Scribd
Upload
132 views5 pages

Different Approaches Towards Ethical Behaviour in Business

The document discusses five different approaches to ethical behavior in business: 1. The teleological approach determines morality based on consequences and maximizing social welfare. 2. The deontological approach sees some actions as intrinsically right or wrong based on moral principles, regardless of consequences. 3. The emotive approach views morality as personal and based on individual emotions and viewpoints. 4. The moral-rights approach considers respecting fundamental human rights as the basis for ethical behavior. 5. The justice approach determines morality based on fairness and equal, impartial treatment of all people according to established rules.

Uploaded by

Sam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views5 pages

Different Approaches Towards Ethical Behaviour in Business

The document discusses five different approaches to ethical behavior in business: 1. The teleological approach determines morality based on consequences and maximizing social welfare. 2. The deontological approach sees some actions as intrinsically right or wrong based on moral principles, regardless of consequences. 3. The emotive approach views morality as personal and based on individual emotions and viewpoints. 4. The moral-rights approach considers respecting fundamental human rights as the basis for ethical behavior. 5. The justice approach determines morality based on fairness and equal, impartial treatment of all people according to established rules.

Uploaded by

Sam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Different Approaches towards Ethical Behaviour

in Business:

There are different ways of thinking about ethical behaviour. Some


situations offer clean-cut ethical choices. Stealing is unethical.
There is no debate about it. There are other situations where two or
more values, rights, or obligations conflict with each other and a
choice has to be made.

For example, suppose that a police officer attends his brother’s


wedding and finds some guests using drugs there, which is against
the law. Should the officer arrest the drug users? Should he be loyal
to his brother or to his job? It offers a difficult choice. Various
approaches to ethical behaviour give some guidance in making
some choices. Some of these approaches are:

1. Teleological approach:
Also known as consequentiality approach, it determines the moral
conduct on the basis of the consequences of an activity. Whether an
action is right or wrong would depend upon the judgement about
the consequences of such an action. The idea is to judge the action
moral if it delivers more good than harm to society. For example,
with this approach, lying to save one’s life would be ethically
acceptable.

Some of the philosophers supporting this view are nineteenth


century philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. They
proposed that ethics and morality of an act should be judged on the
basis of their ultimate utility.
An act would be considered moral if it produced more satisfaction
than dissatisfaction for society. It must be understood that this
satisfaction or happiness should be for the society in general and
not to the people committing the act or the people who are directly
involved in the act.

For example, not paying the money to someone whom you owe may
make you happy but it disrupts the social system of fairness and
equity thus making the society as a whole unhappy. Accordingly,
this would not be considered as a Similarly, a party who breaks a
contract may be happy because it is beneficial to it, but it would
damage the society’s legal framework for conducting business in an
orderly fashion. Hence, it would not be an ethical act.

2. Deonotological approach:
While a “teleologist” focuses on doing what will maximize societal
welfare, a “deonotologist” focuses an doing what is “right” based an
his moral principles. Accordingly, some actions would be
considered wrong even if the consequences of these actions were
good. According to DeGeorge:

“The deonotological approach is built upon the premise that “duty”


is the basic moral category and that the duty is independent of the
consequences. An action is right if it has certain characteristics or is
of a certain kind and wrong if it has other characteristics or is of
another kind”.

This approach has more of a religious undertone. The ethical code


of conduct has been dictated by the Holy Scriptures. The wrongs
and rights have been defined by the word of God. This gives the
concept of ethics a fixed perception. Since the word of God is
considered as permanent and unchangeable, so then is the concept
of ethics.

Holy Scriptures like those of the Bible, the Holy Quran, Bhagwad
Gita and Guru Granth Sahib are considered to be the words of God
and hence must be accepted in their entirety and without question.
In similar thinking, though based upon rationality, rather than
religious command, Emmanuel Kant, an eighteenth century
German philosopher suggested morality as universally binding on
all rational minds.

According to him, “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become


by thy will a universal law of nature.” This mode of thinking asks
whether the rationale for your action is suitable to become a
universal law or principle for everyone to follow. For example, “not
breaking a promise” would be a good principle for everyone to
follow. This means that morality would be considered unconditional
and applicable to all people at all times and in all cases.

This approach suggests that moral judgments be made on the


determination of intrinsic good or evil in an act which should be self
evident. For example, the Ten Commandments would be considered
as one of the guidelines to determine what is intrinsically good and
what is intrinsically evil.

3. Emotive approach:

This approach is proposed by A.J. Ayer. He suggests that morals


and ethics are just the personal viewpoints and “moral judgements
are meaningless expressions of emotions.” The concept of morality
is personal in nature and only reflects a person’s emotions.

This means that if a person feels good about an act, then in his view,
it is a moral act. For example, using loopholes to cheat on income
tax may be immoral from societal point of view, but the person
filing the income tax returns sees nothing wrong with it.

Similarly, not joining the army in time of war may be unethical and
unpatriotic from the point of view of the society and the country,
but the person concerned may consider war as immoral in itself.
According to this approach, the whole idea about morality hinges on
the personal view point.

An extension of Emotive theory puts focus an the integrity of the


person. While the person is looking for his own “long term” benefit,
he must have a “virtue ethics perspective” which primarily considers
the person’s character, motivations and intentions.

Character, motivations and intentions must be consistent with the


principles accepted by society as ethical. The advantage of this
approach is that it allows the ethical decision maker to rely on
relevant community standards, “without going through the complex
process of trying to decide what is right in every situation using
deontological or teleological approaches.”

4. Moral-rights approach:
This approach views behaviour as respecting and protecting
fundamental human rights, equal treatment under law and so on.
Some of these rights are set forth in documents such as Bill of
Rights in America and U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. From
ethical point of view, people expect that their health and safety is
not endangered by unsafe products.

They have a right not to be intentionally deceived on matters which


should be truthfully disclosed to them. Citizens have a fundamental
right to privacy and violation of such privacy would not be morally
justifiable.

Individuals have the right to object and reject directives that violate
their moral or religious beliefs. For example, Sikhs are allowed to
wear turbans instead of putting on a hat as required by Royal
Canadian Police, because of their religious beliefs.

5. Justice approach:
The justice view of moral behaviour is based on the belief that
ethical decisions do not discriminate people on the basis of any
types of preferences, but treat all people fairly, equitably and
impartially, according to established guiding rules and standards.
All mankind is created equal and discriminating against any one on
the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality or any such criteria
would be considered unethical.

From organizational point of view, all policies and rules should be


fairly administered. For example, a senior executive and an
assembly worker should get the same treatment for the same issue,
such as a charge of sexual harassment.

You might also like