Difference between Major Ethical Theories - Essay Example

Difference between major Ethical Theories Name Grade course Affiliation Tutor 16th July, 2012 The differences between the major ethical theories: Rights, Justice, Utilitarianism and Kant’s categorical imperative Ethical theories and principles form the basis to ethical analysis. The theories provide the points of reference to obtain guidance when arriving at a decision. There are different theories and as would be expected, each theory tends to provide an emphasis on different points. Every theory hence provides some unique guidance in trying to predict an outcome and what one's duties to other people entails so that their behaviours can be considered to be ethical (Rachels 2003, p.31). An ethical theory can only be of use when it is considered with regard to a set of goals which is common. The common goals that are set to be achieved by a theory are known as ethical principles. Among the goals we have least harm, respecting justice and autonomy and beneficence. With regard to least harm, none of the choices made is of benefit. If such is the scenario, then a person is supposed to make a choice and take the option which will result in the least harm being caused to the least number of people. A physician should be concerned about the treatment resulting in a patient getting better (Kimpel 2010, p.63). The choice of the least harm entails the suffering a patient has to undergo in the treatment process. With regard to respecting independence, it behoves each and every person to allow others to be free in determining the course that their lives are going to take. The principle of justice envisages that ethical theories ought to state which actions are fair when one has done wrong. Utilitarianism is founded on the basis that an action is to be judged as moral or immoral based on its consequences. Thus, if an action has beneficial consequences, then such an action should be considered right and moral. For Utilitarians, the greatest good is considered as the greatest happiness (Shaw & Barry 2012, p.63). Happiness was equated to pleasure by Jeremy Bentham while he associated unhappiness with pain. Thus, a life of pleasure could be considered as a good life (Scarre 1996, p.38). John Stuart Mill dealt with the concern about different types of pleasures. Mills has a large following among utilitarians for his contention that happiness is to be equated to fulfilment which surpasses simple pleasure resulting in least unhappiness to people. Utilitarians do not argue for an action being moral on account of maximizing happiness on an individual but rather it is when there is a great good for a whole society (Rachels 2003, p.31). According to Kant (1997, p.29) lecture on Duties and Rights, consequences of any action do not have a bearing in judging whether the action is moral or not. According to Kant, what matters is what motivates the taking of such an action. If actions are undertaken by a person who is driven by a sense of duty, whereby one does an act out of knowledge that it is right, then such an action should be considered as moral (Kant 1997, p.31). Kant states that out of the nature as human beings, it is possible to know what one's duties are. Since human can reason based on logic, then there are rules which operate universally and which bind each and every person. Where a person fails to exercise this logic when making a decision then they become inconsistent and hence immoral for not allowing other people the level of freedom that a rational being which one claims to be would. Justice as an ethical standard is concerned with protection of rights of individuals (Kant 1997, p.36). Justice also entails ensuring that people do not have injustices visited upon them and that discrimination does not arise. Discrimination can be gleaned from a situation where people who have the same characteristics are given different treatments. An ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle had three types of justice these being: retributive, distributive and compensatory justice. Alternative perspectives about sustainable development The concept of sustainable development (SD) means a plan of carrying out economic growth whereby it is expected that resources used are able to meet the needs of the people who require them in future (Carley & Christie 2000, p.3). It is also fundamental to ensure that the environment is preserved so that the needs of the current and future generations are not put in jeopardy. Sustainable development is a concept which has gained centre stage more or less the same way as globalization and democracy have. Sustainable development has for a long time relied on the definition by economic analysts and these do not really show the necessary concern for ecological sustainability. Lately, scholars have come up against the analysis on sustainable development as provided by the mainstream economists (Windsor 2006, p.101). Sustainable development, as a matter of necessity addresses the issues of the capacity that the systems are able to hold and the challenges that humanity faces. The concept of sustainable development is not a novel having been used as early as in the 1970s (Carley & Christie 2000, p.4). Sustainability was understood to describe a situation where the economy was in some form of equilibrium with support systems from the ecology (Hawken 1993, p.6). Ecologists have brought about the idea that growth cannot continue forever and hence it has limits. For the ecologists, environmental concerns ought to be addressed through use of steady state economy. There are three constituent parts which form this concept referred to as sustainable development. These parts are: economic sustainability, environmental sustainability as well as socio-political sustainability (Windsor 2006, p.102). There have been arguments advanced through international forums with regard to sustainable development. The forums used include the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Arguments have been advanced that a cultural pillar ought to be added to the three popular pillars of sustainable development (Jotzo 2011, p.17). The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity equates cultural diversity as being important to survival of mankind in the same way that biodiversity is vital for nature. This tends to augment the argument that it is important to understand development not just in terms of growth in the economy but by promotion of moral, intellectual, and spiritual existence (Hawken 1993, p.7). The concept of sustainable development has a long history. It is the same as sustainability. As far back as 1713, the Germans already knew about the concept of sustained yield with regard to forests. In essence, sustainability entails striking a balance between what is consumed and what is reproduced. Sustainability has a longer history tracing its roots to Greeks' household economics (Windsor 2006, p.103). In olden days, a household was supposed to be in a position to sustain itself and thus it was not supposed just be geared towards consumption. However, in the modern world it is recorded that the term sustainable was used in 1972 by the Club of Rome. A group of scientists under the leadership of two academics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology talked of the necessity of having a state of global equilibrium and in their writings made use of the word equilibrium (Windsor 2006, p.105). Businesses should play a central role in sustainable development. Corporate sustainability requires a firm to use its natural capital in a very efficient manner (Waddock 2002, p.53). This leads to a term known as eco-efficiency which is found by comparing what economic value a firm adds versus the ecological impact on the use of the resources (Hawken 1993, p.8). Corporate sustainability entails a firm impact on the society vis a vis the value added by the firm. This could include creating job opportunities and giving. Negative impacts could be in reference to abuse of human rights and accidents at the places of work. It is not possible to measure sustainability indicators with accuracy (Jotzo 2011, p.22). The figures in relation to sustainable development help us comprehend whether the society is making progress in the right directions or not. These figures help in highlighting problems. However, it becomes difficult to pinpoint the exact source or solution to such a problem. Perspectives on corporate social responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R) refers to businesses employing ethics in their operations and ensuring that they make contribution to the development of the economy (Garriga & Mele 2004, p.53). Through CSR, a company strives to improve the quality of life of its employees and engage in activities which are helpful to the whole society or particular members of the society. CSR takes into account people who are not necessarily shareholders of an organization but they are impacted in one way or the other by the activities of such an organization. Through CSR, a company takes responsibility for its actions and it in turn brings about a positive impact to the members of the society by being involved in activities such as conservation of the environment and promotion of education (Waddock 2002, p.15). There are different approaches to CSR and this is usually dependent upon location of an organisation or even priorities which are set by each individual organisation. Philanthropy is a popular approach to CSR. Multinational organisations or even local organisations make monetary gifts to communities which are mired in poverty and also a host of other local organisations. This kind of approach finds application mostly in developing countries. The approach of making monetary donations has not been embraced wholesale by all organisations as some are critical of the outcomes of the money that is given out. The argument advanced against this mode of approach is failure to produce, within the local populations relevant skills which would help a community to experience sustainable development. Implementing measures which guarantee communities that there is going to be fairness in trade activities is a welcome move. Commitment to such an approach means that local communities that may be involved in production of crops such as tea stand to benefit in the long run (Hawken 1993, p.14). Creating Shared Value (CSV) is an approach to CSR which is gaining acceptance. Proponents of this approach contend that the success of a corporation can never be divorced from a community's social welfare (Carley & Christie 2000, p.17). For a business to experience success, there are various prerequisites. Among the requirements in this regard is a workforce which has the right quality of skills and education and whose health has been taken care of. A government which is functioning well and resources whose sustainability can be guaranteed form a key pillar to the success of any organisation. For this approach to be effective in forging a truly successful society revenues from taxes should increase and so should the ability to create income in addition to incentives for engaging in charitable causes being availed. CSV is effective in that unlike many approaches to CSR, it accepts a compromise between having to accept low profits in the short term and ensuring that they meet their goals on sustaining the environment and its responsibility to the society (Waddock 2002, p.19) Social accounting is important to establish whether various organisations meet their responsibilities (Hawken 1993, p.16). A firm should be in a position to identity the activities which it has undertaken and which are geared to aiding a society in achieving its growth potential. Owing to the importance of CSR to the sustainability of business and environment, many corporations in Australia have been at the forefront to fulfil their responsibilities to the society (Jotzo 2011, p.17). The response to CSR has taken different dimensions including environmental conservation and education and research. A good example is Starbucks which allows its employees to dedicate a day a year in offering service to whichever organisation that they choose. The organisation also has a strategy on environment sustainability in addition to helping advance health of Australians through charities based in the country. Reference List Carley, M & Christie, I 2000, ‘Managing Sustainable Development: the ecology of an industrial planet’, Earthscan, Melbourne, pp 1-24. Garriga, E & Mele, D 2004, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory,’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol 53, pp 51-71. Hawken, P 1993, ‘The Ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability’, HarperCollins, New York, pp 1-17. Jotzo, F 2011, ‘Carbon pricing that builds consensus and reduces Australia's emissions: Managing Uncertainties using a rising fixed price evolving to emissions trading’, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy: The Australian National University, Sydney. Kant, I 1997, ‘Lectures on Ethics,’ Cambridge University Press, London. Kimpel, B 2010, ‘Principles of Moral Philosophy’, Kessinger Publishing, Sydney. Rachels, J 2003, ‘The Elements of Moral Philosophy’, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. Scarre, G 1996, ‘Utilitarianism’, Routledge, New York. Shaw, W & Barry, V 2012, ‘Moral Issues in Business: Normative theories of Ethics’, Cengage Learning, New York, pp 57-91. Waddock, SA 2002, ‘Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value-Added, McGraw- Hill/Irwin, Boston, MA. Windsor, D 2006, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches’, Journal of Management Studies, vol 43, no.1, pp 93-112. Read More