Ethical Decision Making Issues - Literature review Example

Ethical Decision Making Institution Date Introduction Recently, the Government of New South Wales approved the opening of one of the world’s largest open coal mining sites. The New coal mine is located near the Leard State forest and is expected to have an output of about 12 million tonnes per year of operation (ABC News). According to ABC News the state’s environmental planning commission claims they had applied stringent environmental standards before giving the project the go ahead. On the other hand environmentalists maintain that the new coal mining project will be a danger to the endangered trees and animals living in the Leard Forest. Furthermore, environmentalist scientists argue that the effect of Australian coal on the environment goes beyond coal production and burning in Australia. It is alleged imported Australian coal contributes greatly to greenhouse gas emission. As a manager employed by Whitehaven Coal and a member of an environmental group concerned with conservation of the local forest, taking a job in the new mine presents a challenging ethical dilemma. The dilemma is whether it is morally right to take up a job in a coal mining project that is linked to possible destructive effects on the local endangered forest. One of the three models of ethical decision making can assist a manager facing an acute ethical dilemma to make an ethical decision. These models are the utilitarian, the moral rights and the Justice model. In comparison to the other models, the justice model chosen ensures the interest of all stakeholders are addressed and balanced. The Utilitarian model of ethical Decision making The utilitarian model was originally developed to assist legislators determine which laws are most morally right. According to Cameron, Miriam, Schaffer and Hyeoun-Ae (2001) the utilitarianism model adopts the decision that brings the most happiness over all other decision options. The consequences of making a decision are the most important factor for consideration while using the utilitarian model of decision making. Where a decision produces the most happiness for those involved it is chosen. The Utilitarian model therefore emphasizes on the satisfaction of most of the stakeholders involved in an ethical situation. According to Cohen, Pant and Sharp (2001) the utilitarian model's main strength is that it seeks to make the greatest number of people satisfied with the decision made. Secondly, the utilitarian model requires decision making to be objectively made free of emotions. Despite this the utilitarian model has a number of weaknesses. Utilitarianism has been criticized because it ignores the opinion of the minority (Lau et al, 2007). The decision by the government of New South Wales to allow the opening of the new mine is one that is based on utilitarianism. The decision allows the coal mine project to go ahead as it is in the best economic interest of the majority. Utilitarianism is also an unrealistic model that expects people to overlook their own interests over those of other people. If the manager decides to use the utilitarian model he may take the job despite the fact that it is against his interest in conserving the environment. The moral rights The moral rights approach is distinctly different from the utilitarianism approach as it is emphasizes respect for human dignity. This approach maintains that decision makers must respect the rights of others the same way they expect others to respect their rights (Loe et al, 2000). In this case the rights of Australians to be safe from harm caused by coal mining operation in the forest should be of optimum consideration. The moral rights model recognizes that all humans have equal rights under United Nations universal declaration of human rights. Indeed, the moral rights approach to ethical decision making emphasizes that moral, legal and contractual rights of all involved are respected. According to Loe et (2000), the moral right model cautions against the treatment of human beings as just a means to an end. One of the major weaknesses of moral rights in making ethical decision is that it has no consideration for the consequence of a decision. For example, ethical decisions based on moral right may mean a business continues paying its employee’s standard salaries despite its performance in the market, as this is the morally right thing to do. Where a person is confronted with a moral dilemma they should choose the option that best protects the rights of all stakeholders. If the Manager uses the Moral right model to make the decision whether to take the job, he will most likely decline the job offer. In the context, the mining project is infringing on the rights of Australians to a safe living environment. The Justice Model One of the other ethical decision making models which can be used to balance the interest of stakeholders is the Justice model. According to Vitell and Patwardhan (2008), the justice models emphasizes on the equitable distribution of the harm and benefits of the ethical decision made. Under the justice model all the rules that concern a particular situation must be applied fairly and impartially. An example of a just decision is the pay scale in an organization where workers are paid based on their contribution to the organization; the higher the contribution the higher the wage. According to O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005), justice refers to the notion that each person receives what they deserve. In many cases justice represents an objective assessment of the situation but the fairness of any decision made must also be considered (Robertson and Fadil, 1999). Fairness means that the ethical decision must be specific to the ethical situation being addressed. According to Suzanne and Sanders (2001), the concept of justice in ethical decision making takes different forms including; distributive justice, retributive justice and compensatory justice. Distributive justice refers to the notions that benefits and burden should be distributed equally to members of the society. On the other hand compensatory justice refers to notion that those who injure other should compensate them fairly and justly. In conclusion the justice model is better suited for making ethical decisions that address and balance the interest of all stakeholders. Critical Analysis of the Ethical Decision using the Justice Model When applying the justice model to the ethical dilemma of whether to accept or decline the job offer the manager should consider all stakeholders affected by the decision. In this case the stakeholder that is likely to be affected by the ethical decision are; the manager himself, the company and the local society and the global society. The first question the manager should ask himself is whether it is just for him to take up the job that could harm an endangered forest? Is it just to society to become involved in a coal mining project that could mean the end of an endangered forest? The manager also needs to face the fact that if he declines the offer he could lose his job. This brings about the question of whether it is just to his family to give up their source of livelihood. The answer to the question of whether it is just to society for the manager to participate in environmentally destructive coal-mining activities should be the most important consideration for the manager. The most probable answer to this question is that taking up the job is not just to the society. Therefore, the interest of justice for the most people is served by declining the job offer. Consequently, the Australian society is the largest beneficiary of the manager’s decision to decline the job as it may motivate the company to reconsider its decision to open the coal mine. On the other hand, the mining company will be harmed by the decision of the manager to decline the job as it shows the public there is internal opposition to the coal mining operation. Furthermore, the decision supports the idea that coal mining is harmful to the environment and may see opposition to project rise. Unfortunately, the decision may be detrimental to the manager as he may consequently lose his job. Conclusion From the analysis of the utilitarian, moral right and justice models of ethical decision making it was found that each model has its strengths and weaknesses. The utilitarian approach main strengths lie in the fact that it seeks happiness for the greatest majority. Despite this the utilitarian approach ignorance of the minority voice is a serious flaw with this model of ethical decision making. Furthermore, the utilitarian model would have asked the manager to overlook his own interest in the interest of making the majority happy. On the other hand, the moral rights model has a major advantage on the utilitarian model as it recognizes the rights of the people affected or involved in ethical decisions. In contrast to the utilitarian model the rights of the minority are also considered. However, the fact that the model disregards the consequence of making a morally right decision is its biggest weakness. In comparison the justice model seems to be a more robust model for making ethical decisions. The main advantage of the justice model is that it that it considers the consequence of the ethical decision and seek to distribute the harm and benefits of the ethical decision to all stakeholders involved. In this case, if the manager applies the justice model to his ethical dilemma he will decline the job. This in effect harms his employer as the morality of establishing a huge coal mining operation near an endangered forest is further questioned. It also shows the manager is a person of high moral integrity who is ready to stand up to ensure justice for society. References ABC News. Go ahead for one of the world's largest coal mines.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-25/whitehaven-mine/4333406 (accessed 4th June 2013) Cameron, Miriam E., Marjorie Schaffer, and Hyeoun-Ae Park. "Nursing students’ experience of ethical problems and use of ethical decision-making models." Nursing Ethics 8, no. 5 (2001): 432-447. Cohen, Jeffrey R., Laurie W. Pant, and David J. Sharp. "An examination of differences in ethical decision-making between Canadian business students and accounting professionals." Journal of Business Ethics 30, no. 4 (2001): 319-336. Lau, Cubie, John F. Hulpke, Michelle To, and Aidan Kelly. "Can Ethical Decision Making be Taught? The JUSTICE Approach." Social Responsibility Journal 3, no. 2 (2007): 3-10. Loe, Terry W., Linda Ferrell, and Phylis Mansfield. "A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business." Journal of Business Ethics 25, no. 3 (2000): 185-204. O’Fallon, Michael J., and Kenneth D. Butterfield. "A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003." Journal of Business Ethics 59, no. 4 (2005): 375-413. Robertson, Chris, and Paul A. Fadil. "Ethical decision making in multinational organizations: a culture-based model." Journal of Business Ethics 19, no. 4 (1999): 385-392. Vitell, Scott J., and Abhijit Patwardhan. "The role of moral intensity and moral philosophy in ethical decision making: a cross‐cultural comparison of China and the European Union." Business Ethics: A European Review 17, no. 2 (2008): 196-209. Wagner, Suzanne C., and G. Lawrence Sanders. "Considerations in ethical decision-making and software piracy." Journal of Business Ethics 29, no. 1-2 (2001): 161-167. Read More