Moral Decision Making A Practical Approach Outline

User Generated

qhqhwvnat

Business Finance

Description

Draft an outline of the content, including the steps.

You can incorporate bullet points or numbers for clarity.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

MORAL DECISION MAKING: A PRACTICAL APPROACH Theoretical controversies permeate the subject of ethics, and as we have seen, philosophers have proposed rival ways of understanding right and wrong. These philosophical differences of perspective, emphasis, and theory are significant and can have profound practical consequences. This chapter has surveyed some of these issues, but obviously it cannot settle all of the questions that divide moral philosophers. Fortunately, however, many problems of business and organizational ethics can be intelligently discussed and even resolved by people whose fundamental moral theories differ (or who have not yet worked out their own moral ideas in some systematic way). This section discusses some important points to keep in mind when analyzing and discussing business ethics and offers, as a kind of model, one possible procedure for making moral decisions. In the abstract, it might seem impossible for people to reach agreement on controversial ethical issues, given that ethical theories differ so much and that people themselves place moral value on different things. Yet in practice moral problems are rarely so intractable that open-minded and thoughtful people cannot, by discussing matters calmly, rationally, and thoroughly, make significant progress toward resolving them. Chapter 1 stressed that moral judgments should be logical, should be based on facts, and should appeal to sound moral principles. Bearing this in mind can often help, especially when various people are discussing an issue and proposing rival answers. First, in any moral discussion, make sure that the participants agree about the relevant facts. Often moral disputes hinge not on matters of moral principle but on differing assessments of what the facts of the situation are, what alternatives are open, or what the probable results of different courses of action will be. For instance, the directors of an international firm might acrimoniously dispute the moral permissibility of a new overseas investment. The conflict might appear to involve some fundamental clash of moral principles and perspectives when, in fact, it is the result of some underlying disagreement about the likely effects of the proposed investment on the lives of the local population. Until this factual disagreement is acknowledged and dealt with, little is apt to be resolved. Second, once there is general agreement on factual matters, try to spell out the moral principles to which different people are, at least implicitly, appealing. Seeking to determine these principles will often help people clarify their own thinking enough to reach a solution. Sometimes they will agree on what moral principles are relevant and yet disagree over how to balance them. Identifying this discrepancy can be helpful. Bear in mind, too, that skepticism is in order when someone’s moral stance on an issue appears to rest simply on a hunch or an intuition and cannot be related to some more general moral principle. As moral decision makers, we are seeking not only an answer to a moral issue but an answer that can be publicly defended, and the public defense of a moral judgment usually requires an appeal to general principle. By analogy, judges do not hand down judgments based simply on what strikes them as fair in a particular case. They must relate their decisions to general legal principles or statutes. A reluctance to defend our moral decisions in public is almost always a warning sign. If we are unwilling to account for our actions publicly, chances are that we are doing something we cannot really justify morally. In addition, Kant’s point that we must be willing to universalize our moral judgments is relevant here. We cannot sincerely endorse a principle if we are not willing to see it applied generally. Unfortunately, we occasionally do make judgments—for example, that Alfred’s being late to work is a satisfactory reason for firing him—that rest on a principle we would be unwilling to apply to our own situations; hence the moral relevance of the familiar question: “How would you like it if . . . ?” Looking at an issue from the other person’s point of view can cure moral myopia. OBLIGATIONS, EFFECTS, IDEALS As a practical basis for discussing moral issues in organizations, it is useful to try to approach those issues in a way that is acceptable to individuals with differing moral viewpoints. We want to avoid presupposing the truth of one particular theoretical perspective. By emphasizing factors that are relevant to various theories, both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist, we can find some common ground on which moral decision making can proceed. Moral dialogue can thus take place in an objective and analytical way, even if the participants do not fully agree on all philosophical issues. What factors or considerations, then, seem important from most ethical perspectives? Following Professor V. R. Ruggiero, we can identify three shared concerns. The first is with obligations, that is, with the specific duties or moral responsibilities that we have in a given situation. Every significant human action— personal and professional—arises in the context of human relationships. These relationships, the roles we have assumed, and the expectations created by our previous actions can be the source of particular duties and rights. In addition, we are obligated to respect people’s human rights. Obligations bind us. In their presence, morality requires us, at least prima facie, to do certain things and to avoid doing others. Even utilitarians can agree with this. A second concern common to most ethical systems is with the effects of our actions. When reflecting on a possible course of action, one needs to take into account its likely results. Although nonconsequentialists maintain that things other than consequences or results can affect the rightness or wrongness of actions, few if any of them would ignore consequences entirely. Almost all nonconsequentialist theories place some moral weight on the results of our actions. Practically speaking, this means that in making a moral decision, we must identify all the interested parties and how they would be affected by the different courses of action open to us. The third consideration relevant to most ethical perspectives is the impact of our actions on important ideals. An ideal is some morally significant goal, virtue, or notion of excellence worth striving for. Clearly, different cultures impart different ideals and, equally important, different ways of pursuing them. Our culture respects virtues such as generosity, courage, compassion, and loyalty, as well as more abstract ideals such as peace, justice, and equality. In addition to these moral ideals, there are institutional or organizational ideals: efficiency, product quality, customer service, and so forth. Does a particular act serve or violate these ideals? Both consequentialists and nonconsequentialists can agree that this is an important consideration in determining the moral quality of actions. In isolating these three concerns common to almost all ethical systems— obligations, effects, and ideals—Ruggiero provided a kind of practical synthesis of consequentialist and nonconsequentialist thought that seems appropriate for our purposes. A useful approach to moral questions in an organizational context will therefore reflect these considerations: the obligations that derive from organizational relationships or are affected by organizational conduct, the ideals at stake, and the effects or consequences of alter- native courses of action. Any action that honors obligations while respecting ideals and benefiting people can be presumed to be moral. An action that does not pass scrutiny in these respects will be morally suspect. This view leads to what is essentially a two-step procedure for evaluating actions and making moral choices. The first step is to identify the important considerations involved: obligations, effects, and ideals. Accordingly, we should ask if any basic obligations are involved. If so, what are they and who has them? Who is affected by the action and how? How do these effects compare with those of the alternatives open to us? What ideals does the action respect or promote? What ideals does it neglect or thwart? The second step is to decide which of these considerations deserves emphasis. Sometimes the issue may be largely a matter of obligations; other times, some ideal may predominate; still other times, consideration of effects may be the overriding concern. If two or more obligations conflict, it is obvious that we should choose the stronger one, and when two or more ideals conflict, or when ideals conflict with obligations, we should obviously honor the more important one. Similarly, when rival actions have different results, we should prefer the action that produces the greater good or the lesser harm. But in real-world situations, deciding these matters is often difficult, and there is no easy way of balancing obligations, effects, and ideals when these considerations pull in different directions. The fact is that we have no sure procedure for making such comparative determinations, which involve assessing worth and assigning relative priorities to our assessments. In large part, the chapters that follow attempt to sort out the values and principles embedded in the tangled web of frequently subtle, ill-defined problems we meet in business and organizational life. It is hoped that examining these issues will help you (1) identify the obligations, effects, and ideals involved in specific moral issues and (2) decide where the emphasis should lie among the competing considerations.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello there, have a look at the complete paper. In case of any concern, feel free to alert me.Regards

Running head: OUTLINE OF THE CONTENT

Outline of the content

Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

OUTLINE OF THE CONTENT

2

A practical approach to moral decision making
In some instances, it seems impossible to reach an agreement when people are facing a
controversial issue regarding ethics. Reaching a...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags