Business & Professional Ethics at Workplace

Principles of Ethics

1. An alternative to moral principles: Virtue Ethics Case study of I van B oesky Virtue ethics looks at moral issues from a very different perspective than action based ethics, it does not follow that the conclusions of virtue ethics will differ radically from the conclusions of an action based ethics. Principles of utility, rights, justice, and caring follow the perspective of action evaluation but an ethic of virtue follows the perspective of character evaluation. Moral Virtue : A n acquired disposition that is valued as part of the character of a morally good human being and that is exhibited in the person’s habitual behavior.

2. The basic issue, from the perspective of virtue ethics, are the questions: what are the traits of character that make a person a morally good human being? Which traits of character are moral virtues? On this issue, there have been numerous views. The Greek philosopher Aristotle proposed what is still the most influential theory of virtue. Aristotle suggests that virtues, like other habits, are acquired through repetition. By repeatedly standing firm when I am fearful, I become courageous; by repeatedly exercising control over my appetites, I become temperate; and by repeatedly giving what people deserve, I become just.

3. Unconscious Moral Decisions: If we want to understand moral reasoning, then, it is important for us to understand these unconscious processes that play such a significant role in our moral decision making. Second these process are unconscious and automatic, it is easy to conclude that they are unrelated to the conscious and logical reasoning processes we have been studying.

4. Scott Reynolds, a psychologist, calls the unconscious processes by which we automatically make many of our moral decisions the ‘X-System’ And the conscious reasoning through which we also make moral divisions the ‘C-System’. X-System is based on the use of ‘Schemas’ or ‘Prototypes’. Prototypes are general memories of the kinds of situations we have experienced in the past, together with the kinds of sounds, words, objects, or people those situations involved, the kind of emotions we felt, the way we behave in those situations, the type of moral norms or rules that we followed, etc. The brain uses these prototypes to analyze the new situations we encounter each day and to determine how to behave in those situations.

5. The prototype system of the brain saves us liberate us from being continuously bogged down in the laborious processes of Conscious moral reasoning

6. The legitimacy of Unconscious Moral Decision-Making: Although our use of prototype is an unconscious process, this does not mean that it is a disreputable or irrational kind of process. We can compare this with a conscious reasoning which is very resembles with this approach to prove that its not an irrational approach. Casuistry: is a kind of moral reasoning that was widely used until the 17 th Century, especially in medical ethics where it continues to be an influential form of moral reasoning that is widely accepted as legitimate and rational

7. Casuistry: Casuistry is a way of making moral decisions by relying on previous “Paradigm” cases. A paradigm case is a past situation where it was clear what the ethical response should be and the reasons why that was the ethical response.

8. Cultural Influences and Intuition: Some of the prototypes on which we base our actions are the products of conscious moral reasoning. But not all prototypes originate in conscious moral reasoning. Cultural influences no doubt are incorporated into our prototypes and thereby, shape our actions. Of course, just because we acquire a moral belief from culture around us, does not mean that it is necessarily correct, or incorrect. Conscious moral reasoning and cultural influences are not the only sources of the prototypes that guide our ordinary actions. Some of our strongest, most tenaciously held moral beliefs seem t be based on sheer intuition, i.e., we do not acquire them from our environment, nor are they based on any moral or non moral reasoning.

9. The Action Principle: Harming by action is worse than harming by omission. (it is worse to kill a person than not doing anything to prevent someone from dying). The I ntention Principle: Harming as a means to a goal is worse than harming as a foreseen side effect (it is worse to jump out of a boat deliberately intending to kill myself by drowning than it is to jump out of a lifeboat so that there will be room for other survivors of a sinking ship even if I ultimately drown). The Contact Principle: harming by physical contact is worse than harming without physical contact (it is worse for a soldier to stab and kill an innocent villager, than it is for a pilot to drop a bomb that he knows will kill an unseen innocent villager).