Ethic and Governance

Ethic and Governance

Kantianism serves as the best ethical theory to provide the necessary guidance in the process of decision making. Kantianism argues that an individual is best placed to act morally if he or she is controlled by the principle of autonomy and the categorical imperatives (White, 2011, pp. 89). According to this school of thought, any decision can be said to be moral if the decision maker is autonomous and rational. Rationality constitutes reason which Kant defines as the faculty of principles. Immanuel Kant, the proponent of this school of thought, argued that rationality was the only force that could ensure that human beings who considered themselves as free fulfilled their duty to the moral law (White, 2011, pp. 88). The decision making process from the perspective of this school of thought is based on abstract universal principles that call man to his moral duty. These include promise keeping, honesty, justice, fairness and respect. Autonomy as an essential principle in the process of making ethical decisions, frees an individual from any form of subjective concerns. Instead, it makes a decision maker morally upright and the decisions that come forthwith are morally right form a universal perspective (Zerbe, et al, 2008, pp. 67-68).

Kantianism also serves as the best theory since it is defined by categorical imperative. The first formulation of the categorical imperative requires an individual to act in a particular way the he would at the same time will that it should be made universal. In addition to rationality and autonomy this categorical imperative requires that a decision maker includes the aspect of universalization of his act. This imperative asserts that every rational decision maker should be working on the same principle of moral action. It prohibits any individual from making subjective moral laws that favour him or her (White, 2011, pp. 89).

In the process of making ethically moral decisions, Kantianism requires that the said decision makers adhere to the second formulation of categorical imperative which demands that humanity must be treated as an end in itself rather than a means to a particular end. This categorical imperative is essential in the decision making process since it demands respect to man. A decision maker must act in ways that he respects every other person who is to be affected by the type of decision that he will make (White, 2011, pp.88-89).

The motive of any decision is important when arguing from this school of thought. The main focus for every decision maker should always be that which is right rather than that which brings the greatest benefit to the highest number of people. To be able to fulfil the requirements of an ethical decision it is essential to abide by the ethical decision model. Recognition of a moral issue stands as the first step in the decision making process (Singer, 1997, pp. 78, 80). It is essential for one to realize that there exists an ethical problem before any action can be taken. According to Kantianism, recognition requires that in the process of identifying a problem, an individual should be guided by justice, and the principles that define that which is right or wrong to be able to understand the motives of any action that he or he may decide to take (Shapiro, & Stefkovich, 2011, pp. 48-49).

The ethical decision model states moral judgement as the second step in the decision making process. This process is however defined by the principles that were used in the recognition of a moral problem. In the process of making moral judgements, Kantianism requires that autonomy, rationality and the categorical imperative should play an essential role in suggesting the best course of action. By understanding the motives of every action, decision makers must ensure that the process is less centred on the self but on the provision of a solution that is arrived at in a rational manner (Pollock, 2012, p.134).

A moral actor must possess the capability to establish the intention of any decision that has been made. Kantianism argues that the focus on doing that which is considered as morally right rather than that which will satisfy the demands of the highest number of people should form the basis of the intention of any moral action. This therefore calls on a decision maker to be able to assess the objective of any rational decision made in the process solving an ethical problem. The categorical imperative that stresses on the need for universalization of any moral decision forms the basis of the intent of any moral action. This is based on the fact that every individual can always will that a morally right action to be universalized instead of a selfish act (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 36).

The translation of an ethical decision into an ethical behaviour is also an integral part in the decision making process. As a rational and autonomous being, man can only translate a decision into behaviour when he considers not only the universality of the intended action but also the fact that the decision perceives man as an end in himself rather than means to achieving particular goals. Kantianism requires that the adoption of any behaviour should ensure that there is limited exploitation of humanity. In addition, the decision making process should be informed by that which is morally upright (Trevino & Nelson, 2006, pp.98-99).

Ranking of normative ethical theories

Kantian ethics ranks as the best out of all the other theories. As a non-consequential theory, it easily demonstrates that defects of other theories such as utilitarianism. Kantianism observes the possibility that an awful act may have excellent consequences and this makes the school of thought focus on the intent of any decision rather than its consequences (Hartman & Desjardins, 2008, p. 100). Kantianism affirms the need for moral laws that hold on universal grounds. This is because the theory stresses on the need for rationality in the decision making process. In addition, the first formulation of the categorical imperative insists any action that is considered moral to be made universal. The recognition of every rational man’s autonomy also forms the basis of Kantianism (Jones, 1991, p. 366). According to this school of thought morally upright decisions can only be made possible if the decision makers are free to act according to their understanding of the principles of morality. As rational beings, the decision makers cannot be influenced by emotions since Kantianism does not allow preference of friends (Gupta, 2010, p.10).

Kantianism has limitations some of which include inflexibility. Kantian moral laws are rigid and this makes them impossible to break even when they prove unhelpful in circumstances that warrant an alternative (Icheku, 2011, pp. 123). Kantianism also lacks motivation. This is based on the idea that just because an act is irrational, it does not provide the necessary motivation of doing that which is considered right (Brooks & Dunn, 2010, pp. 149).

Justice ethics is second. As a non-consequential theory, it is based on the degree to which an action can be considered fair (Keay, 2011, p.46). This school of thought stresses the need to ensure that all employees and stakeholder in any given instituting are treated in a manner considered as fair and their remuneration re reward are in accordance with the existing ethical and legal standards (Hamington & Sander, 2011, pp. 11-12). In any institutions, those who are considered to be of the same level should be treated equally and this also applies to those who are considered to be of a higher level (Devettere, 2009, p.100). The main objective of this school of thought when applied to any organization is that it ensures that those who are underrepresented are accorded the necessary protection from exploitation by the over represented stakeholders. A major limitation of this school of thought is that it may sacrifice the rights and privileges of other to ensure an equal distribution of benefits. This may be considered as unjust to those whose rights re reduced (Harris, 2007, pp. 145-146).

Virtue ethic is third since it focuses on the veracity of the individual decision maker rather than the act itself. In the process of decision making, this school of thought gives a holistic approach which includes the aspects of emotions. An outstanding tenet of this theory is that it bases judgement on reason (Garofalo & Geuras, 1999, p. 132). Morality in this school of thought is viewed as a social construct which means that it emphasizes on socially agreed upon virtues and too much stress on the language of morals. Since this theory is based on an individual’s character that is defined by the society, it might be based on wrong definitions due to the possibility that the society might be wrong (Ferrell, et al, 2005, p. 67). Virtue ethics is based on virtues that are agreed upon by the society. This may result in conflict of virtues since different societies may have varied ways of defining virtues. Kantianism and justice ethics are above this school of thought since they stress on universality of moral laws (Cremer, 2006, pp. 135).

Utilitarianism ranks fourth since it is based on advocacy for decisions that promote the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. In terms of cost benefit analysis, utilitarianism may be advantageous in the decision making process by providing an objective way of finding solutions to problems. This is because it will make ethical decisions be founded on the greatest good to the greatest number of people (Davidrajuh, 2006, pp.45). However, compared to Kantianism, justice ethics and virtue ethics, utilitarianism focuses on an end without considering the underlying factors in the decision making process. The school of thought does not have the mechanism of measuring all the possible consequences including those of the future. This school of thought may be disadvantageous to the less represented by ignoring the principle of fairness in decision making (Ferrell, et al, 2010, p. 45-46).

Egoism ranks as the fifth due to its selfish nature. An act of morality, according to this school of thought, is only right if it serves the self-interests of the decision maker. The limitations of this school of thought include the fact that it cannot be universalized. In addition, it fails to meet the goal of moral theories which should focus on improving an individual through a prescription of the right sets of behaviour rather than justify his actions.

References

Brooks, L. J., & Dunn, P, 2010, Business & professional ethics for directors, executives, &

Accountants. Mason, OH, South Western Cengage Learning, pp. 149-150.

Cremer, D, 2006, Understanding Ethical Behaviour and Decision Making in Management: A

Behavioural Business Ethics Approach. Rotterdam School of Management, London, pp. 135.

Davidrajuh, R, 2006, A Conceptual Model for Ethical Business decision-Making under the

Influence of Personal Relationships. University of Stavanger, Norway, pp. 45

Devettere, R. J, 2009, Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics Cases and

Concepts. Washington, Georgetown University Press, pp. 100=101. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=547791.

Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L, 2010, Business ethics: ethical decision making and

cases: 2009 update. Mason, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning, pp. 45-56.

Ferrell, OC, Fraedrich, J & Ferrell, L, 2005, Business ethics: Ethical decision making and

Cases, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp. 67

Garofalo, C., & Geuras, D, 1999, Ethics In The Public Service: The Moral Mind At Work.

Washington, Dc, Georgetown University Press. 132.

Gupta, S, 2010, A Multidemensional Ethics Scale for Indian managers’ Moral Decision.

Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Study. Vol 15, No. 1, p. 10

Hamington, M., & Sander-Staudt, M, 2011, Applying Care Ethics To Business. Dordrecht,

Springer, pp.11-12.

Harris, C. E, 2007, Applying moral theories. Belmont, Calif, Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 144-

145

Hartman, LP & Desjardins, J, 2008, Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity

& social responsibility, McGraw-Hill irwin, Boston, pp.100

Icheku, V, 2011, Understanding ethics and ethical decision-making: case studies and

discussions. Xlibris,pp 122-124.

Jones, TM, 1991, ‘Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-

contingent model’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 366.

Keay, A., 2011, The Corporate Objective. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Pub, pp. 46-67

http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=714169.

Kohlberg, L, 1976, ‘Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach’,

in T Lickona (ed.), Moral development and behavior, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 35-36.

Pollock, J. M, 2012, Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA,

Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 134.

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A., 2011, Ethical leadership and decision making in

education: applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. New York, Routledge, pp. 58-59.

Singer, M, 1997, Ethics and justice in organisations, Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 78-80

Trevino, LK, & Nelson, KA, 2006, Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do

it right, 4 edn, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 98-99.

White, M. D, 2011, Kantian ethics and economics: autonomy, dignity, and character.

Stanford, Calif, Stanford University Press, pp. 85-88.

Zerbe, W. J., HäRtel, C. E. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M, 2008, Emotions, ethics and decision-

making. Bradford, Emerald Group Pub, pp. 67-68. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=453325.