Business Ethics: Concepts & Cases: Chapter 2 Outline
Ethical Principles in Business

Introduction

• Background
• Apartheid
• system of racial segregation & oppression
• designed to maintain
• the total subjugation of the black majority (80%)
• and the supremacy of the white minority (20%)
• Caltex, a jointly owned subsidiary of Texaco & Standard Oil
• maintained extensive & growing refinery operations in South Africa
• which greatly benefited the South African
• economy: which relied on oil for 25% of its energy needs
• & government
• S.A. law required refineries to set aside some of their oil for the government
• and profited from stiff corporate taxes on Caltex (& other corporations)
• The Issue Raised: Should Caltex break off relations with the S.A. Government & even leave S.A. altogether?
• PRO:
• By continuing & even expanding operations in S.A. Caltex gives aid & support to the government and its oppressive system of apartheid.
• Caltex has a moral duty to discontinue its S.A. operations
• to cease activities that helped the regime with its unjust & repressive policy of apartheid
• to bring pressure on the government to eliminate apartheid
• CON:
• The continued operation of Caltex brings income to both blacks and whites
• If the company ceased operations the hardship & economic losses would be borne mainly by the companies black employees who would lose their jobs
• The company has a responsibility for the well being of its black workers.
• As an example of a moral debate: Considerations appealed to
• considerations of justice: apartheid unfairly apportions burdens to blacks & benefits to whites
• considerations of rights: black South African's rights to freedom & well-being were not being respected.
• considerations of benefit or utility: Caltex's operation confers economic & other social benefits
• considerations of character: the admirable characters of Desmond Tutu with his passion for justice and the courage and thoughtfulness of Nelson Mandela invested their opposition to apartheid with moral authority.

2.1 Utilitarianism: Weighing Social Costs

• The Ford Pinto "TNT"
• rushed onto the market after only 2 yrs. in development (rather than the usual 4)
• when struck from the rear at >20 mph the gas tank sometimes ruptured tests show
• Question: whether to modify the design or go ahead with production
• The social cost-benefit analysis
• Costs: $11 x 12.5 million autos = -$137 million
• Benefits:
• less 180 deaths x $200,000
• less 180 injuries x $67,000
• less 2100 burned vehicles x $700
• TOTAL BENEFITS: $49.15 million
• Cost-benefit analysis typical of utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism
• consequentialist: actions derive their moral value (or disvalue) from their consequences
• altruistic: for all who are affected
• whatever course of action maximizes benefits over costs for all concerned is right
• Compare Egoism: whatever course of action maximizes benefits over costs for me (the agent) is right.
• Many hold that "the best way of evaluating the ethical propriety of a business decision -- or any decision -- is by relying on utilitarian cost-benefit analysis."

Traditional Utilitarianism

• Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) generally considered the founder
• The utilitarian principle: An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place.
• Utilitarian Moral Reasoning vs. Rule-based moral reasoning
• Rule-based approaches view morality as a kind of "higher law" & moral reasoning on the model of legal reasoning.
• question what are the statutes (moral principles)
• and which apply to the action in question
• Consequentialist approaches view morality as a kind of "higher economics" & moral reasoning on the model of economic calculation. (Marx derided Utilitarianism as "the ethics of English shopkeepers")
• Assumptions & Clarifications
• assumes the commensurability of various benefits & costs
• cost-benefits compared for different possible courses of action
• does not say that any action whose benefits outweigh its costs is right
• says that the action that produces the greatest benefit (or least cost) in comparison with any alternative course of action is right
• impartially considers cost-benefits for all concerned
• not just for the individual or company considering the action (that's egoism)
• egoism, due to its partiality, is not a moral theory or policy at all
• includes long term not just immediate benefits & losses: calculation of long-term benefits & costs needs to be adjusted for probability of the outcome
• Intuitive appeal
• fits nicely with intuitive criteria invoked in discussions of public policy & personal conduct
• we do consider the benefits & costs
• we frequently do judge policies & actions that cause avoidable harm or loss of benefits to be morally questionable.
• plausibly explains why certain types of activities we regard as generally immoral generally are so, but are not so without exception
• lying & theft are generally wrong because they diminish trust and impede cooperation & so are socially costly
• However, in certain situations -- when more harm would result from telling the truth than from lying or theft -- lying or theft could be morally justified.
• promotes efficiency, i.e., doing what produces the most benefits at the least cost: effort is a cost.
• Example application: Clinton's Choice
• Technical applications (skip)
• Economist's calculations & economic theories assume
• idealized individuals & corporations always acting
• so as to maximize utility
• objection . . . their own utility!
• Doubtful that this explanatory application of utilitarian-style calculation supports the normative claims of the theory -- is v. ought
•  This application is supportive of egoism, not utilitarianism . . . it's their own utility that economic theory assumes individuals & corporations seek to maximize.
• Use of economic cost-benefit projections to determine the advisability of projects, e.g. whether to build a dam.
• assign cost values to the estimated long-term costs: environmental destruction, population displacement, etc.
• assign cost values to the estimated long-term benefits
• "If the monetary benefits of the a . . . project exceed the monetary costs and . . . the excess is greater than that produced by any other feasible project, then the project should be undertaken."

Measurement Problems

• Comparative measures of the values things have for different individuals cannot be made, e.g.,
• the benefits I would derive from getting the job -- what it's worth to me.
• the benefits you would derive from getting it -- what it's worth to you.
• so the method couldn't be applied to determining who to hire (all else being equal)
• Some benefits and costs seem immeasurable, e.g., life & health
• won't any price you assign be arbitrary?
• isn't putting a price on life morally inappropriate in its own right
• Many of the benefits & costs of an action are unpredictable: e.g., benefits from basic research.
• Unclear what's a "benefit" and what's a "cost"
• is the suffering of prisoners a cost (as Bentham thought)?
• or a benefit (as Kant thought)?
• Critics contend these measurement problems undermine the would-be objectivity of utilitarian calculation
• morally crucial benefits like beauty & happiness not quantifiable like economic benefits and costs
• example: corporate "social audits" stymied by
• inability to place monetary values on intangible outcomes: e.g., loss of scenic beauty due to new construction
• differences over opinion over what should be counted as a benefit -- not another golf course!?

Utilitarian Replies to Measurement Objections

• Accurate measurement not essential
• it's still desirable to lay out the consequences of an contemplated course of action as clearly as possible
• one may usefully rely on shared common-sense judgments of comparative value & disvalue: e.g., death a more serious cost than a hangnail
• Common sense criteria
• Intrinsic goods trump instrumental goods all else being equal
• intrinsic: desired for their own sake, e.g., happiness, wisdom, beauty, pleasure, health
• instrumental goods: desired for the sake of other things: e.g., money, medical treatment
• Needs -- especially basic needs -- trump mere wants:
• needs are things without which one will suffer harm
• basic needs are things without which one will suffer fundamental harm such as injury, illness, or death
• wants are things one desires
• needs can also be wants: I need to eat & want to too
• though they needn't be wants: the alcoholic needs to quit but doesn't want to
• mere wants: are things one desires but does not need: I don't need to eat steak.
• Quantitative measurement is more feasible than the critics think
• the price someone would be willing to pay for them on the open market is a measure of things' values
• values like health and life are not immeasurable
• we regularly do put a price on them
• any time people place a limit on the amount they are willing to pay to reduce the risk that something poses to life they set an implicit price on that life
• such pricing is inevitable so long as we live in a world where risks can be eliminated only by trading off other things we may want
• nonmonetary measures may also be used: e.g., opinion surveys

Problems with Rights & Justice

• Objection: in a wide variety of circumstances applying the Utilitarian Principle would dictate actions that are unjust and violate peoples rights.
• Framing an innocent man to prevent rioting that would cost many lives.
• The pornographic police photos scenario
• The Pinto case: What went wrong?
• not that they made mistaken utilitarian calculations
• but something intrinsic to all utilitarian calculation: it ignores
• considerations of justice or fairness:
• better that everyone should bear the additional $11 cost & fix it rather than make the 180 who were projected to die (& to a lesser degree the 180 burn victims who wouldn't die & the 2100 whose vehicles would be destroyed) bear THE WHOLE COST
• even though that whole cost was less than the cost of fixing the Pinto
• considerations of rights
• people were buying a car that was less safe than they might have expected
• without their informed consent
• if they'd known about the problem they could have decided for themselves whether to take this added risk
• by not telling them Ford deprived them of their right to decide
• Conclusion: Utilitarianism seems to ignore certain important aspects of ethics.
• Considerations of justice: which look at how burdens and benefits are distributed
• Considerations of rights: which look at individual entitlements to freedom of choice and well-being

Utilitarian Replies to Objections on Rights & Justice

• Bite the bullet (if needs be) or spit it out
• Framing an innocent man
• Bite: it really would be right to frame an innocent man if the situation were as described
• Spit: there can't be a situation like the one described: always a high probability that such a conspiracy would be found out -- which would have very grave costs (loss of respect for law & authority).
• Taking & distributing nude photos of someone without their consent
• it really would be right to take & distribute nude photos without the woman's consent if there were no chance of her finding out
• but there always will be considerable likelihood that it will be found out; that these guys will be encouraged to do the same in the future (which again may be found out); etc. -- which would have very grave costs (individual's mortification, mistrust of police, etc.)
• Rule Utilitarianism: take the principle of utility to define a procedure for evaluating rules not particular acts. (skip)
• Stated
• An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the action would be required by those moral rules that are correct.
• A moral rule is correct if and only if the sum total of utilities produced if everyone were to follow that rule is greater than the sum total utilities produced if everyone were to follow some alternative rule.
• Counterargument: Why not rules with built in exceptions.
• Don't bear false witness against your neighbor (as in the framing case) except when that would produce the most utility.
• So rule utilitarianism boils down to act utilitarianism & the problems with rights & justice (shown by the counterexamples remain).
• Rule Utilitarian Response
• since human nature is weak & selfish allowing exceptions would leave everyone worse off
• in effect: change "if everyone were to follow that rule" to "if society were to adopt that rule" for a realistic assessment of what rule is best

2.2  Rights & Duties

• The concept of a right and the correlative notion of duty . . . lie at the heart of much of our moral discourse.
• In practice
• employees often assert that they have a right to a fair wage
• business owners complain that plant takeovers -- as in sit-down strikes -- violate their property rights
• consumers claim they have a right to know
• In Law and Tradition & Theory
• 1st 10 amendments to the U. S. Constitution are a Bill of Rights
• The U. S. Declaration of Independence declares that "all men . . . are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" including
• life
• liberty
• the pursuit of happiness
• U. N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings are entitled, among other things, to
• the right to own property alone as well as in association with others
• the right to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment
• the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for [the worker] and his family an existence worthy of human dignity
• the right to form and join trade unions
• the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay
• the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The Concept of a Right

• Rights are entitlements
• to act in certain ways (without blame or punishment)
• to be treated in certain ways (with mistreatment being subject to blame & punishment)
• Legal vs. Moral rights
• Legal rights are entitlements under law
• e.g. the rights specified in the Bill of Rights
• to freely speak & assemble
• to keep & bear arms
• legal rights, or course, are limited to the particular jurisdictions in which the laws are in force
• Moral rights or human rights
• are universal rights -- of all people
• based on moral norms, ideals, and values
• In the most important sense rights involve
• prohibitions or requirements on others (duties)
• to allow the individual to pursue certain interests or activities: "protective function"
• or even enable the individual to pursue certain interests or activities: "enabling function"
• Three features of the protecting and enabling functions of rights
1. Rights impose correlative duties on others
• of noninterference correlated with protective rights: if I have the right to do something other people have a duty not to interfere with my doing it
• of enablement: if I have a right to have someone do something for me then someone has a duty to do it for me
2. Rights provide individuals with autonomy and equality in the free pursuit of their interests
• rights identity activities or interests people must be left free to pursue or not as they choose
• and whose pursuit must not be subordinated to the interests of others except for extraordinary & very weighty reasons
3. Rights provide a basis for justifying one's actions and invoking the aid or protection of others
• If I have a moral (or legal) right to do something then I have a moral (or legal) justification for doing it: "I'm within my rights.".
• And others have
• no justification for interfering with me
• and justification for assisting me, i.e., defending my rights.
• Contrast with Utilitarian Considerations
• express the requirements of morality from the standpoint of the individual rather than society as a whole
• rights limit the validity of appeals to social benefits and numbers
• the perceived benefit to society is generally not enough to override my rights
• but it's a limited limitation: great enough social benefits can sometimes justify violations of rights
• e.g., declaration of martial law in times of national emergency
• imposition of quarantines (during disease epidemics) & curfews (during time of civil unrest)

Negative and Positive Rights

• Defined
• Negative rights can be distinguished as those which impose only the negative duty of noninterference on others.
• the right to privacy: means no one has the right to interfere in my personal affairs
• the right to property: means no one has the right to interfere with my using & disposing of it as I choose
• Positive rights impose positive duties on others -- not just to refrain from interfering with me -- but to do something to assist me in the exercise of that right if needs be
• right to health care
• right to employment
• Controversy
• Conservatives often loath to recognize positive rights: would like to limit the role of government to preventing violation of negative rights:
• maintaining law & order
• protecting property
• Liberals eager to assert positive rights which are apt to impose duties (on consequently expenses) on governments since the onus of assisting often falls there
• guaranteeing rights to health care impose a duty of providing medical assistance to the poor
• rights to housing impose a duty of providing housing assistance
• rights to jobs impose a duty offer training and placement

Contractual Rights and Duties

• Aka special right and duties
• i.e. limited rights and correlative duties that arise from agreements between parties
• Distinguishing marks (in contrast to the unlimited or universal & nonvoluntary character of legal & moral duties)
• speciality: they attach to specific individuals and are imposed by specific individuals: the parties to the agreement
• arise out of specific transactions between individuals
• depend on a publicly accepted system of rules that define the transactions that give rise to those rights and duties
• clear in the legal case
• but perhaps even in the moral case:
• promising depends on the social institution of making promises
• the joke: a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on.
• Such agreements crucial to the practice of business, obviously.
• Special duties arising from acceptance of a position or role in an organization or social institution
• e.g., parents have special duties toward their children
• spouses have special duties toward each other
• Doctors have special duties to care their patients and keep their patients' confidences.
• etc.
• "Ethical rules" underlying & legally limiting contractual obligation
• Both parties must have full knowledge of the nature of the agreement
• Neither party must intentionally misrepresent the facts of the contractual situation.
• Neither party must be forced to enter the contract under duress or coercion.
• The contract must not bind the parties to an illegal act.

ON THE EDGE: Working for Eli Lily & Co (p.73)

• Drug testing is necessary & required by the FDA, but
  • Hard to get healthy volunteers: "Test subjects can die, suffer paralysis, organ damage, and other chronically debilitating injuries"
  • So, Eli Lily recruited homeless alcoholics from soup kitchens, shelters, and jails
• Particulars
  • Free room & board & medical care
  • $85/day
  • tests run for months so the men can make up to $4500
  • they leave drug and alcohol free with money in their pockets
  • "When asked, one homeless drinker hired to participate in a test said he had no idea what kind of drug was being tested on him.

A Basis for Moral Rights: Kant

• Doubtful that Utilitarianism can provide a satisfactory basis for moral rights
• Weak: "People have moral rights because conferring moral rights on them maximizes utility."
• Because: a right entitles you to do something regardless of the benefits it provides or costs it imposes on others.
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and his theory.
• Moral rights and duties all human beings possess regardless of any utilitarian benefits or costs
• Based on the categorical imperative: a philosophical adaptation of the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
• First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative
• Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.
• a maxim is the policy -- or expression of the policy -- governing your act: your reason for doing it
• to will it to be universal law is to will that everyone should follow the same policy.
• Two criteria for determining the moral rightness or wrongness of a maxims and acts done on them.
• UNIVERALIZABILITY
• Must be willing that everyone should act on that maxim.
• My mama used to say to me, "What if everyone did that?"
• REVERSIBILITY
• Crucial case where "the shoe would be on the other foot": whether you would be willing to be done unto by others as propose to do unto them.
• My mama used to say, "How would you like it if your brother did that to you?"
• Discussion:
• Kantianism focuses on the person's interior motivations for their actions not expected consequences (like Utilitarianism).
• maxims express those motivations
• "nothing is absolutely good except a good will" says Kant
• Central concept is not "goodness" (as of results) but "duty"
• our moral duty is to act as the Categorical Imperative says
• our actions have moral value -- are good deeds -- only insofar as they are motivated by duty not from inclination (because you want to or find it pleasant)
• even if you have good inclinations: you're kind & generous, say
• your acts are morally creditable only insofar as your motive was a belief that what you're doing is the right way for all people to behave, as the categorical imperative would have you.
• Second Version of the Categorical Imperative
• Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
• Never treat people solely as means.
• Don't use people.
• Kant thought the two versions of the CI were equivalent: just said the same thing in other words.
• 1st version says that what's morally right for me is morally right for others: everyone is of equal value.
• "If this is so," Velasquez suggests, "then no person's interests should be subordinated to the interests of others so that the person is used merely to advance interests of others.
• What the second version emphasizes is
• respecting other peoples autonomy: their right to choose for themselves
• not doing things to or for them without their consent

Kantian Rights

• Based on the fundamental right of each rational agent or person to set and pursue their own aims (as expressed by the second version of the CI): to be (allowed to be) free autonomous agents.
• The different kinds of rights previously identified flow from this fundamental moral right of freedom:
• positive rights to food, clothing, housing, & medical care exist as preconditions of the exercise of freedom
• if you're sick or starving you can't very well pursue your aims
• if you're dead or deranged you can't even set them
•  rights flowing from right to be informed pursuant to self determination
• negative rights (both choice and pursuit of ends requires information)
• freedom of speech
• freedom of association
• positive right to education
• contractual rights
• flowing most forcefully from the CI's first formulation
• Kant's favorite example of a nonuniversalizable maxim:
• Break your promises when it suits you.
• If universally adopted promises wouldn't be credited.
• Not just -- you wouldn't like it if others did that to you.
• Universalizable in an even stronger sense
• self-contradictory in a way: it cuts off the branch it sits on.
• the possibility of breaking promises depends on the existence of the institution or custom making promises
• but this would be destroyed by the universal adoption of the maxim.

Problems with Kant

• Imprecise & Impractical
• Not so easy to figure out
• what maxims I'm acting on
• not clear we generally do or should act on maxims or set policies
• Can imagine someone saying, "my life is jazz man,  . . . not classical
• improvisation is where it's happenin' man
• not your fusty old playin' from a score
• or which you'd be willing to universalize
• especially on the fly.
• Nor so easy to know when you're using someone merely as a means
• is the used car salesman who sells me a lemon using me only as a means to line his pockets
• "Let the buyer beware," he contends.
• He didn't make me not take it to a mechanic to get checked out.
• he was just respecting my freedom to be a chump who didn't beware.
• Heteronymy (Different Strokes) Counterexamples & Rejoinder
• The racist employer who discriminates against blacks: he seldom hires & never promotes them.
• Such a fanatical racist he's willing to accept the proposition that if he were black he should be discriminated against (Maybe he's a fanatic fundamentalist Mormon: the "Book of Mormon" commands it, he thinks.)
• So CI licenses a maxim of racial discrimination, which is immoral.
• Kill the weak, is my maxim, says Nazi Ned.
• "But if you were weak you wouldn't want others to kill you," says Kant, blanching  in horror.
• "Better to die than live as a sniveling weakling," says Ned eyes ablaze with sincere fervor,
• "I would want someone to kill me."
• "Do the right thing and put me out of my shame" (weakling I'd be I probably wouldn't have guts to do it myself).
• So CI in this case licenses a Nazi Ned's maxim: and that's immoral.
• Rejoinder: biting the bullet
• if Nazi Ned genuinely and conscientiously would be willing to universalize his principle
• then his acting on the maxim is morally right
• insofar as he is striving to be true to his sincerely universally willed principles
• he is acting conscientiously & in a moral manner.
• justifies R. E. Lee (perhaps) but Hitler?  Surely not!
• would-be rejoinder itself encapsulates what's  most wrong with Kantianism IMHO
• conscientious & sincere villainy possible: it's the worst kind as Nazism showed
• nothing inherently redeeming about a moralizing & maxim-izing style as opposed to  Jazzman's style (for instance)
• shown by Ken Starr:
• He probably wouldn't mind having his sex life similarly scrutinized
• "If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear"
• morality v. moralism

The Libertarian Objection: Nozick (skip)

2.3 Justice & Fairness

• Justice and fairness are essentially comparative: concerned with the comparative treatment given to members of a group when
• benefits and burdens are distributed
• rules and laws are administered
• individuals cooperate and compete with one another
• individuals are punished for misbehavior
• Considerations of justice generally taken to trump utilitarian considerations of benefit & cost
• greater benefits (or lesser costs) cannot justify injustices
• unless the benefits (or savings) are very great, e.g., we seem to feel that
• some degree of inequality may be traded off
• for major economic gains that leave everyone better off.
• Considerations of justice doesn't ordinarily trump individual rights since, to some extent, justice is based on rights
• violations of rights are thought to be themselves unjust
• however, extreme injustice may justify restricting some individuals' rights
• Three categories
• distributive justice: concerned with the fair distribution of society's benefits and burdens
• retributive justice: concerned with the fair imposition of punishments on those who do wrong.
• compensatory justice: concerned with fair recompense of individuals for losses suffered due to others misconduct or mistakes.

Distributive Justice

• Issues typically arise
• when individuals put forth conflicting claims on societies benefits & burdens and all cannot be satisfied
• two cases
• scarcity of benefits (e.g., jobs, food, housing, medical care, wealth) compared to individuals desires for these benefits
• superfluity of burdens (e.g., unpleasant work, military service, risks) compared to individuals willing to take them on.
• The fundamental principle -- equals should be treated equally & unequals unequally -- requires
• Individuals who are similar in all relevant respects should be given similar benefits and burdens
• Individuals who are dissimilar in relevant respects should be treated dissimilarly in proportion to their dissimilarity.
• Purely formal nature of the fundamental principle (which is why it's acceptable to all)
• based on the purely logical idea of consistency: identical cases should be treated identically
• but doesn't specify what respects are relevant or material to determinations of similarity
• application of the fundamental principle requires adoption of some material principle
• differing theories of Distributive Justice differ with regard, precisely, to this

Justice as Equality: Egalitarianism

• Overview
• There are no relevant differences among people that justify unequal treatment.
• Therefore: Every person should be given exactly equal shares of society's benefits and burdens.
• PRO
• Workers who receive equal treatment compensation cooperate better and feel greater solidarity with each other
• A traditional American ideal that "All men are created equal" as the Declaration of Independence says
• A good ideal leading to good results
• emancipation of slaves
• prohibition of indentured servitude
• elimination of racial, sexual, & class discrimination e.g., in voting requirements
• institution of system of free universal public education
• CRITICISMS
• Simply not true that all are equal
• no two individuals are really equal in every respect, much less all individuals
• humans differ in many relevant respects: e.g., in abilities, intelligence, virtues, needs, and desires
• more like they're unequal in all respects than equal
• Ignores relevant differences of need, ability, and effort
• Examples of injustices egalitarianism would lead to
• handicapped individuals would be expected to bear burdens equal to nonhandicapped
• lazy slackers would be compensated just as much as hard workers
• Productivity argument: since individuals would have no incentive to work so economic productivity and efficiency would decline.
• REPLIES
• Distinguish between political and economic equality
• Political equality refers to equal control of, participation in, and treatment by governmental and other public agencies.
• Economic equality refers to equality of income, wealth, and opportunity.
• The Reply: Egalitarianism is the right principle for distribution only of political benefits and burdens.
• the criticisms leveled against equality apply only to economic equality
• the benefits cited in defense of equality are mainly improvements in political equality
• Limited economic egalitarianism proposes
• everyone to be compensated equally up to some set minimum standard of living
• beyond that unequal pay for unequal work should be practiced for productivity's sake.

Justice Based on Contribution: Capitalist Justice

• Overview
• Benefits should be proportional to what the individual contributes to society or the group.
• In theory, the principle used to establish salaries and wages in most American companies
• Pure expression of the principle: piecework style compensation.
• Drawback: tends to promote an uncooperative and even competitive workplace atmosphere
• resources and information less willingly shared
• status differences arise & solidarity falls
• Main question: How is contribution to be measured?
• Proposed measures of contribution
• work effort
• The greater the quantity of the individuals effort the greater their compensation should be: the harder you work the more you should paid.
• problems: ignores how effectively you work
• the incompetent drudge would be rewarded more than someone who produced more by working less.
• would remove incentive for individuals to acquire skills & education that would make them more productive workers.
• productivity
• The better the quality of the individual's contributed product the more compensation they should receive.
• problem: ignores peoples' needs
• the needs of handicapped & other disadvantaged people will not be met
• problem: hard to place an objective value on contributed products
• especially in certain fields such as
• artistic production
• science -- especially basic research
• education
• religion
• health care
• would-be fix: appeal to market forces: the value of a person's contributed product is whatever it would sell for on the open market.
• criticism: still ignores needs
• markets ignore the intrinsic values of things, e.g.,
• athletes & entertainers vs.
• firemen, nurses and health-care workers etc.
• when products are made through the joint efforts of many workers
• the usual case
• how do we determine how much of the products value is due to whose efforts?

Justice Based on Needs and Abilities: Socialism

• Overview:
• "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
• Burdens should be distributed according individuals' abilities to bear them and benefits according to individuals' need for them.
• The distributive principle that tends to be least acknowledged in business.
• PROS
• From each clause encourages productivity: the best person for the job gets it
• individuals would be encouraged to develop and exercise their particular talents
• to realize their potentials through their work
• To each clause: social benefits go to those who will benefit most -- those with the greatest need
• best promotes human health, welfare, & happiness
• basic needs should be me first (vs. jewel encrusted Faberge eggs)
• what's left over should go to meet nonbasic needs
• Same principle as in the family
• CRITICISMS
• Productivity argument: remuneration would not depend on effort or productivity so economic productivity of would fall: workers receive the same no matter how hard or how productively they work
• Unrealistic to think that whole societies can employ the distributive principles appropriate to the family: the "All for one and one for all" spirit only goes so far.
• The claim
• human nature is essentially self interested and competitive
• outside the family people can't be sufficiently motivated by brotherly/sisterly willingness to pitch in (with the burdens) share (in the benefits)
• Socialist rebuttal
• competition and selfishness are learned
• not unchangeable features of human nature
• they're undesirable character traits instilled & encouraged by the capitalist system itself
• the "all for one and one for all" spirit would be nurtured and instilled under a socialist system: a "new socialist man" would arise under socialism.
• Oppressive collectivism would obliterate individual freedom: for instance
• a person's occupation would be determined by his (socially recognized) abilities not by his free choice.
• a person's compensation would be determined by their (socially recognized) needs not their free choice.
• substitutes paternalism for freedom in the best case scenario
• results in centralization of power & authority that invites abuse

Justice as Freedom: Libertarianism (skip)

Justice as Fairness: Rawls (skip)

Retributive Justice

• Concerns blaming or punishing individuals for wrongdoing (particularly violation of group norms)
• Conditions of Responsibility or Desert
• the individual knowingly did wrong
• and freely chose to do so
• Due Process
• aims to guarantee a high probability that the punishment is going to the real offender
• Proportionality & consistency of punishment.
• consistency: everyone is given the same penalty for the same infraction
• proportional: the penalty inflicts a harm no greater in magnitude than the harmfulness of the infraction

Compensatory Justice

• Concerns restoring to individuals what they have lost due to being wronged by another
• Insofar as possible the wrongdoer should restore the loss
• Relevant conditions on compensatory responsibility
• the action was wrong or negligent
• the action was the real cause of the injury
• the infliction of the injury was voluntary
• foreseen
• desired
• Controversial case: preferential treatment to remedy past mistreatment of groups, e.g. affirmative action

2.4  The Ethics of Care

Partiality and Care

• Impartiality & Traditional Ethics Utilitarianism & Kantianism agree: moral behavior is impartial behavior
• Utilitarians: each counts one, none counts more than one
• Kantians: universalizability accords no special concern for me & mine
• Doubts concerning impartiality
• Freud: to love everyone equally is not to give a damn about anyone
• "I love humankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
• Counterexample
• save your father from drowning vs. some stranger (a heart surgeon)
• Utilitarianism says you have a moral duty to rescue the stranger!
• In Defense of Partiality or Care
• View intimacy & relationships as values in their own rights
• emphasizes these over abstract principles & societal benefits
• the web of relationships
• each individual has a moral obligation to perceive & nurture the web of relationships within which they exist
• and to give special consideration to and exercise special care for those with whom they are so linked
• argument from identity of the self: "no man is an island"
• a good life is a connected life
• to love and work we need others to love and work with
• Communitarian ethics: endorses person-to-group as well as person-to-person partiality

Objections to Care Ethics

• can degenerate into unjust favoritism (e.g., nepotism) or factionalism in the Communitarian case: R. E. Lee
• excess of care can result in self-neglect or "burnout"
• case for care more compelling at the level of individual than of institutional morality
• possible conflicts with other values
• with justice: the South Africa case of Caltex
• possible conflicts with utility
• hire the most qualified applicant
• hire your useless brother-in-law

2.5 Integrating Utility, Rights, Justice, and Caring

• Conflicts cut both ways
• if it's an objection to care based ethics that care can conflict with justice & rights it's an objection to justice & rights based ethics that these considerations can conflict with care
• likewise utility v. care
• likewise utility v. justice & rights
• Conflicts ye have always with ye: for that matter,
• rights can conflict with rights
• & caring for one with caring for another
• Points up the need to weigh the relative importance of different types of considerations in specific situations.
• no hard & fast general rule for doing so seems available
• only rough criteria & subjective judgments of comparative value
• rights generally trump utility
• but sometimes utilitarian costs & benefits become sufficiently large trump rights: When?
• right to privacy (not to have one's phone tapped, etc.) vs.
• social utility of surveillance groups & persons who are terrorist threats

2.6 An Alternative to Moral Principles: Virtue Ethics

• Virtue ethics focuses on character as opposed to conduct.
• not the person one ought to be
• not the kind of actions one ought to perform
• Conduct will take care of itself:
• Good (kind, loving, generous, brave) people do good deeds regardless of their moral convictions:
• Huck Finn example
• "Love and do as you will."
• Bad (cruel, hateful, stingy cowardly) people do bad things in spite of the lofty moral principles they espouse
• witch hunters
• "The mercy of the wicked is cruel."

The Nature of Virtue (skim)

• Acquired dispositions
• valued as part of the character of a morally good human being (seen as desirable)
• exhibited in a persons habitual behavior
• to do as good (admirable) persons do for right reasons
• E.g., truthfulness
• disposed to tell the truth
• feels wrong about lying
• etc.
• Acquired: virtues are regarded as praiseworthy, in part, because their acquisition requires effort

The Moral Virtues (skim)

• Aristotle: a mean between two extremes (or vices) of excess & defect
• generosity
• defect: stinginess
• excess: wastefulness
• courage
• defect: cowardice
• excess: rashness
• pride
• defect: false humility
• excess: boastfulness
• Aquinas
• pride a vice: humility a virtue
• theological virtues
• faith
• hope
• charity

Virtues Actions and Institutions

• Knock on virtue ethics is that it is an insufficient guide to action
• Key action guiding implications:
• do what exercises or develops morally virtuous traits of character: the morally right actions are those
• avoid doing what exercises or develops vicious traits of character: the morally wrong actions are these.
• Also applicable to the evaluation of institutional arrangement
• ask what kind of character traits do the institutional arrangements foster
• if virtuous, the organization is good
• if vicious, the (form of) organization is bad:
• e.g., corporate cultures that encourage back-stabbing as the path to advancement.
• capitalism encourages greed
• communism encourages laziness & incompetence

Virtues & Principles (skim)

• No fundamental conflict in the conduct judged to be right & wrong.
• e.g., utilitarianism would commend acts of the sort associated with generosity & industry
• Kantianism would commend acts of the sort associated with integrity & consistency
• Care would comment acts of the sort associated with loyalty & friendliness
• Main difference: focus on issues related to motivation & feeling that are largely ignored by an ethic of principles

2.7  Morality in International Contexts (skip)

CASES FOR DISCUSSION

Publius

• Analyze the ethics of marketing Publius using utilitarianism, rights, justice, and caring.  In your judgment, is it ethical to market Publius?
• Are the creators of Publius in any way morally responsible for the criminal acts that criminals are able to carry out and keep secret by relying on Publius?  Is AT&T in any way morally responsible for these?
• In your judgment, should the U.S. government allow the implementation of Publius?  Why or why not?

Unocal in Burma (ABC News)

• Assess whether from a utilitarian, rights, justice, and caring perspective, Unocal did the right thing in deciding to invest in the pipeline and then in conducting the project as it did.  According to your assessments, did Unocal do the right thing? 
• Is Unocal morally responsible for the injuries inflicted on some of the Karen people?  Why or why not?
• Do you agree with Unocal's view that "engagement" rather than "isolation" is "the proper course to achieve social and political change in developing countries with repressive governments"?