The paper "Ethical Theories in Business Organizations" is a good example of business coursework. Ethics is defined as the discipline concerning moral obligation, the moral duty of humans on what comprises what is termed as “ good” or “ bad. ” Ethics can also be looked like a set of moral values or principles or a system or theory of moral values of people in different settings. It enables organizations to decide on when the action is right or wrong, and what constitutes morality or immorality. Business ethics or ethics in business is a facet, which considers the application of the ethical theories, discipline, or principles in different organizational settings.
Business ethics cannot be looked at separately from the common the general ethical theories that relate to business ethics. Examples of employee-related issues, which need to be examined using the ethical theories, include situations where businesses are charged with breaching their employee’ s moral obligations, or when workers of particular firms are being examined for misconduct. Thus, ethical theories such as normative ethics, utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, etc. can be applied in business to manage the behaviour of employees.
In this essay, the utilitarianism principle will be analysed in managing employee behaviour. Moreover, this essay will consider Kantianism as an alternative for the management of employee behaviour. The theory of utilitarianism is arguably a useful ethical theory in business because it accords an objective perspective, which is not based on self-interest. The utilitarianism principle is well-grounded as a decision-making model in business organizations. Philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham espoused the utilitarianism principle during the nineteenth-century. The Utilitarian theory holds that moral behaviours are those, which generates “ the greatest good for the greatest number” (Mill 1957, pg. 6.).
Similarly, to egoism, utilitarianism advocates adjudicating actions by their results. Therefore, it is the ends, which determine the goodness of an act and not the act itself (or the actor’ s intent). This is the reason why most utilitarian’ s hold the ground that moral choices must be assessed by computing the net benefits of every present alternative action. In the utilitarian method to ethical logic, one stresses the utility, or the general amount of good, which might be generated by a decision or an action.
For instance, the management of a company can decide to take certain decisions concerning their employees. They can do this by estimating how much good will be expected from the decision as well as the harm. If the good seems to outweigh the harm, the decision due to the employees may be considered as ethical according to the utilitarian principle. The utilitarian ethical theory is probably the most extensively understood and commonly used morality principle. In an organisational setting, utilitarianism primarily states that a decision regarding business conduct is appropriate if and only if that decision generates “ the greatest good for the greatest number of persons” (Mill 1957, pg. 9.).
“ Good” is normally defined as the net gains, which accrue to those entities affected by the decision. There are different factors, which influence individual ethical decision-making in the business environment. The utilitarian approach recommends ethical standards for employees and managers in the areas of common interests, individual goals, and efficiency. The model judges behaviour and decisions by their constancy with a fair, impartial, and equitable distribution of rewards and benefits and costs amongst groups or individuals.
These qualities apply in organizations because of the interaction amongst people are bound to exist. In order for the business management to undertake suitable actions, there is need by the management to add up all costs and to compare them with the results, if the benefits surpass the costs, and then the decision may be regarded ethical (Trevino 1986, pg. 601).
Mill, J, S 1957. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Premeaux, S, R 2004, ‘The Current Link Between Management Behavior and Ethical Philosophy.’ Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 5, no. 51, pp. 269-278.
Rachels, J 1999. The Elements of Moral Philosophy (3rd ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Sullivan, R 1989. Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Trevino, L, K 1986. ‘Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model.’ Academy of Management Review, vol, 11, no. 3, pp. 601-617.
Trevino, L, K 1992. ‘Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics: Implications for Research,
Education and Management.’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 445-459.
Valentine, S & Fleischman, G 2008. ‘Ethics Programs, Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job Satisfaction.’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol 6, no.77, pp. 159-172.
Velasquez, M, 1998. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (4th ed). Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Victor, B & Cullen, J 1988. ‘The Organizational Bases of Ethical Work Climates.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 33, no.11, pp. 101-125.
Weber, J 1992, ‘Scenarios in Business Ethics Research: Review, Critical Assessment, and Recommendations.’ Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 137-160.
Wimbush, J, C & Shepard, J 1994, ‘Toward An Understanding of Ethical Climate: Its Relationship to Ethical Behavior and Supervisory Influence.’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 7, no. 13, pp. 637-647.