Introduction to ethical reasoning and analysis

Ethical Reasoning," Donaldson and Werhane outline the three fundamental theories of ethics: consequentialism, deontology, and human nature ethics. Consequentialism, also known as teological ethics, can be further divided into ethical egoism and utilitarianism. Ethical egoism is based on the theory that to act out of self-interest will ultimately be the most ethical decision. Ethical egoism is rarely supported by philosophers, especially in relation to other ethical reasoning theories such as utilitarianism. Philosophers like Bentham and John Stuart Mill argued that the ethical decisions should be based on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. Although Mill framed the concept of "good" in terms of happiness, the "greater good" does not necessarily entail happiness and may refer to other abstract concepts like aesthetics. Utilitarianism can itself be subdivided into pluralistic utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism: the former embraces all abstract concepts that can be classified as "good" whereas the latter acknowledges that what is "good" for some may not be "good" to others. Finally, act utilitarianism focuses on the ethics of individual acts and their relation to the greater good, whereas rule utilitarianism focuses more on rules and laws and whether they uphold the greater good. Critics of utilitarianism criticize the ethical theory on three main grounds. First, utilitarianism does not adequately account for universal justice and in fact can cause the minority to suffer because of the will of the majority. Second, utilitarianism is based on the concept of the "greatest good," but "good" is too difficult to define consensually. Third, utilitarianism does not allow for any overarching moral laws or maxims.

Deontology picks up where utilitarianism leaves off in that deontology is solely based on the primacy of moral precepts. Deontological ethics can be further broken down into Kantian deontology and social contract deontology. Kantian deontology is based on the notion of the categorical imperative: that there are universal moral laws that pertain to all human beings. Kant also proposed that reason, not inclination should guide moral decision-making and that the nature of the act is more important than the consequences of the act. Respect for other rational beings was also a central tenet to Kantian deontology. Locke and Rawls, on the other hand, proposed a different form of deontological ethics known as social contract ethics. Locke in particular believed in certain inalienable rights of human beings, whereas Rawls focused more on abstract principles of fairness that could apply to all rational beings. Critics of Kantian deontology note that the theory can create too many universal laws, which can either become arbitrary and thereby immoral or which can become too rigid and inflexible. Furthermore, deontology does not adequately provide for situations with conflicting ethical needs.

The third ethical reasoning theory discussed by Donaldson and Werhane is human nature ethics. The most famous proponent of the theory of human nature is Aristotle, who believed in the potentiality of all human beings and saw the human beings all engaged in a struggle for self-actualization. Human nature theory accounts for both collective, or social, human nature, and individual human nature. Ethical reasoning is based on whether or not an action is compatible with the ground of human being; therefore human nature ethical theories are idealistic and are based on the assumption that human nature is essentially good.

2. The Ford Pinto Case Study

Hoffman's summary of the Ford Pinto case allows for an application of ethical reasoning. The Pinto case exemplifies all three of the major ethical reasoning theories: consequentialism, deontology, and human nature. J.C. Echold, the Director of Automotive Safety for Ford created a cost-benefit analysis for the car that placed a dollar value on human life. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, the Ford Motor Company decided that to improve the safety of its vehicles was "not cost-effective for society." Therefore, Ford's official reasoning was clearly consequentialist and utilitarian in particular. Furthermore, in court, Ford attorneys argued that the company was aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number of people through its claim that creating more jobs for Americans. Other utilitarian arguments on the part of the Ford company include its assertion that competing viably with the foreign markets would benefit American consumers even if a few people suffered and that creating a cheaper car would benefit more consumers than would keeping all their cars too expensive and therefore out of reach for the average American.