recommend)? In a strong ethical culture, a star would be someone who not only performs well in terms of the bottom line but also achieves that bottom-line performance in a way that is consistent with other values such as respect for people and integrity.

Golden Rule

How does a deontologist determine what rule, principle, or right to follow? One way is to rely on moral rules that have their roots in Western biblical tradition. For example, the Golden Rule, a basic moral rule found in every major religion, is familiar to most of us and provides an important deontological guide: The most familiar version tells us to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In our layoff situation, the Golden Rule would suggest that Pat should tell her friend what she knows because she would want her friend to do the same for her if the situation were reversed. But note that the Golden Rule leads you to the best decision only if you're highly ethical. For example, do you think that the Golden Rule would expect you to lie for a friend who has broken the law because you would want the friend to do that for you? No, because a highly ethical person wouldn't ask a friend to lie. The ethical person would be responsible and would accept the consequences of his or her illegal actions.

Reason

How, then, can we reason our way through the contested terrain of justice and injustice, equality and inequality, individual rights and the common good? This book tries to answer that question. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 423-425). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Integrity (Eudaimonism--Virtue Ethics--Ethics Toolkit)

I am doing the type of work that I am called to do. Am I on a path that allows me to express my personal gifts? Am I being true to who I am? Is this consistent with our mission and vision? Is this really what we are best at doing as an organization?

Universality (Deontology-Ethics Toolkit)

I would be willing for it to become universal law. What are the core principles at stake? would we be content if other (organizations, employees, partners) did what we plan to do?

Disclosure (Virtue Ethics-Ethics Toolkit)

I would be willing to have it broadcast to the public. How would I feel if my reasoning and decision appeared on the news? How will this decision affect our image or reputation if it goes public?

Agency (Deontology--Ethics Toolkit)

It allows other people to make their own choices. Am I giving others an opportunity to make their own decisions? Will people feel disempowered or alienated by our decision?

Consent (not a sufficient condition of moral obligation)

I've argued so far that consent is not a sufficient condition of moral obligation; a lopsided deal may fall so far short of mutual benefit that even its voluntary character can't redeem it. I'd now like to offer a further, more provocative claim: Consent is not a necessary condition of moral obligation. If the mutual benefit is clear enough, the moral claims of reciprocity may hold even without an act of consent.

Freedom and Justice

If Kant and Rawls are right to conceive freedom in this way, then they are right about justice as well. If we are freely choosing, independent selves, unbound by moral ties antecedent to choice, then we need a framework of rights that is neutral among ends. If the self is prior to its ends, then the right must be prior to the good. If, however, the narrative conception of moral agency is more persuasive, then it may be worth reconsidering Aristotle's way of thinking about justice. If deliberating about my good involves reflecting on the good of those communities with which my identity is bound, then the aspiration to neutrality may be mistaken. It may not be possible, or even desirable, to deliberate about justice without deliberating about the good life.

Pure practical reason

If our wants and desires can't serve as the basis of morality, what's left? One possibility is God. But that is not Kant's answer. Although he was a Christian, Kant did not base morality on divine authority. He argues instead that we can arrive at the supreme principle of morality through the exercise of what he calls "pure practical reason." To see how, according to Kant, we can reason our way to the moral law, let's now explore the close connection, as Kant sees it, between our capacity for reason and our capacity for freedom. Kant argues that every person is worthy of respect, not because we own ourselves but because we are rational beings, capable of reason; we are also autonomous beings, capable of acting and choosing freely.

Value of human life

If the jury's objection was to the price tag, not the principle, a utilitarian could agree. Few people would choose to die in a car crash for $200,000. Most people like living. To measure the full effect on utility of a traffic fatality, one would have to include the victim's loss of future happiness, not only lost earnings and funeral costs. What, then, would be a truer estimate of the dollar value of a human life? Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 666-667). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 664-665). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

no moral burden

If the moral individualist vision of freedom is right, then the critics of official apologies have a point; we bear no moral burden for the wrongs of our predecesors.

Versus (pro versus critic utilitarianism)

If trading off certain levels of safety for certain benefits and conveniences is unavoidable, they argue, we should do so with our eyes open, and should compare the costs and benefits as systematically as possible—even if that means putting a price tag on human life. Utilitarians see our tendency to recoil at placing a monetary value on human life as an impulse we should overcome, a taboo that obstructs clear thinking and rational social choice. For critics of utilitarianism, however our hesitation points to something of moral importance—the idea that it is not possible to measure and compare all values and goods on a single scale. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 693-695). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 692-693). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 690-692). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Duty

If we act out of some motive other than duty, such as self-interest, for example, our action lacks moral worth. This is true, Kant maintains, not only for self-interest but for any and all attempts to satisfy our wants, desires, preferences, and appetites. Kant contrasts motives such as these—he calls them "motives of inclination"—with the motive of duty. And he insists that only actions done out of the motive of duty have moral worth.

Autonomous beings

If we are to think of ourselves as autonomous beings, we must first will the moral law. Only then, after we've arrived at the principle that defines our duties and rights, can we ask what conceptions of the good are compatible with it.

Human Beings (worthy of respect)

It also explains why the Kantian principle of respect lends itself to doctrines of universal human rights. For Kant, justice requires us to uphold the human rights of all persons, regardless of where they live or how well we know them, simply because they are human beings, capable of reason, and therefore worthy of respect.

Universal Duty

If you accept obligations of solidarity and belonging, the answer is obvious: Israel has a special responsibility to rescue Ethiopian Jews that goes beyond its duty (and that of all nations) to help refugees generally. Every nation has a duty to respect human rights, which requires that it provides help, according to its ability, to human beings anywhere who are suffering from famine, persecution, or displacement from their homes. This is a universal duty that can be justified on Kantian grounds, as a duty we owe persons as persons, as fellow beings.

Price Gouging

If you look closely at the price-gouging debate, you'll notice that the arguments for and against price-gouging laws revolve around three ideas: maximizing welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue. Each of these ideas points to a different way of thinking about justice.

Kant

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) offers an alternative account of duties and rights, one of the most powerful and influential accounts any philosopher has produced. It does not depend on the idea that we own ourselves, or on the claim that our lives and liberties are a gift from God. Instead, it depends on the idea that we are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect.

Hypothetical Consent

Immanuel Kant appeals to hypothetical consent. A law is just if it could have been agreed to by the public as a whole. But this, too is a puzzling alternative to an actual social contract. How can a hypotethical agreement do the work of a real one.

Robert Nozick

In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick offers a philosophical defense of libertarian principles and a challenge to familiar ideas of distributive justice. He begins with the claim that individuals have rights "so strong and far-reaching" that "they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do." He concludes that "only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates persons' rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified."7 According to Nozick, there is nothing wrong with economic inequality as such. Simply knowing that the Forbes 400 have billions while others are penniless doesn't enable you to conclude anything about the justice or injustice of the arrangement. Nozick rejects the idea that a just distribution consists of a certain pattern—such as equal income, or equal utility, or equal provision of basic needs. What matters is how the distribution came about. Nozick rejects patterned theories of justice in favor of those that honor the choices people make in free markets. He argues that distributive justice depends on two requirements—justice in initial holdings and justice in transfer.8 Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 951-956). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 945-949). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

equal liberties

In order to protect against these dangers, we would reject utilitarianism and agree to a principle of equal basic liberties for all citizens, including the right to liberty of conscience and freedom of thought. And we would insist that this principle take priority over attempts to maximize the general welfare. We would not sacrifice our fundamental rights and liberties for social and economic benefits.

Obligation

Insofar as children are obligated to help even bad parents, the moral claim may exceed the liberal ethic of reciprocity and consent.

Utilitarian Assumption

It accepts the utilitarian assumption that morality consists in weighing costs and benefits, and simply wants a fuller reckoning of the social consequences. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Location 490). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Location 489). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

patriotic sentiment

It is only if patriotic sentiment has some moral basis, only if communal cohesion makes for obligations and shared meanings, only if there are members as well as strangers, that state official would have any reason to worry especially about the welfare of their own people . . . and the success of their own culture and politics. So, if you believe that patriotism has a moral basis, if you believe that we have special responsibilities for the welfare of our fellow citizens, then you must accept the third category of obligation--obligations of solidarity or membership that can't be reduced to an act of consent.

Dignity (Deontology--Ethics Toolkit)

It treats other people as ends in themselves, and not just as a means. Am I protecting the rights and dignity of other people? Will our decisions make some people feel that they are just being used?

Understand Ethics

It's critically important that we all understand ethics, because good ethics represents the very essence of a civilized society. Each of us must understand that ethics is the bedrock for all of our relationships; it's about how we relate to our employers, our employees, our coworkers, our customers, our communities, our suppliers, and one another. Ethics is not just about the connection we have to other beings—we are all connected; rather, it's about the quality of that connection. That's the real bottom line and our society is threatened when we ignore it.

universal humanity

Jean-Jacqures Rousseau, an ardent defender of patriotism, argues that communal attachments and identities are necessary supplements to our universal humanity.

John Rawls

John Rawls (1921-2002) an American political philosopher, offers an illuminating answer to this question. In A Theory of Justice (1971), he argues that the way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would agree to in an initial situation of equality.

Utility (Utilitarianism--Ethics Toolkit)

John Stuart Mill It provides the greatest benefit to the most people. Who will be affected by my decision? Who will benefit, and who will be harmed? Let's talk about who our decision will impact the most. Who are the key stakeholders here?

Fit

Kant and Rawls reject Aristotle's teleology because it doesn't seem to leave us room to choose our good for ourselves. It is easy to see how Aristotle's theory gives rise to this worry. He sees justice as a matter of fit between persons and the ends or good appropriate to their nature. Be we are inclined to see justice as a matter of choice, not fit. Rawls' case for the priority of the right over the good reflects the conviction that a "moral person is subject with ends he has chosen" As moral agents, we are defined not by our ends but by our capactiy for choice.

Reason

Kant argues that all action is governed by laws of some kind or other. And if our actions were governed solely by the laws of physics, then we would be no different from that billiard ball. So if we're capable of freedom, we must be capable of acting not according to a law that is given or imposed on us, but according to a law we give ourselves. But where could such a law come from? Kant's answer: from reason.

End (Treating humanity as an end)

Kant's notion of treating humanity as an end puts murder and suicide on the same footing. If I commit murder, I take someone's life for the sake of some interest of my own—robbing a bank, or consolidating my political power, or giving vent to my anger. I use the victim as a means, and fail to respect his or her humanity as an end. This is why murder violates the categorical imperative. For Kant, suicide violates the categorical imperative in the same way. If I end my life to escape a painful condition, I use myself as a means for the relief of my own suffering. But as Kant reminds us, a person is not a thing, "not something to be used merely as a means." I have no more right to dispose of humanity in my own person than in someone else. For Kant, suicide is wrong for the same reason that murder is wrong. Both treat persons as things, and fail to respect humanity as an end in itself.24

Within Marriage

Kant concludes that only sex within marriage can avoid "degrading humanity." Only when two persons give each other the whole of themselves, and not merely the use of their sexual capacities, can sex be other than objectifying. Only when both partners share with each other their "person, body and soul, for good and ill and in every respect," can their sexuality lead to "a union of human beings."

Hypothetical Imperative

Kant contrasts hypothetical imperatives, which are always conditional, with a kind of imperative that is unconditional: a categorical imperative. "If the action would be good solely as a means to something else," Kant writes, "the imperative is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself, and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical."16 The term categorical may seem like jargon, but it's not that distant from our ordinary use of the term. By "categorical," Kant means unconditional. So, for example, when a politician issues a categorical denial of an alleged scandal, the denial is not merely emphatic; it's unconditional—without any loophole or exception. Similarly, a categorical duty or categorical right is one that applies regardless of the circumstances.

Preserve Life (Duty vs other motives)

Kant does not maintain that only miserable people can fulfill the duty to preserve their lives. It is possible to love life and still preserve it for the right reason—namely, that one has a duty to do so. The desire to go on living doesn't undermine the moral worth of preserving one's life, provided the person recognizes the duty to preserve his or her own life, and does so with this reason in mind.

Kant (rejects utilitarianism)

Kant rejects utilitarianism, not only as a basis for personal morality but also as a basis for law. As he sees it, a just constitution aims at harmonizing each individual's freedom with that of everyone else. It has nothing to do with maximizing utility, which "must on no account interfere" with the determination of basic rights. Since people "have different views on the empirical end of happiness and what it consists of," utility can't be the basis of justice and rights. Why not? Because resting rights on utility would require the society to affirm or endorse one conception of happiness over others.

Against Utilitarianism

Kant rejects utilitarianism. By resting rights on a calculation about what will produce the greatest happiness, he argues, utilitarianism leaves rights vulnerable. There is also a deeper problem: trying to derive moral principles from the desires we happen to have is the wrong way to think about morality. Just because something gives many people pleasure doesn't make it right. The mere fact that the majority, however big, favors a certain law, however intensely, does not make the law just.

White Lie

Kant would reject the white lie, because it makes an exception to the moral law on consequentialist grounds. Sparing someone's feelings is an admirable end, but it must be pursued in a way that is consistent with the categorical imperative, which requires that we be willing to universalize the principle on which we act. Did he lie?"—supports the Kantian thought that there is a morally relevant difference between a lie and a misleading truth. .

Kants Groundwork

Kant's Groundwork launched a devastating critique of utilitarianism. It argues that morality is not about maximizing happiness or any other end. Instead, it is about respecting persons as ends in themselves.

Cognitive Moral Development

Kohlberg's moral reasoning theory is a cognitive developmental theory that focuses primarily on how people think about and decide what course of action is ethically right. Kohlberg's cognitive moral development theory proposes that moral reasoning develops sequentially through three broad levels, each composed of two stages. As individuals move forward through the sequence of stages, they are cognitively capable of comprehending all reasoning at stages below their own, but they cannot comprehend reasoning more than one stage above their own. Development through the stages results from the cognitive disequilibrium that occurs when an individual perceives a contradiction between his or her own reasoning level and the next higher one. This kind of development can occur through training, but it generally occurs through interaction with peers and life situations that challenge the individual's current way of thinking. According to Kohlberg, the actual decision an individual makes isn't as important as the reasoning process used to arrive at it. However, he argued—and this is an important concept—that the higher the reasoning stage, the more ethical the decision, because the higher stages are more consistent with prescriptive ethical principles of justice and rights

Layoffs

Layoffs can result from many kinds of reorganizations, such as mergers, acquisitions, and relocations, or they can be the result of economic reasons or changes in business strategy. A layoff can result from a decision to trim staff in one department or from a decision to reduce head count across the company. Whatever the reason, layoffs are painful not only for the person losing his or her job but also for the coworkers who'll be left behind. Coworkers tend to display several reactions: they exhibit low morale; they become less productive; they distrust management; and they become extremely cautious. In addition, layoff survivors are generally very concerned about the fairness of the layoff. They need to feel that the downsizing was necessary for legitimate business reasons; that it was conducted in a way that was consistent with the corporate culture; that layoff victims received ample notice; and that the victims were treated with dignity and respect. If management provided "a clear and adequate explanation of the reasons for the layoffs," survivors are more likely to view the layoffs as being fair. 9 Once again, if a company espouses respect and concern for employees in its values statements or executive speeches and then lays off employees in a particularly brutal way, it undermines employee confidence in the organization. Layoffs and other terminations speak volumes about what a culture truly values. Smart companies make sure that their actions are aligned with their values.

Consent

Legal thinkers have debated this question for a long time. Can consent create an obligation on its own, or is some element of benefit or reliance also required?3 This debate tells us something about the morality of contracts that we often overlook: actual contracts carry moral weight insofar as they realize two ideals—autonomy and reciprocity. As voluntary acts, contracts express our autonomy; the obligations they create carry weight because they are self-imposed—we take them freely upon ourselves. As instruments of mutual benefit, contracts draw on the ideal of reciprocity; the obligation to fulfill them arises from the obligation to repay others for the benefits they provide us. In practice, these ideals—autonomy and reciprocity—are imperfectly realized. Some agreements, though voluntary, are not mutually beneficial. And sometimes we can be obligated to repay a benefit simply on grounds of reciprocity, even in the absence of a contract. This points to the moral limits of consent: In some cases, consent may not be enough to create a morally binding obligation; in others, it may not be necessary.

Liberal Freedom

Liberal freedom developed as an antidote to political theories that consigned persons to destinies fixed by caste or class, station or rank, custom, tradition, or inherited status. So how is it possible to acknowledge the moral weight of community while still giving scope to human freedom? If the voluntarist conception of the person is too spare--if all our obligations are not the product of our will--then how can we see ourselves as situated and yet free?

General Duty

Liberal philosophers are happy to concede: As long as we don't violate anyone's rights, we can fulfill the general duty to help others by helping those who are close at hand---such as family members or fellow citizens.

Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism, has been associated with unethical action. Perhaps you have heard the term Machiavellian used to describe individuals who act in self-interested, opportunistic, deceptive, and manipulative ways to win no matter what the cost or how it affects other people. The personality trait known as Machiavellianism was named after Niccol o Machiavelli, a sixteenth-century philosopher, statesman, and political theorist who is associated with promoting a pragmatic leadership style that included amoral, if not clearly unethical, behavior with the aim of achieving self-interested outcomes. The idea that "the ends justify the means" is often associated with Machiavelli. Machiavellianism has found that individuals high on Machiavellianism are significantly more likely to have unethical intentions and to engage in unethical action such as lying, cheating, and accepting kickbacks. 37 Managers should be on the lookout for employees who they think might be Machiavellian because they are likely to engage in self-interested action that can put the entire organization at risk. Organizations may also want to consider including Machiavellianism among other personality characteristics when assessing job applicants.

Impulse

Mill concedes that "occasionally, under the influence of temptation," even the best of us postpone higher pleasures to lower ones. Everyone gives in to the impulse to be a couch potato once in a while. But this does not mean we don't know the difference between Rembrandt and reruns. Mill makes this point in a memorable passage: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."29 Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 849-854). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Distinction

Mill tries to save utilitarianism from this objection. Unlike Bentham, Mill believes it is possible to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures—to assess the quality, not just the quantity or intensity, of our desires. And he thinks he can make this distinction without relying on any moral ideas other than utility itself. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 816-818). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Mill's Writings

Mill's writings can be read as a strenuous attempt to reconcile individual rights with the utilitarian philosophy Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 746-747). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Consequentialist (Teleological)

One set of philosophical theories is categorized as consequentialist (sometimes referred to as teleological, from the Greek telos for "end" and logos for "reason"). When you're attempting to decide what's right or wrong, consequentialist theories focus attention on the results or consequences of the decision or action. The consequentialist approach remains particularly important to ethical decision making in business for a variety of reasons. First, utilitarian thinking—through its descendant, utility theory—underlies much of the business and economics literature. Second, on the face of it, most of us would admit that considering the consequences of one's decisions or actions for society is extremely important to good ethical decision making. In fact, studies of ethical decision making in business have found that business managers generally rely on such an approach. 3 As we'll see, though, other kinds of considerations are also important.

Mill's Principle

Mill's principle of liberty would seem to need a sturdier moral basis than Bentham's principle of utility. Mill disagrees. He insists that the case for individual liberty rests entirely on utilitarian considerations: "It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being."20 Mill thinks we should maximize utility, not case by case, but in the long run. And over time, he argues, respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest human happiness. Allowing the majority to silence dissenters or censor free-thinkers might maximize utility today, but it will make society worse off—less happy—in the long run. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 762-764). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 757-762). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Pleasure

Mill's response to the second objection to utilitarianism—that it reduces all values to a single scale—also turns out to lean on moral ideals independent of utility. In Utilitarianism (1861), a long essay Mill wrote shortly after On Liberty, he tries to show that utilitarians can distinguish higher pleasures from lower ones. For Bentham, pleasure is pleasure and pain is pain. The only basis for judging one experience better or worse than another is the intensity and duration of the pleasure or pain it produces. The so-called higher pleasures or nobler virtues are simply those that produce stronger, longer pleasure. Bentham recognizes no qualitative distinction among pleasures. "The quantity of pleasure being equal," he writes, "push-pin is as good as poetry."24 (Push-pin was a children's game.) Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 792-798). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Celebration (of individuality)

Mill's robust celebration of individuality is the most distinctive contribution of On Liberty. But it is also a kind of heresy. Since it appeals to moral ideals beyond utility—ideals of character and human flourishing—it is not really an elaboration of Bentham's principle but a renunciation of it, despite Mill's claim to the contrary. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 788-791). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Individual Rights

Mill's speculations about the salutary social effects of liberty are plausible enough. But they do not provide a convincing moral basis for individual rights, for at least two reasons: First, respecting individual rights for the sake of promoting social progress leaves rights hostage to contingency. Second, basing rights on utilitarian considerations misses the sense in which violating someone's rights inflicts a wrong on the individual, whatever its effect on the general welfare. If the majority persecutes adherents of an unpopular faith, doesn't it do an injustice to them, as individuals, regardless of any bad effects such intolerance may produce for society as a whole over time? Mill has an answer to these challenges, but it carries him beyond the confines of utilitarian morality. Forcing a person to live according to custom or convention or prevailing opinion is wrong, Mill explains, because it prevents him from achieving the highest end of human life—the full and free development of his human faculties. Conformity, in Mill's account, is the enemy of the best way to live. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 775-778). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 772-775). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 769-771). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman (1912-2006) argued that many widely accepted state activities are illegitimate infringements on individual freedom. Social Security, or any mandatory, government-run retirement program, is one of his prime examples: Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 929-931). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Moral Justification

Moral disengagement mechanisms can be organized into three categories. One of these categories involves ways of thinking about our behavior that makes bad behavior seem more acceptable. A mechanism in this category is the use of euphemistic language (discussed earlier in relation to ethical awareness). Another is called moral justification, whereby unethical behavior is thought to be okay because it contributes to some socially valued outcome. For example, mortgage lenders may have believed that it was okay to sell those no-doc loans to people because they were helping individuals who would otherwise not be able to purchase a home to take part in the "American dream."

Moral Virtue

Moral excellence does not consist in aggregating pleasures and pains but in aligning them, so that we delight in noble things and takes pain in base ones. Happiness is not a state of mind but a way of being, "an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue." "Moral virtue comes about as a result of habit." It's the kind of thing we learn by doing." The virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well."

Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Most corporations have policies that prohibit any kind of drug or alcohol use on company premises, and many companies have severe penalties for employees who are caught working under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Both alcoholism and drug addiction are costly in terms of the abuser's health, and they can both cause extreme danger in the workplace. Substance abuse is considered an illness (and generally not an offense that will get the employee fired—at least in many large corporations), and the employee usually will be counseled by human resources. If abuse is present, most large employers offer substance abuse programs for employees and will probably insist that your employee participate in such a program. In most large companies, employees are given one or two chances to get clean. If the problem recurs, substance abusers can be terminated.

Discipline

Most managers view disciplining employees as something to be postponed for as long as possible. Many people in a work environment simply ignore a worker's shortcomings and hope the situation will improve. Discipline, however, is important not only to ensure worker productivity but also to set the standard that certain behaviors are expected from all employees, and to meet the requirements of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The effects of unreasonable discipline (and unreasonable assignments) are far reaching, and that's why discipline needs to be appropriate to the offense and consistent with what others have received.

Natural Duties

Natural duties are universal. We owe them to persons as persons, as rational beings. They include the duty to treat persons with respect, to do justice, to avoid cruelty, and so on. Since they arise from an autonomous will (Kant) or from a hypothetical social contract (Rawls) , they don't require an act of consent. No one would say that I have a duty not to kill you only if I promised you I wouldn't

Spindle Cells

Neuroscience is also beginning to substantiate the moral sense that develops in humans. New imaging technologies have allowed scientists to locate a unique type of neuron in the brain—spindle cells—that light up when people perceive unfairness or deception. Only humans and African apes have these cells.

Distributive Justice

Nozick believes this scenario illustrates two problems with patterned theories of distributive justice. First, liberty upsets patterns. Anyone who believes that economic inequality is unjust will have to intervene in the free market, repeatedly and continuously, to undo the effects of the choices people make. Second, intervening in this way—taxing Jordan to support programs that help the disadvantaged—not only overturns the results of voluntary transactions; it also violates Jordan's rights by taking his earnings. It forces him, in effect, to make a charitable contribution against his will. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This . . . makes them a part-owner of you; it gives them a property right in you.11 Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 990-993). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 980-985). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Taxation

Objection 1: Taxation is not as bad as forced labor. If you are taxed, you can always choose to work less and pay lower taxes; but if you are forced to labor, you have no such choice. Libertarian reply: Well, yes. But why should the state force you to make that choice? Some people like watching sunsets, while others prefer activities that cost money—going to the movies, eating out, sailing on yachts, and so on. Why should people who prefer leisure be taxed less than those who prefer activities that cost money? Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 1016-1020). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Objection 2

Objection 2: The poor need the money more. Libertarian reply: Maybe so. But this is a reason to persuade the affluent to support the needy through their own free choice. It does not justify forcing Jordan and Gates to give to charity. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, whether it's done by Robin Hood or the state. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 1025-1028). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Discrimination

Occurs whenever something other than qualifications affects how an employee is treated. Unequal treatment, usually unfavorable, can take many forms. Racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual stereotypes can creep into the behavior of even the most sophisticated individuals, even without their conscious awareness. Discrimination can be a subtle or not-so-subtle factor not only in working relationships but also in hiring, promotions, and layoff decisions. People who don't fit a "corporate profile" may be passed over for advancement because they're female, or a member of a minority group, or too old, or for other reasons that may or may not be covered in protectionist legislation.

Emotions

Often, emotions can lead us to act ethically. But emotions can also interfere with good decision making when lead to a (perhaps irrational) desire for revenge.

Ethical Judgement

Once people are aware of the ethical dimensions of a situation or decision, they engage in ethical judgment processes that can contribute to ethical (or unethical) conduct. By ethical judgment, we mean making a decision about what is the right thing to do. As with ethical awareness, neuroscience (fMRI) research is finding that certain parts of the brain are activated more during ethical decision making compared to when the same individuals are making other kinds of decisions. 10 These findings suggest that ethical judgment is truly a unique form of decision making.

Whistleblowing

Once you decide to blow the whistle, you need to think carefully about how to go about it. Unless you want to be branded as someone with poor judgment, you have to be very careful about how you raise ethical concerns. Usually, the CEO is one of your last resorts, to be approached only after you've exhausted every other internal resource. Some of the triggers to help you determine whether an issue is serious enough to be raised beyond your immediate manager include an issue that involves values such as truth, employee or customer (or other stakeholder) rights, trust, fairness, harm, your personal reputation or the reputation of your organization, and whether the law is being broken or compromised.

Looking up and around

One reason understanding cognitive moral development is so important is that most adults are at the conventional level of cognitive moral development (level II). This means they're highly susceptible to external influences on their judgment about what is ethically right and their subsequent action. Their decision about what's ethically right, and therefore their likely action, is inextricably linked with what others think, say, and do. We call this "looking up and looking around" for ethical guidance. These individuals aren't autonomous decision makers who strictly follow an internal moral compass. They look up and around to see what their superiors and their peers are doing and saying, and they use these cues as a guide to action. Therefore most people are likely to do what's expected of them as a result of the reward system, role expectations, authority figure demands, and group norms.

Unconscious Biases

One relatively new research tool that can help us understand the potential (often negative) role of the unconscious in a certain type of ethical thinking is the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Results reveal most people's preferences for young people over old, straight people over gay, able people over disabled, and a variety of other categories. For example, hundreds of studies with the"race IAT"lead to the conclusion that the large majority of us have an unconscious tendency to value white people more than black people even if we consciously disavow such views and truly believe that we have no racial bias.

Heteronomy (opposite of autonomy)

One way of understanding what Kant means by acting autonomously is to contrast autonomy with its opposite. Kant invents a word to capture this contrast—heteronomy. When I act heteronomously, I act according to determinations given outside of me. Here is an illustration: When you drop a billiard ball, it falls to the ground. As it falls, the billiard ball is not acting freely; its movement is governed by the laws of nature—in this case, the law of gravity. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 1667-1671). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Moral Reflection

One way to begin is to notice how moral reflection emerges naturally from an encounter with a hard moral question. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 425-426). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Illusion of Optimism

One way to think about consequences is to think in terms of decision making about risk. Managers are in the business of assessing risk. But, research suggests that people tend to underestimate potential risks because of an illusion of optimism. They overestimate the likelihood of good future events and underestimate the bad. For example, even though around one-half of marriages end in divorce, newlyweds are highly optimistic that their own new marriages will be everlasting. And, although some analysts may knowingly have lied about the future prospects of mortgagebacked securities, it's likely that many were simply overly optimistic and believed that the housing market would never simultaneously crash everywhere in the country, bringing down an entire market and the U.S. economy with it.

Full nature (Polis--Aristotle)

Only by living in a polis and participating in politics do we fully realize our nature as human beings. Aristotle sees us as beings "meant for political association, in a higher degree than bees or other greagrious animals." The reason he gives is this: Nature makes nothing in vain, and human beings, unlike other animals, are furnished with the faculty of language. Other animals can make sounds, and sounds can indicate pleasure and pain. But language, a distinctly human capacity, isn't just for registering pleasure and pain. It's about declaring what is just and what is unjust, and distinguishing right from wrong. We don't grasp these things silently, and then put words to them; language is the medium through which we discern and deliberate about the good. So we only fulfill our nature when we exercise our faculty of language, which requires in turn that we deliberate with others about right and wrong, good and evil, justice and injustice.

Management Responsibility to Teach Ethics

Organizations that neglect to teach their members "ethical" behavior may be tacitly encouraging "unethical behavior" through benign neglect. It's management's responsibility to provide explicit guidance through direct management and through the organization's culture. The supervisor who attempts to influence the ethical behavior of subordinates should be viewed not as a meddler but as a part of the natural management process.

Patriotic Pride

Patriotic pride requires a sense of belonging to a community extended across time. With belonging comes responsibility. You can't really take pride in your country and its past if you're unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility for carrying its story into the present, and discharging the moral burdens that may come with it.

Illusion of Control

People also generally believe that they're less susceptible to risks than other people are. This belief is supported by the illusion of control, the general belief that we really are in charge of what happens. And if we think we can control events, we also think bad things are less likely to happen. This illusion of control has been demonstrated to exist in MBA students from top U.S. business schools, suggesting that managers are certainly vulnerable. 47 Managers whose judgment is influenced by these cognitive biases are likely to underestimate the risk facing the firm as a result of a particular decision. But if managers ignore risks, they're also ignoring important consequences. So it's important to recognize this tendency to ignore risk, and design risk analysis into your decision-making processes.

Human Happiness

People may say they believe in certain absolute, categorical duties or rights. But they would have no basis for defending these duties or rights unless they believed that respecting them would maximize human happiness, at least in the long run. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 517-518). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 516-517). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Moral Misanthrope

Perhaps the hardest case for Kant's view involves what he takes to be the duty to help others. Some people are altruistic. They feel compassion for others and take pleasure in helping them. But for Kant, doing good deeds out of compassion, "however right and however amiable it may be," lacks moral worth. This may seem counterintuitive. Isn't it good to be the kind of person who takes pleasure in helping others? Kant would say yes. He certainly doesn't think there is anything wrong with acting out of compassion. But he distinguishes between this motive for helping others—that doing the good deed gives me pleasure—and the motive of duty. And he maintains that only the motive of duty confers moral worth on an action. The compassion of the altruist "deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem."10 .

Meaning of Justice (Plato)

Plato's point is that to grasp the meaning of justice and the nature of the good life, we must rise above the prejudices and routines of everyday life. He is right, I think, but only in part. The claims of the cave must be given their due. If moral reflection is dialectical—if it moves back and forth between the judgments we make in concrete situations and the principles that inform those judgments—it needs opinions and convictions, however partial and untutored, as ground and grist. A philosophy untouched by the shadows on the wall can only yield a sterile utopia. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 448-449). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 445-448). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Confidentiality

Privacy is a basic customer right. Privacy and the obligation to keep customer information in confidence often go beyond protecting sales projections or financial information. It can also mean keeping in strict confidence information concerning acquisitions, mergers, relocations, layoffs, or an executive's health or marital problems. In some industries, confidentiality is so important an issue that companies prohibit their employees from publicly acknowledging a customer relationship. In the financial services industry, for example, it's common practice to refuse to divulge that XYZ Company is even a customer. On occasion, third parties may ask for customer information. For example, a reporter or a client may ask you about customer trends. It's never acceptable to discuss specific companies or individuals with a third party or provide any information that might enable a third party to identify a specific customer. If you want to provide information, you can offer aggregate data from a number of companies, as long as the data doesn't allow any one customer to be identified.

Illusion of Superiority (or morality)

Psychologists know that people have an illusion of superiority or illusion of morality. Surveys have found that people tend to think of themselves as more ethical, fair, and honest than most other people. 50 It's obviously an illusion when the large majority of individuals claim to be more honest than the average person, or more ethical than their peers.

Consent (slavery--aristotle)

Rather than fit people to roles we thing will suit their nature, we should enable people to choose their roles for themselves. Slavery is wrong, in this view, because it coerces people into roles they have not chosen. The solution is to reject an ethic of telos and fit in favor of an ethic of choice and consent. Aristotle's defense of slavery is no proof against teleological thinking. On the contrary, Aristotle's own theory of justice provides ample resources for a critique of his view of slavery. In fact, his notion of justice as fit is more morally demanding, and potential more critical of existing allocations of work, than theories based on choice and consent.

Distributive Justice (Rawls)

Rawls argues that distributive justice is not about rewarding virtue or moral desert. Instead, it's about meeting the legitimate expectations that arise once the rules of the game are in place. Once the principles of justice set the terms of social cooperation, people are entitled to the benefits they earn under the rules. But if the tax system requires them to hand over some portion of their income to help the disadvantaged, they can't complain that this deprives them of something they morally deserve.

Principles (of justice)

Rawls believes that two principles of justice would emerge from the hypothetical contract. The first provides equal basic liberties for all citizens, such as freedom of speech and religion. This principle takes priority over considerations of social utility and the general welfare. The second principle concerns social and economic equality. Although it does not require an equal distribution of income and wealth, it permits only those social and economic inequalities that work to the advantage of the least well off members of society. .

Rival (Theories of Justice)

Rawls presents this argument by comparing several rival theories of justice, beginning with feudal aristocracy. These days, no one defends the justice of feudal aristocracies or caste systems. These systems are unfair, Rawls observes, because they distribute income, wealth, opportunity, and power according to the accident of birth. If you are born into nobility, you have rights and powers denied those born into serfdom. But the circumstances of your birth are no doing of yours. So it's unjust to make your life prospects depend on this arbitrary fact. .

Alternative (Rawl's)

Rawls's alternative, which he calls the difference principle, corrects for the unequal distribution of talents and endowments without handicapping the talented. How? Encourage the gifted to develop and exercise their talents, but with the understanding that the rewards these talents reap in the market belong to the community as a whole. Don't handicap the best runners; let them run and do their best. Simply acknowledge in advance that the winnings don't belong to them alone, but should be shared with those who lack similar gifts.

Justice

Recall the two ways of thinking about justice we've considered. For Kant and Rawls, the right is prior to the good. The principles of justice that defines our duties and rights should be neutral with respect to competing conceptions of the good life. To arrive at the moral law, Kant argues, we must abstract from our continegent interests and ends. To deliberate about justice, Rawls maintains, we should set aside our particular aims, attachements, and conceptions of the good. That's the point of thinking about justice behind a veil of ignorance. This way of thinking about justice is at odds with Aristotle's way. He doesn't believe that principles of justice can or should be neutral with respect to the good life. To the contrary, he maintains that one of the purposes of a just constituiton is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character. He doesn't think it's possible to deliberate about justice without deliberating about the meaning of the goods-the offices, honors, rights, and opporuntities--that societies allocate. One of the reasons Kant and Rawls reject Aristotle's way of thinking about justice is that they don't think it leaves room for freedom.

Disclosure Rule

Remember the _________________ It asks whether you would feel comfortable if your activities were disclosed in the light of day in a public forum like the New York Times or some other news medium. In general, if you don't want to read about it in the New York Times, you shouldn't be doing it. If you would be uncomfortable telling your parents, children, spouse, clergy, or ethical role model about your decision, you should rethink it. Thomas Jefferson expressed it like this: "Never suffer a thought to be harbored in your mind which you would not avow openly. When tempted to do anything in secret, ask yourself if you would do it in public for all to see. If you would not, be sure it is wrong." This kind of approach can be especially valuable when a decision needs to be made quickly. Suppose someone in your organization asks you to misrepresent the effectiveness of one of your company's products to a customer. You can immediately imagine how a story reporting the details of your conversation with the customer would appear in tomorrow's paper. Would you be comfortable having others read the details of that conversation? The ideal is to conduct business in such a way that your activities and conversations could be disclosed without your feeling embarrassed. .

Ethical Awareness Triggers

Research has found that people are more likely to be ethically aware, to recognize the ethical nature of an issue or decision, if three things happen: (1) if they believe that their peers will consider it to be ethically problematic; (2) if ethical language is used to present the situation to the decision maker; and (3) if the decision is seen as having the potential to produce serious harm to others.

employee engagement

Research indicates that perhaps the best way to encourage ethical behavior is to create an organizational culture that is built to enhance employee engagement and that uses as its linchpin the quality of managers. short, it is discretionary effort, or how committed employees are to their work. Are they willing to provide excellent customer service? Are they willing to work overtime if needed to meet a deadline? Are they willing to go the extra mile in providing solutions? We can divide employees into three groups along an engagement continuum. For our purposes, let's just call them actively engaged, not engaged, and actively disengaged.

Ethical Awareness (Brain Study)

Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in a study showing that when Executive MBA students identified "an important point or issue" in scenarios, a different part of the brain was more active when the issue had ethical overtones compared to more neutral issues. 1 In a different study, a part of the brain associated with emotional processing was activated when participants viewed morally relevant pictures compared to more neutral ones. 2 So, it seems that something different happens in our brains when we begin thinking about an issue we recognize as having ethical overtones.

Public Apology

Should nations apologize for historic wrongs? To answer this question, we need to think though some hard questions about collective responsibility and the claims of community. The main justifications for public apologies are to honor the memory of those who have suffered injustice at the hands (or in the name) of the politcal community, to recognize the persisting effects of injustice on victims and their descendants, and to atone for the wrongs committed by those who inflicted the injustice or failed to prevent it. As public gesture, official apologies can help bind up the wounds of the pst and provide a basis for moral and politcal reconciliation. Reparations and other forms of financial restitution can be justified on similar grounds, as tangible expressions of aplolgy and atonement.

Connected

So Kant's demanding notions of freedom and morality are connected. Acting freely, that is, autonomously, and acting morally, according to the categorical imperative, are one and the same. This way of thinking about morality and freedom leads Kant to his devastating critique of utilitarianism. The effort to base morality on some particular interest or desire (such as happiness or utility) was bound to fail. "For what they discovered was never duty, but only the necessity of acting from a certain interest." But any principle based on interest "was bound to be always a conditioned one and could not possibly serve as a moral law.".

Cost Benefit Analysis

Some would say the Phillip Morris smoking study illustrates the moral folly of cost-benefit analysis and the utilitarian way of thinking that underlies it. Viewing lung cancer deaths as a boon for the bottom line does display a callous disregard for human life. Any morally defensible policy toward smoking would have to consider not only the fiscal effects but also the consequences for public health and human well-being. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 638-641). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Eight Steps (to Sound Ethical Decision Making)

Step One: Gather the Facts Step Two: Define the Ethical Issues Step Three: Identify The Affected Parties (The Stakeholders) Step Four: Identify the Consequences Step Five: Identify the Obligations Step Six: Consider Your Character and Integrity Step Seven: Think Creatively About Potential Actions Step Eight: Check Your Gut

Justice (Rawls)

Suppose Rawls is right: The way to think about justice is to ask what principles we would choose in an original position of equality, behind a veil of ignorance. According to Rawls, we wouldn't choose utilitarianism. Behind the veil of ignorance, we don't know where we will wind up in society, but we do know that we will want to pursue our end and be treated with respect.

illusion of superiority (or morality)

Surveys have found that people tend to think of themselves as more ethical, fair, and honest than most other people.

Terminations

Terminations come in many varieties, none of them pleasant. There are terminations for cause—meaning that an individual has committed an offense that can result in instant dismissal. "Cause" can represent different things to different companies, but generally theft, assault, cheating on expense reports, forgery, fraud, and gross insubordination (including lying about a business matter) are considered as cause in most organizations. Many companies define cause in their employee handbooks. There are also terminations for poor performance. This type of firing is most often based on written documentation such as performance appraisals and attendance records. Many employers have a formal system of warnings that will occur before someone is actually terminated for poor performance. A verbal warning is usually the first step in the process, followed by a written warning and then termination. The process can differ from company to company. Whatever the reason for a termination, you can take certain steps as a manager to make it easier for the employee being terminated and for yourself. 10 Again, the main goals are to be fair, to deliver the news in a way that is aligned with your organization's values, and to allow the employee to maintain personal dignity.

free market

That is why, Rawls argues, the distribution of income and wealth that results from a free market with formal equality of opportunity cannot be considered just.

Society values

That our society values these things is not our doing. Suppose that we, with our talents, inhabited not a technologically advanced, highly litigious society like ours, but a hunting society, or a warrior society, or a society that conferred its highest rewards and prestige on those who displayed physical strength, or religious piety. What would become of our talents then? Clearly, they wouldn't get us very far. And no doubt some of us would develop others. But would we be less worthy or less virtuous than we are now? Rawls's answer is no. We might receive less, and properly so. But while we would be entitled to less, we would be no less worthy, no less deserving than others. The same is true of those in our society who lack prestigious positions, and who possess fewer of the talents that our society happens to reward. So, while we are entitled to the benefits that the rules of the game promise for the exercise of our talents, it is a mistake and a conceit to suppose that we deserve in the first place a society that values the qualities we have in abundance.

Categorical Imperative

The German philosopher Emmanuel Kant provided another useful moral rule with his categorical imperative: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature." This rule asks you to consider whether the rationale for your action is suitable to become a universal law or principle for everyone to follow. For example, if you break a promise, the categorical imperative asks, "Is promise breaking a principle everyone should follow?" The answer is no; if everyone did this, promises would become meaningless. In fact, they would cease to exist. A practical Kantian question to ask is, "What kind of world would this be if everyone behaved this way or made this kind of decision in this type of situation?" What kind of world would this be if everyone broke promises at will?

Utilitarian Calculation

The argument for doing so begins with a utilitarian calculation. Torture inflicts pain on the suspect, greatly reducing his happiness or utility. But thousands of innocent lives will be lost if the bomb explodes. So you might argue, on utilitarian grounds, that it's morally justified to inflict intense pain on one person if doing so will prevent death and suffering on a massive scale. Former Vice President Richard Cheney's argument that the use of harsh interrogation techniques against suspected Al-Qaeda terrorists helped avert another terrorist attack on the United States rests on this utilitarian logic. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 572-574). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 570-572). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Natural distribution

The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born into society at some particular position. These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.25 Rawls proposes that we deal with these facts by agreeing "to share one another's fate," and "to avail [ourselves] of the accidents of nature and social circumstance only when doing so is for the common benefit."26 Whether or not his theory of justice ultimately succeeds, it represents the most compelling case for a more equal society that American political philosophy has yet produced.

Conflict of Interest (Why Unethical?)

The basis of every personal and corporate relationship is trust, and it exists only when individuals and corporations feel they're being treated fairly, openly, and on the same terms as everyone else. Conflicts of interest erode trust by making it look as if special favors will be extended for special friends; that attitude can enhance one relationship, but at the expense of all others. If you're suspected of a conflict of interest, the least you can expect is an investigation by your company. If it determines that your behavior demonstrates a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, you may be warned, disciplined, or even fired depending on the nature of your behavior. If you've accepted a bribe or kickback, you could face termination and even arrest. Being involved in a conflict of interest means that your judgment has been compromised, and this can severely damage your professional reputation.

moral agents

The capacity for pride and shame in the actions of family members and fellow citizens is related to the capacity for collective responsibility. Both require seeing ourselves as situated selves--claimed by moral ties we have not chosen and implicated in the narratives that shape our identity as moral agents.

moral dilemmas

The dilemmas they face make sense as moral dilemmas only if you acknowlege that the claims of loyalty and solidarity can weight in the balance against other moral claims, including the duty to bring criminals to justice. If all our obligations are founded on consent, or on universal duties we owe persons as persons, it's hard to account for these fraternal predicaments.

Objection

The first objection to Bentham's utilitarianism, the one that appeals to fundamental human rights, says they are not—even if they lead to a city of happiness. It would be wrong to violate the rights of the innocent child, even for the sake of the happiness of the multitude. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 614-616). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 613-614). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Consumer Protection Constructed

The framework of consumer protection as we know it today was constructed during the Kennedy administration. In his speech to Congress on consumers in 1962, President John F. Kennedy outlined four consumer rights: the right to safety, the right to be heard, the right to choose, and the right to be informed. 9 This message and the legislation that resulted laid the groundwork for today's consumer movement.

Preference

The higher pleasures are not higher because we prefer them; we prefer them because we recognize them as higher. We judge Hamlet as great art not because we like it more than lesser entertainments, but because it engages our highest faculties and makes us more fully human. As with individual rights, so with higher pleasures: Mill saves utilitarianism from the charge that it reduces everything to a crude calculus of pleasure and pain, but only by invoking a moral ideal of human dignity and personality independent of utility itself. Of the two great proponents of utilitarianism, Mill was the more humane philosopher, Bentham the more consistent one. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 856-861). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Moral Disengagement

The idea behind moral disengagement 38 is that most of us behave ethically most of the time because we've internalized standards of good conduct and judge our behavior against these standards. If we consider behaving unethically, we feel guilty and stop ourselves. All of us probably recognize that process. But research has found that individual people have a higher (or lower) propensity to deactivate that self-control system through eight moral disengagement mechanisms. These moral disengagement mechanisms allow individuals to engage in unethical behavior without feeling bad about it.

Justice

The idea that justice means respecting freedom and individual rights is at least as familiar in contemporary politics as the utilitarian idea of maximizing welfare. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 296-297). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Standards Go Both Ways

The message: Say it politely, but say it firmly and unequivocally. If a coworker or manager asks you to betray your standards—even in the tiniest of ways—refuse to compromise your standards, or you'll end up being confronted with increasingly thorny dilemmas.

Employee Safety

The most basic of employee rights is the right to work without being maimed or even killed on the job. In 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was created in an attempt to protect workers from hazards in the workplace. OSHA's mission is not only to protect workers against possible harm but also to ensure that employees are informed of the hazards of their particular industry and job.

Utilitarianism Weakness

The most glaring weakness of utilitarianism, many argue, is that it fails to respect individual rights. By caring only about the sum of satisfactions, it can run roughshod over individual people.For the utilitarian, individuals matter, but only in the sense that each person's preferences should be counted along with everyone else's. But this means that the utilitarian logic, if consistently applied, could sanction ways of treating persons that violate what we think of as fundamental norms of decency and respect, as the following cases illustrate: Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 554-557). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 553-554). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Moral Individualism

The principled objection to official apologies carries weight because it draws on a powerful and attractive moral idea. We might call it the idea of "moral individualism." The doctrine of moral individualism does not assume that people are selfish. It is rather a claim about what it means to be free. For the moral individualist, to be free is to be subject only to obligations I voluntarily incur; whatever I owe others, I owe by virtue of some act of consent--a choice or a promise or an agreement I have made, be it tacit or explicit. The notion that my responsibilities are limited to the ones I take upon myself is a liberating one. It assumes that we are, as moral agents, free and independent selves, unbound by prior moralities, capable of choosing our ends for ourselves. Not custom, or tradition or inherited status, but the free choice of each individual is the source of the only moral obligations that constrain us.

Ethics

The principles, norms, and standards of conduct governing an individual or group. Focuses on conduct.

Source of right

The reason you must tell the truth, Kant states, is not that the murderer is entitled to the truth, or that a lie would harm him. It's that a lie—any lie—"vitiates the very source of right . . . To be truthful (honest) in all declarations is, therefore, a sacred and unconditionally commanding law of reason that admits of no expediency whatsoever."41

Moral Worth (Duty)

The same is true of Kant's altruist. If he comes to the aid of other people simply for the pleasure it gives him, then his action lacks moral worth. But if he recognizes a duty to help one's fellow human beings and acts out of that duty, then the pleasure he derives from it is not morally disqualifying.

Second Objection

The second objection to utilitarianism doubts that it is. According to this objection, all values can't be captured by a common currency of value. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 621-622). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Advertising

The subject of ethics in advertising is a murky one, simply because there are varying opinions of exactly what truth is, and furthermore, what responsible is. How truthful or responsible does advertising have to be to qualify as ethical? In advertising, there's a thin line between enthusiasm for a product and highpressure sales tactics, between optimism and truth, and between focusing on a target market and perhaps tempting that market into unfortunate activities.

Reduce Identification

The third category of moral disengagement mechanisms reduces the person's identification with the victims of unethical behavior. With dehumanization, individuals make those who would be harmed less worthy of ethical consideration because they're thought to be different, stupid, or not even human. This mechanism characterizes thinking among those who commit genocide. One can also imagine mortgage lenders thinking that people who took out loans they clearly couldn't afford were just dumb and not worthy of concern. Attribution of blame lays blame on the victims of harm for a variety of reasons ("it's their own fault").

Use of Corporate Resources

The use of corporate resources involves your fulfilling your end of the employer--employee "contract." It means being truthful with your employer and management and being responsible in the use of corporate resources, including its finances and reputation. The important thing is to treat your company's resources with as much care as you would your own.

Virtue Ethics

The virtue ethics approach focuses more on the integrity of the moral actor (the person) than on the moral act itself (the decision or behavior). The goal here is to be a good person because that is the type of person you wish to be. Although virtue ethics as a philosophical tradition began with Aristotle, a number of contemporary ethicists (including business ethicists) have returned it to the forefront of ethical thinking. A virtue ethics perspective considers the actor's character, motivations, and intentions (something we didn't discuss at all under the other two perspectives). According to virtue ethics, it is important that the individual intends to be a good person and exerts effort to develop him- or herself as a moral agent, to associate with others who do the same, and to contribute to creating an organizational context that supports ethical behavior. This doesn't mean that principles, rules, or consequences aren't considered, just that they're considered in the context of assessing the actor's character and integrity. One's character may be assessed in terms of principles such as honesty, in terms of rule following (did this actor follow his profession's ethics code?) or in terms of consequences (as in the physician's agreement to, above all, do no harm) In virtue ethics, one's character may be defined by a relevant moral community, a community that holds you to the highest ethical standards. Therefore, it's important to think about the community or communities in which the decision maker operates.

Deontological

The word deontological comes from the Greek deon, meaning "duty." Rather than focusing on consequences, a deontological approach would ask, "What is Pat's ethical duty now that she knows about the layoff?" Deontologists base their decisions about what's right on broad, abstract universal ethical principles or values such as honesty, promise keeping, fairness, loyalty, rights (to safety, privacy, etc.), justice, responsibility, compassion, and respect for human beings and property. According to some deontological approaches, certain moral principles are binding, regardless of the consequences. Therefore some actions would be considered wrong even if the consequences of the actions were good. In other words, a deontologist focuses on doing what is "right" (based on moral principles or values such as honesty), whereas a consequentialist focuses on doing what will maximize societal welfare. An auditor taking a deontological approach would likely insist on telling the truth about a company's financial difficulties even if doing so might risk putting the company out of business and many people out of work.

Rival Approach

These two ways of thinking about the lifeboat case illustrate two rival approaches to justice. The first approach says the morality of an action depends solely on the consequences it brings abou the right thing to do is whatever will produce the best state of affairs, all things considered. The second approach says that consequences are not all we should care about, morally speaking; certain duties and rights should command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequences. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 494-496). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. t; Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 493-494). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Argument

This argument is open to at least two objections: First, it can be asked whether the benefits of killing the cabin boy, taken as a whole, really did outweigh the costs. Even counting the number of lives saved and the happiness of the survivors and their families, allowing such a killing might have bad consequences for society as a whole—weakening the norm against murder, for example, or increasing people's tendency to take the law into their own hands, or making it more difficult for captains to recruit cabin boys. Second, even if, all things considered, the benefits do outweigh the costs, don't we have a nagging sense that killing and eating a defenseless cabin boy is wrong for reasons that go beyond the calculation of social costs and benefits? Isn't it wrong to use a human being in this way—exploiting his vulnerability, taking his life without his consent—even if doing so benefits others? Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 485-488). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 481-485). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Journey in Moral Reflection

This book is not a history of ideas, but a journey in moral and political reflection. Its goal is not to show who influenced whom in the history of political thought, but to invite readers to subject their own views about justice to critical examination—to figure out what they think, and why. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 457-458). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 456-457). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Ethics and Shareholders

This ethical obligation includes serving the interests of owners and trying to perform well in the short term as well as the long term. It also means not engaging in activities that could put the organization out of business and not making short-term decisions that might jeopardize the company's health in the future. only when managers care about the legitimate interests of stockholders do they strive to perform well economically over time, and in a competitive industry that is only possible when they take care of their customers, and in a competitive labor market, that is only possible when they take care of those who serve customers—employees." 94 Thus taking care of shareholders also means ultimately taking care of other key stakeholder groups.

Social Contract (Rawls)

This is Rawls's idea of the social contract—a hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. Rawls invites us to ask what principles we—as rational, self-interested persons—would choose if we found ourselves in that position. He doesn't assume that we are all motivated by self-interest in real life; only that we set aside our moral and religious convictions for purposes of the thought experiment. What principles would we choose?

apologize

This is the argument that people in the present generation should not--in fact, cannot--apologize for wrongs committed by previous generations. To apologize for an injustice is after all, to take some responsibility

Dignity

This line of reasoning leads Kant to the second formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."23 This is the formula of humanity as an end.

Values

This takes us back to the question of whether all values can be translated into monetary terms. Some versions of cost-benefit analysis try to do so, even to the point of placing a dollar value on human life. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 645-647). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Utilitarian Logic (Wealth)

This utilitarian logic could be extended to support quite a radical redistribution of wealth; it would tell us to transfer money from the rich to the poor until the last dollar we take from Gates hurts him as much as it helps the recipient. The first objection worries that high tax rates, especially on income, reduce the incentive to work and invest, leading to a decline in productivity. If the economic pie shrinks, leaving less to redistribute, the overall level of utility might go down. So before taxing Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey too heavily, the utilitarian would have to ask whether doing so would lead them to work less and so to earn less, eventually reducing the amount of money available for redistribution to the needy. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 895-899). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 893-895). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Social Obligations (Social Contracts--Ethics Toolkit)

Thomas Hobbes I am fulfilling my obligation to contribute to a harmonious society. Am I fulfilling my societal duties? What are my obligation or promises (explicit or implicit) to others? What do we owe our stakeholders? How might this decision benefit or harm out environment (citizens, donors, society, etc.) at large?

Thorndike Study

Thorndike conceded that up to one-third of the respondents stated that no sum would induce them to suffer some of these experiences, suggesting that they considered them "immeasurably repugnant."18 Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 720-722). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Moral Responsibility (Three Categories)

Three Categories of Moral Responsibility 1. Natural duties; universal; don't require consent. 2. Voluntary obligations; particular; require consent 3. Obligations of solidarity: particular; don't require consent

Principled

To be principled in terms of cognitive moral development theory, one must have arrived at the decision autonomously based on principles of justice, rights, and the greater good. To understand Kohlberg's theory, you must also remember that it is a cognitive theory. What matters are the reasoning processes and considerations involved in a decision. Although these considerations are likely to affect the decision made, it is the reasoning process that counts.

Freedom (Kant's Definition)

To make sense of Kant's moral philosophy, we need to understand what he means by freedom. We often think of freedom as the absence of obstacles to doing what we want. Kant disagrees. He has a more stringent, demanding notion of freedom. Kant reasons as follows: When we, like animals, seek pleasure or the avoidance of pain, we aren't really acting freely. We are acting as the slaves of our appetites and desires. Why? Because whenever we are seeking to satisfy our desires, everything we do is for the sake of some end given outside us. I go this way to assuage my hunger, that way to slake my thirst.

Own Property

Turning to the question of whether prostitution is moral or immoral, Kant asks under what conditions the use of our sexual faculties is in keeping with morality. His answer, in this as in other situations, is that we should not treat others—or ourselves—merely as objects. We are not at our own disposal. In stark contrast to libertarian notions of self-possession, Kant insists that we do not own ourselves. The moral requirement that we treat persons as ends rather than as mere means limits the way we may treat our bodies and ourselves. "Man cannot dispose over himself because he is not a thing; he is not his own property."

Veil of Ignorance

Underlying the device of the veil of ignorance is a moral argument that can be presented independent of the thought experiment. It's main idea is that the distribution of income and opportunity should not be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.

Ethical Awareness

We refer to this initial step in the ethical decision-making process as _______________. With ___________, a person recognizes that a situation or issue is one that raises ethical concerns and must be thought about in ethical terms. It is an important step that shouldn't be taken for granted. Sometimes people are simply unaware that they are facing an issue with ethical overtones. And, if they don't recognize and label the issue as an ethical one, ethical judgment processes (like those we studied in Chapter 2) will not be engaged.

Ill Conceived Goals

We set goals and incentives to promote a desired behavior, but they encourage a negative one. Example: The pressure to maximize billable hours in accounting, consulting, and law firms leads to unconscious padding. Remedy: Brainstorm unintended consequences when devising goals and incentives. Consider alternative goals that may be more important to reward.

Measure

Utilitarianism claims to offer a science of morality, based on measuring, aggregating, and calculating happiness. It weighs preferences without judging them. Everyone's preferences count equally. This nonjudgmental spirit is the source of much of its appeal. And its promise to make moral choice a science informs much contemporary economic reasoning. But in order to aggregate preferences, it is necessary to measure them on a single scale. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 618-619). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 616-618). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Good Life

Utilitarianism is one such theory. It takes the good to consist in maximizing pleasure or welfare, and asks what systems of rights is likely to achieve it. Aristotle offers a very different theory of the good. It is not about maximizing pleasure but about realizing our nature and developing our distinctly human capacities. Aristotle's reasoning is teleological in that he reasons from a certain conception of the human good. This is the mode of reasoning that Kant and Rawls reject. They argue that the right is prior to the good. The principles that specify our duties and rights should not be based on any particular conception of the good life.

Learning by Doing (Aristotle)

Virtuous is like learning to play the flute. No one learns how to play a musical instrument by reading a book or listening to a lecture. You have to practice. If moral virtue is something we learn by doing, we have somehow to develop the right habits in the first place. For Aristotle, this is the primary purpose of law--to cultivate the habits that lead to good character. That's how Aristotle conceives moral virtue. Being steeped in virtuous behavior helps us acquire the disposition to act virtuously.

Three Qualities to Look For

Warren Buffett, the legendary investor and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, had perhaps the best idea about ethics and integrity when he said, "Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it's true. If you hire somebody without the first, you really want them to be dumb and lazy."

Slippery Slope

We are less able to see others' unethical behavior when it develops gradually. Example: Auditors may be more likely to accept a client firm's questionable financial statements if infractions have accrued over time. Be alert for even trivial ethical infractions and address them immediately. Investigate whether a change in behavior has occurred.

Ethical Action

We can now begin to address the second requirement for ethical behavior: doing what's right, or ethical action. Recall that to behave ethically, people must first decide what course of action is ethically right, probably depending to a large degree on their ethical awareness and ethical judgment (stage of cognitive moral development). Then they must choose the ethically right path over others.

Acting Morally

We can now see the link, as Kant conceives it, between morality and freedom. Acting morally means acting out of duty—for the sake of the moral law. The moral law consists of a categorical imperative, a principle that requires us to treat persons with respect, as ends in themselves. Only when I act in accordance with the categorical imperative am I acting freely. For whenever I act according to a hypothetical imperative, I act for the sake of some interest or end given outside of me. But in that case, I'm not really free; my will is determined not by me, but by outside forces—by the necessities of my circumstance or by the wants and desires I happen to have.

Overvaluing Outcomes

We give a pass to unethical behavior if the outcome is bad. Example: A researcher whose fraudulent clinical trial saves lives is considered more ethical than one whose fraudulent trial leads to deaths. Remedy: Examine both "good" and "bad" decisions for their ethical implications. Reward solid decision processes, not just good outcomes.

John Mill

We have considered two objections to Bentham's "greatest happiness" principle—that it does not give adequate weight to human dignity and individual rights, and that it wrongly reduces everything of moral importance to a single scale of pleasure and pain. How compelling are these objections? John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) believed they could be answered. A generation after Bentham, he tried to save utilitarianism by recasting it as a more humane, less calculating doctrine. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 738-741). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 737-738). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Indirect Blindness

We hold other less accountable for unethical behavior when it's carried out through third parties. Example: A drug company deflects attention from a price increase by selling rights to another company, which imposes the increase. Remedy: When handing off or outsourcing work, ask whether the assignment might invite unethical behavior and take ownership of the implications.

Motivated Blindness

We overlook the unethical behavior of others when it's in our interest to remain ignorant. Example: Baseball officials failed to notice they'd created conditions that encouraged steroid use. Remedy: Root out conflicts of interest. Simply being aware of them doesn't necessarily reduce their negative effect on decision making.

Morality of Contracts

What do these various misadventures tell us about the morality of contracts? Contracts derive their moral force from two different ideals, autonomy and reciprocity. But most actual contracts fall short of these ideals. If I'm up against someone with a superior bargaining position, my agreement may not be wholly voluntary, but pressured or, in the extreme case, coerced. If I'm negotiating with someone with greater knowledge of the things we are exchanging, the deal may not be mutually beneficial. In the extreme case, I may be defrauded or deceived.

fairness

When most people think about fairness, they mean equity, reciprocity, and impartiality. Most people think of fairness as being inconsistent with prejudice and bias. It's important to remember that, to employees, fairness is not just about the outcomes they receive (pay, promotion, etc). Employees care at least as much about the fairness of decision-making procedures and about the interpersonal treatment they receive when results are communicated. People are more likely to accept bad news if they believe the decision was made fairly. An organization that uses fair procedures and treats with sensitivity sends a powerful message to all employees that it values them as important members of the community.

Law (we have chosen)

When we abide by the categorical imperative, we abide by a law we have chosen. "The dignity of man consists precisely in his capacity to make universal law, although only on condition of being himself also subject to the law he makes."26

Performance Evaluation

When we talk about performance evaluation, we're really talking about two things. First, there's a written assessment of an employee's performance. Most large companies have a formal performance management system, with forms to standardize the process, and a mandate to complete a written evaluation on every employee (usually once each year). These written appraisals usually have some influence on any salary adjustments, and they usually become part of the employee's permanent personnel file. Second, there's the informal process of performance evaluation that ideally is an ongoing process throughout the year. When a manager gives continuous feedback—when objectives are stated and then performance against those objectives is measured—employees generally aren't surprised by the annual written performance appraisal. performance evaluation is one of the most important activities managers do, and it should be conducted regularly and in person. Most employees can and will accept honest feedback if it is delivered in a clear, honest, and sensitive manner and if expectations were clear in the first place. It is especially important to provide the employee with the specifics of any problem behavior, explicit goals for improvement including a timeline, and follow-up.

Reference

When we will the moral law (Kant) or choose the principles of justice (Rawls), we do so without reference to the roles and identities that situate us in the world and make us the particular people we are.

Autonomous

Whenever my behavior is biologically determined or socially conditioned, it is not truly free. To act freely, according to Kant, is to act autonomously. And to act autonomously is to act according to a law I give myself—not according to the dictates of nature or social convention.

Higher Pleasure

Who is to say, Bentham might ask, which pleasures are higher, or worthier, or nobler than others? The refusal to distinguish higher from lower pleasures is connected to Bentham's belief that all values can be measured and compared on a single scale. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 801-803). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Loyalty

Why, you might ask, is loyalty a virtue rather than just a sentiment, a feeling, an emotional tug that beclouds our moral judgment and makes it hard to do the right thing?

Continually Communicate

You can improve the communication within your department by holding regular staff meetings where you discuss the company mission, business results, and the way you want things done. Talk about what you stand for and what you want your department to stand for. Use ethical language—for example, when employees are designing a new program or product, ask them in a staff meeting if they have considered everyone who could be affected by their plans. Ask them if they think they're doing the right thing. Framing business decisions in ethical terms goes a long way toward increasing moral awareness, communicating your standards, and emphasizing Once you have deliberately articulated and communicated your standards both privately to individuals and publicly in front of your team, you need to think about how approachable you are. You need to think long and hard about how you react when people raise issues or ask questions or deliver criticism. If you kill the messenger or react with hostility if someone asks a question, or if you seem too busy to clarify directions, you are asking for trouble. Your people may well consider you unapproachable, and managers who aren't approachable lay the groundwork for being blindsided.

Product Safety

a major ethical obligation of any organization is to produce a quality product or service. Just as obviously, nothing will put a company out of business faster than offering a product that is dangerous, poorly produced, or of inferior quality. Competition in the marketplace generally helps ensure that goods and services will be of a quality that is acceptable to consumers. However, sometimes a company becomes the victim of external sabotage (like Johnson & Johnson), and sometimes a company makes a foolhardy decision, and the result is a product that is not safe. one of the most common faults in ethical decision making is to ignore the long-term consequences of a decision. Although most organizations try hard to produce a product or service of high quality (to stay in business, if for no other reason), many don't take the time to identify all stakeholders and think long term about the consequences of their decisions. In issues that involve product safety and possible harm to consumers, thinking long term is critical. Is this product going to harm someone? How serious is the potential harm? Even if it might harm only one person, is there a way that can be avoided? Is there a way we can warn against possible harm? What can we do to ensure this product's safety?

Virtue Ethics Development

a virtue ethics perspective assumes that your identity as a moral actor is important to you and that you are devoted to continuously developing that aspect of yourself. Being an ethical person is just an important part of who you are. Those of us who have made such a commitment know that life and careers present ongoing ethical challenges and opportunities to work on the ethical aspect of ourselves. Are you following an ethical fitness program by practicing good behavior over time and developing good habits? Just as an exercise program challenges your muscles, balance, and coordination, an ethical fitness program challenges your ethical thinking and leads to improvement. Such an ethical fitness program can help you develop your comfort with speaking up on behalf of your values. It can also reinforce your view of yourself as a person of integrity and contribute to improving your ethical fitness over time. Identifying ethical role models in your life, choosing to interact with people of integrity, and choosing to work in an ethical environment can all be ways to support this aspect of your personal development.

domain of ethics

includes the law but extends well beyond it to include ethical standards and issues that the law does not address.

ethical behavior in business

behavior that is consistent with the principles, norms, and standards of business practices that have been agreed upon by society

Employee Downsizings

can result from many business conditions, including economic depressions, the desire to consolidate operations and decrease labor costs, and increased competition and unmet corporate objectives, to list just a few. However justifiable the reason may be, the result always involves human misery. Organizations may not have an ethical obligation to keep labor forces at a specific number. They do, however, have an obligation to hire and fire responsibly. employees have the right to be treated fairly, without bias, and on the basis of their ability to perform a specific job. If a layoff or downsizing is necessary—if it involves one person or many—the layoff should be done with respect, dignity, and compassion.

Secondary Stakeholder

individuals or groups to whom the organization has obligations, but who are not formal, contractual partners.

Prescriptive Approach

derived from ethical theories in philosophy and offers decision-making tools (ways of thinking about ethical choices) that help you decide what decision you should make as a "conscientious moral agent" who thinks carefully about ethical choices 1 and who wants to make the ethically "right" decision. Our assumption is that your intentions are good and that your goal is to do the right thing.

Quid pro quo

harassment means that sexual favors are a requirement--or appear to be a requirement-- for advancement in the workplace.

Agent

how are categorical imperatives possible? Only because "the idea of freedom makes me a member of the intelligible world."31 The idea that we can act freely, take moral responsibility for our actions, and hold other people morally responsible for their actions requires that we see ourselves from this perspective—from the standpoint of an agent, not merely an object.

Conflict of Interest

if an organization's customers or other stakeholder group think that an organization's judgment is biased because of a relationship it has with another company or firm, a conflict could exist. Corporate or organizational conflicts are just as risky as those that exist between individuals, and they should be avoided at all costs.

Idealism

individuals who are keen on ___________ believe that one should always avoid harming other people in ethical dilemma situations, while non-idealists believe that "it depends" because "harm is sometimes . . . necessary to produce good." 12 Relativism is more related to deontological theories and our focus on principles in Chapter 2. For example, individuals who are low on relativism believe that all situations are subject to universal ethical principles (such as honesty).

Relativism

individuals who value relativism believe that people should weigh the particular circumstances in a situation when making decisions, because there are no universal ethical principles that determine right action in every situation. Research suggests that those who focus on idealism are more likely to have ethical intentions and to be critical of unethical behavior. This is probably because idealists are more concerned about anything they might do that would harm others. 14 By contrast, high relativism has been found to be associated with unethical intentions, perhaps because relativists who do not follow clear ethical principles find it easier to rationalize unethical behavior.

Managers are Role Models

managers are indeed role models—not because they want to be, but because of the positions they hold. Being a manager and a good role model means more than just doing the right thing; it means helping your employees do the right thing. A manager who is a good role model inspires employees, helps them define gray areas, and respects their concerns. The most important thing for managers to remember about their job as role model is that what they do is infinitely more important than what they say. They can preach ethics all they want; but unless they live that message, their people won't. As a manager, all eyes are upon you and what you're doing. Your actions will speak much louder than your words, and if there is a disconnect between the two, you will have no credibility—and employees may even question the credibility of your organization.

Managers are the Lens

managers are the lens through which employees view the company as well as the filter through which senior executives view employees. As we noted earlier in this chapter, managers are the critical ingredient in growing employee engagement: to many employees, managers are the company. Managers can be the inspiration for someone to stay with an organization or the impetus for someone to leave. As a result, managers have more influence and need more senior management attention, more training, and more communication skills than any other employee group.

Hostile work environment

means that a worker has been made to feel uncomfortable because of unwelcome actions or comments relating to sexuality.

confirmation bias

the tendency to attend to information that will help confirm the decisions we would prefer to make.

Valuing Diversity

means treating people equally while incorporating their diverse ideas. Discrimination means treating people unequally because they are, or appear to be, different. Valuing diversity is a positive action, while discrimination is a negative action. Valuing diversity tries to incorporate more fairness into the system, while discrimination incorporates unfairness into the system. The key to valuing diversity is understanding that different doesn't mean deficient, and it doesn't mean less. Different means different.

Peer Pressure (Ethical Awareness)

most people look to others in their social environment for guidance in ethical dilemma situations. So, if you believe that your coworkers and others around you are likely to see a decision as ethically problematic, it probably means that the issue has been discussed, perhaps in a company-sponsored ethics training program or informally among coworkers or with your manager. Such discussions prime you to think about situations in a particular way. When a similar situation arises, it triggers memories of the previous ethics-related discussion, and you are more likely to categorize and think about the situation in ethical terms.

Universalize the Maxim

not. The way I can see that the false promise is at odds with the categorical imperative is by trying to universalize the maxim upon which I'm about to act.20 What is the maxim in this case? Something like this: "Whenever someone needs money badly, he should ask for a loan and promise to repay, even though he knows he won't be able to do so." If you tried to universalize this maxim and at the same time to act on it, Kant says, you would discover a contradiction: If everybody made false promises when they needed money, nobody would believe such promises. In fact, there would be no such thing as promises; universalizing the false promise would undermine the institution of promise-keeping. But then it would be futile, even irrational, for you to try to get money by promising. This shows that making a false promise is morally wrong, at odds with the categorical imperative.

Self Ownership

others. you might abhor the frivolous use of body parts and favor organ sales for life-saving purposes only. But if you held this view, your defense of the market would not rest on libertarian premises. You would concede that we do not have an unlimited property right in our bodies. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 1089-1091). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Location 1058). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

illusion of optimism

overestimating the likelihood of good future events and underestimate the bad. For example, even though around one-half of marriage end in divorce, newlyweds are highly optimistic that their own new marriages will be everlasting.

Utilitarianism

probably the best-known consequentialist theory. According to the principle of utility, an ethical decision should maximize benefits to society and minimize harms. What matters is the net balance of good consequences over bad for society overall. A utilitarian would approach an ethical dilemma by systematically identifying the stakeholders in a particular situation as well as the alternative actions and their consequences (harms and/or benefits) for each. A utilitarian would approach an ethical dilemma by systematically identifying the stakeholders in a particular situation as well as the alternative actions and their consequences (harms and/or benefits) for each. A stakeholder is any person or group with a stake in the issue at hand. So who are the stakeholders in the layoff situation? Key stakeholders would include Pat's friend, her friend's family, Pat's boss, Pat, her family, other workers, and the company—quite a list! And, what would be the consequences (societal harms and benefits) for each stakeholder of a decision to tell or not tell? The consequentialist approach requires you to do a mental calculation of all the harms and benefits of these consequences, stakeholder by stakeholder. Remember, according to this approach, the most ethical decision maximizes benefits and minimizes harm to society. The challenge of making the best ethical decision is to step outside of oneself and think as broadly as possible about all of the consequences for all of those affected. Taking this step is guaranteed to widen your decision-making lens and allow you to take into account consequences that you otherwise might not consider.

public endeavor

reflection is not a solitary pursuit but a public endeavor. It requires an interlocutor—a friend, a neighbor, a comrade, a fellow citizen. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 438-439). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.

Descriptive Approach

relies on psychological research to describe how people actually make ethical decisions (rather than how they should make them). It focuses in particular on individual characteristics that influence how individuals think and on cognitive limitations that often keep people from making the best possible ethical decisions.

Ethical Decision-Making Style

research suggests that individuals have preferences for particular prescriptive ethical theories. Forsyth proposed that we think about these individual preferences in terms of two factors: (1) idealism or the person's concern for the welfare of others; and (2) relativism or the person's emphasis on ethical principles being dependent on the situation rather than being applicable to all situations. 11 Idealism is related to what we referred to as thinking about consequences

Excel Depreciate

resentment probably reflects a sense that Callie is being accorded an honor she doesn't deserve, in a way that mocks the pride he takes in his daughter's cheerleading prowess. If great cheerleading is something that can be done from a wheelchair, then the honor accorded those who excel at tumbles and splits is depreciated to some degree. A social practice once taken as fixed in its purpose and in the honors it bestowed was now, thanks to Callie, redefined. As this episode shows, social practices such as cheerleading have not only an instrumental purpose (cheering on the team) but also an honorific, or exemplary, purpose (celebrating certain excellences and virtues).

Ethical Language (Ethical Awareness)

situations can be represented or "framed" in different ways—using ethical language or more neutral language. Using ethical language (positive words like integrity, honesty, fairness, and propriety, or negative words such as lying, cheating, and stealing) will trigger ethical thinking because these terms are attached to existing cognitive categories that have ethical content.

Respect (all persons including self)

the categorical imperative requires that I treat all persons (including myself) with respect—as an end, not merely as a means. So, for Kant, acting autonomously requires that we treat ourselves with respect, and not objectify ourselves. We can't use our bodies any way we please.

Four Drivers of Engagement

the four drivers of engagement are as follows: 1. Line of sight. Employees understand the company's strategic direction, how the company makes money, and how their individual efforts play a role in that revenue-generating enterprise. Note: Business goals and ethical values are important elements in an organization's strategic direction. 2. Involvement. Employees are involved in the enterprise; they actively participate, and their ideas are heard. Note: This kind of employee involvement encourages the two-way communication that is critical for ethical issues to be identified and resolved . 3. Information sharing. People get the information they need to be effective, when they need it, and information goes in all directions—up, down, and across the organization as needed. Note: Cultures that encourage information sharing are more likely to be open organizations that identify and resolve ethical issues rather than sweeping them under the rug . 4. Rewards and recognition. Business goals and values are clearly spelled out, and employees know what they need to do and how they need to behave to get rewarded. Note: It is critical for companies to pay close attention to the incentives that goals and values will provide for ethical (or unethical) behavior.

illusion of control

the general belief that we really are in charge of what happens. If we think we can control events, we also think bad things are less likely to happen.

Sexual harassment

unwelcome sexually oriented behavior that makes someone feel uncomfortable at work. It usually involves behavior by someone of higher status toward someone of lower status or power. Sexual harassment claims are not initiated only by women.

Conceptual Tools

we introduce conceptual tools drawn from philosophical approaches to ethical decision making that are designed to help you think through these tough ethical dilemmas from multiple perspectives. None of the approaches are perfect. In fact, they may lead to different conclusions. The point of using multiple approaches is to get you to think carefully and comprehensively about ethical dilemmas and to avoid falling into a solution by accident. At the very least, you can feel good because you've thought about the issue thoroughly, you've analyzed it from every available angle, and you can explain your decision-making process to others if asked to do so.

People issues

we use this term to describe the ethical problems that occur when people work together. The problems may concern privacy, discrimination, sexual and other types of harassment, or simply how people get along.

Providing Honest Information

we're talking about telling the truth within your organization and providing honest information to others within your company. "Fudging" numbers can have serious consequences since senior management may make crucial decisions based on flawed data. If you're asked to skew any kind of corporate information, you should consult with someone outside your chain of command—such as the legal, human resources, or audit department—and then decide whether it's time to move on. Serious corporate scandals, sometimes leading to jail terms for those involved, often begin with these "one-time" requests. Once you're involved, it's almost impossible to extricate yourself from an almost inevitable downward spiral.

Advantageous Comparison

whereby people compare their own behavior to more reprehensible behavior and thus make their own behavior seem more okay. For example, the same mortgage lender may feel okay about selling these loans because she counsels clients to be sure to pay the mortgage every month and avoid credit card debt, while colleagues in her office don't bother to do any counseling and care only about making their commissions.

Moral Conviction

why turning the trolley seems right, but pushing the man off the bridge seems wrong. But notice the pressure we feel to reason our way to a convincing distinction between them—and if we cannot, to reconsider our judgment about the right thing to do in each case. We sometimes think of moral reasoning as a way of persuading other people. But it is also a way of sorting out our own moral convictions, of figuring out what we believe and why. Some moral dilemmas arise from conflicting moral principles. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 355-358). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition. Sandel, Michael J.. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Kindle Locations 354-355). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.