Ethical theories provide frameworks and specific values for assessing situations and guiding decision-making processes, so the relative differences between right and wrong are understood, and appropriate solutions are reached. Over time, ethical theories have evolved based on the belief systems of various individuals and groups. Distinct differences exist between some ethical approaches while there may also be notable overlap among theories. An understanding of the complexity of ethical perspectives is secured through careful consideration of approaches and the underlying principles of them. The Values of Ethical Theories It is important to gain an understanding of the major ethical theories because such knowledge enhances perspectives on moral principles and can provide a sound foundation for guiding an approach to life, including personal and professional decisions. Individual values and ethics are shaped by the apparent standards in environments as one matures, including the home, peers, and the community. What is considered right or wrong by the culture in which one is raised is truly a guiding force, and those values can often be linked to specific theories of individuals respected for their perspectives on ethics. A universal ethical standard does not necessarily exist. Thus, an understanding of the theoretical bases of ethics also heightens awareness of the differences in standards among individuals and cultures. Furthermore, this information provides justification for motivations and actions. Acceptance of alternative approaches to ethical situations may not always be realized, but recognition of the defining factors is of value as matters are assessed. Dealing With Moral Differences According to the Sheldon Shumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership (Ethical Relativism, 2008), "'Ethical relativism' is the view that what is right and wrong can only be determined or justified relative to the standards of the individual, group or culture in question." This belief recognizes the significant diversity that exists in society and encourages a tolerance of varying values. In effect, it implies that universal standards do not exist one approach is not the only approach which is apparent as awareness of the varying standards of other cultures has become enhanced with globalization. Even within a particular culture, differences will exist in ethical standards because 1
environment forces can vary among individuals and any type of group. Universalism represents another perspective on ethics. According to this theory, there is some universal basis for ethical standards, regardless of individual or cultural differences, because there are thought to be some basic commonalities among cultures. This reasoning leads down the following two paths (Postel, 2006): Hard universalism: It is believed there is one set of standards to be followed by all, regardless of differences, which is comparable to absolutism. Soft universalism: It is believed that some commonalities exist among all with respect to ethics, but interpretations and practices can differ. Soft universalism is similar to ethical relativism in its acceptance of other approaches to situations. Egoism and Altruism The good of the individual and the common good are addressed by theoretical approaches and offer other perspectives on factors that determine and should determine moral standards and practices. Consequences are a primary consideration with these theories. Self-interest can serve as a guiding force in one s actions as exemplified by two thoughts on egoism. The psychological egoism perspective, a belief that all human actions are ultimately tied to self-interest (Forman, 2008), defines people's motivations. Even if an action affects others, it is believed that the individual engaging in the activity will benefit now or in the long term. For example, volunteering or charitable contributions may be activities in which an individual wants to engage, so there is self-interest in doing so and for the long term. Such activities may enhance positive feelings about one s self, which is a personal outcome. The ethical egoism perspective focus on how individuals should behave is as follows: we should act only in our self-interest and that failure to do so keeps us from reaching our potential (Forman, 2008). As such, consideration should be given to actions that will benefit the individual. Theories on altruism focus on the benefits for others instead of the personal gains consistent with egoism perspectives. Psychological altruism defines individual motivations and recognizes that individuals will pursue actions to promote other peoples interests (Black, 2001). The ethical altruism perspective is concerned with what should be done: the individual should maximize the good for everyone except himself or herself (Black, 2001). 2
These perspectives are based on beliefs that an individual is not selfish and is inspired to act for the good of others. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism offers another perspective with a focus on the common good. Jeremy Bentham played a key role in developing this theory and focused his thoughts on the consequences of maximizing the benefits for all to achieve a state of happiness. According to this approach, A decision that maximizes the ratio of good over evil for all those concerned is the ethical course (McAdams, Neslund, & Neslund, 2007). John Stuart Mill contributed to the utilitarianism approach by suggesting that actions leading to positive consequences for the common good should be reached by the use of relevant rules of conduct. As such, laws and other guidelines could potentially prevent the optimal results being achieved. Bentham suggested that a formula, referred to as hedonistic calculus, was a determinant in measuring the consequences of acts. It was thought that the amounts of pleasure less the amounts of pain, taking into account the intensity and duration of each feeling, would indicate if an action would produce the desired result of general happiness (Honderich, 2005). Mill advanced this thought with the suggestion that there are different levels of positive outcomes with the quality of positive feelings also being a factor (Honderich, 2005). Deontology The deontology approach to ethics is focused on the actions taken and less so on the consequences. Immanuel Kant, a major contributor to the deontology perspective, believed that an ethical person makes the right decision without concern for the consequences out of a sense of duty. The right decision is based on guiding societal principles (McAdams, Neslund, & Neslund, 2007). As an example, an individual would not steal because the act is not acceptable according to societal standards while the potential outcome of being caught should not serve as a basis for inaction. Philosopher David Hume added to deontology thoughts with the suggestion that an individual's act is based on an emotional response to a situation. Emotions lead to an exploration of moral values as well as reasoning relative to the situation. Courses of activity and the end result may be considered, but it is ultimately the individual s perspective on what is right or wrong that 3
results in a particular action (Hauser, 2006). These thoughts then suggest that an individual possesses ethical standards and is capable of using reasoning to justify an action. Personhood, Rights, and Justice The U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and other national and international guidelines recognize the individual as a person and grant that individual certain rights that are generally protected by the governing laws. Positive rights are recognized, specifically things that a person can demand that someone provide for them (McLaughlin, 2008), as well as negative rights, which can include the rights to life, liberty, and property (McLaughlin, 2008). Recognition of the individual and specific rights to which the individual is entitled can vary among region and country. For example, as a democratic nation, the United States extends negative rights to its citizens that may not be as apparent in other countries, particularly those with an alternate form of government and laws. Justice is generally part of an individual s rights as afforded by general cultural practices and by law. Distributive justice, the perceived fairness in the allocation of any type of benefits, is often an expectation. Related factors include procedural justice, perceived fairness of process used to determine outcome, (Robbins & Judge, 2007) and interactional justice, which relates to a manner in which one is treated. Criminal justice relates to these topics in that the preceding forms of justice should be perceived with the recognition that an individual is entitled to certain rights under governing law to due process. Virtue Ethics Aristotle was among the thought leaders on the concept of virtue ethics. This approach to ethics suggests that the moral fiber of an individual is most critical in determining ethical behavior and less so the external guiding principles. It was believed that an individual with strong ethical standards would follow an appropriate course of action and reach a decision with the external guidelines being secondary to any action. Aristotle and Plato believed that the focus should thus be placed on fostering positive characteristics in each individual because those with appropriate virtues would be more likely to make ethical decisions (McAdams, Neslund, & Neslund, 2007). It was also believed that development of the right virtues would result in the good life, a fulfilling life. A fundamental aspect of the virtue ethics approach is that 4
virtues can be taught. References Black, S. (2001). Altruism and the separateness of persons. Social theory and practice, 27(3). Forman, M. (2008, November 3). Atlas shrugged (and the world shook). Retrieved from the Security Industry News Web site: http://www.securitiesindustry.com/issues/19_80/22962-1.html Honderich, T. (Ed.). (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University. Hauser, M. D. (2006). Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. New York, NY: Harper Collins. McAdams, T., Neslund, K., & Neslund, N. (2007). Law, business, and society (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. McLaughlin, D. (2008). International human rights day. Citizen economists. Retrieved from the Citizen Economists Web site: http://citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2008/12/08/international-humanrights-day Postel, D. (2006, Spring/Summer). Ideas whose time has come: A conversation with Iranian philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo. Logos. Retrieved from http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.2/jahanbegloo_interview.htm Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. What is ethical relativism? (n.d.). Retrieved from the Sheldon Shumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership Web site: http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/main/page.php?page_id=145 5