Definition of Ethics and the Foundation of Moral Development

¶ … Ethics and Moral Development in the Business Environment

Ethics, as the study of right and/or wrong, is an essential tool for professionals and practitioners of specific fields of study, particularly those people who directly deal with society. Knowing acts and behavior that are right or wrong, moral or immoral are considerations that an individual must take into account when practicing his/her chosen field of profession. However, there are various theories on ethics that offer different perspectives in determining whether an act or behavior is ethical or not, moral or immoral. In the analysis of the case study Might Makes Right, four ethical and moral theories are discussed and applied in the context of the study: Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism, theory of rights-based ethical decision-making, and theory of justice-based ethical decision-making.

The case study presents the main problem, wherein Janice contemplates whether or not to present her subordinate John's software package as her own, because she was not able to create a program of her own, as assigned to her by her boss. Two situations are presented here: the first dilemma is when Janice threatens to lower John's performance evaluation when he disagrees with her plan to present his software program as Janice's own; the second dilemma presents the situation wherein Janice and John agrees to connive and present the latter's program as Janice's own. Janice, in return, will provide John with a raise and promotion. The proper action that must be done for Janice is determined based on the principles presented by the four ethical and moral theories. The texts that follow are discussions of the case study using the various ethical perspectives.

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative posits that given the situation Janice is in, she should not consider the two options discussed previously -- that is, whether she should threaten/coerce or connive with John to present his program as hers. According to Kant's Categorical Imperative, "[s]o act, that the moral of thy doing shall, at thy will, become a universal law." This means that people should not commit an act because there is some consequence in it, but because they consider the act as a moral duty that is 'universally' accepted. That is, an act or behavior is committed because it is considered ethical and moral to do so; to do otherwise would at once be considered unethical and immoral. Thus, Janice, considering the unethical nature of her decision to pass off John's work as her own, should, under Kant's Categorical Imperative, not consider 'stealing' John's program and present it to her boss as her own, whether or not John agrees with Janice's plan.

The theory of utility, according to J.S. Mill, presents an altogether different perspective of Janice's dilemma. Since Utilitarianism considers the ethical value of an action or behavior based on its outcome, that is, there is an achievement of greatest happiness for most (or majority) of people. In this theory, collective happiness and satisfaction is considered, and not the individual's benefit only. Thus, since the second situation presented, wherein Janice connives with John to present his program as her own in exchange for a raise in salary and promotion, creates happiness for both Janice and John, then this is the action that Janice must adopt. In effect, using the utilitarian perspective, the ethical thing to do when put in Janice's position is to offer John a raise and promotion in order to benefit from his essential input, the program he created, which she will be using as her "own" work/creation.

The theory of rights-based decision-making takes into account morality, which looks into the adherence/non-adherence of an individual to standard rules of conduct. In this theory, morality comes into play, wherein the individual or decision-maker makes the decision on a situation based on his/her rights to do so. However, in using his/her rights, the individual must also make sure that s/he does not affect or intrude with other people or another individual's rights. In Janice's case, she should not coerce John into cooperating with her 'plan,' on the threat that she would lower his performance evaluations. Option 2, then, is more appealing, wherein Janice and John cooperates with each other, benefiting both of them, as John lets Janice use his program, and Janice, raise John's salary and give him promotion.