Should a Company Water Down Ethics in Order to Get a Profitable Outcome?

¶ … Ethical Decision What would you do? In the first place, lives are more valuable -- far more valuable -- than jobs. True, without a job many adult individuals would suffer, but given the possibility that the bug in the prototype that Occidental Engineering was producing could cause an accident in the skies and a resulting loss of many lives, the best course for the project manager is to listen to engineer Wayne Jones and take the ethical course of action.

This paper reviews three ethical theories, one of which will be determined to be the most appropriate for this dilemma: Virtue Ethics, Deontology, and Utilitarianism. Virtue Ethics According to author Barbara MacKinnon, Virtue Ethics asks "How we ought to be" rather than "What we ought to do" (MacKinnon, et al. 2015).

Virtue Ethics deals with the traits of personal character (habits, tendencies, and disposition) that make a person "good"; in fact the author asserts that when an individual has "unusually well-developed" traits (that are mentioned earlier in this sentence) that person is likely to be thought of as a "hero or even as a saint" (MacKinnon, 91). MacKinnon quotes from an article by Susan Wolf which explains that a "moral saint" is a person whose "every action is as good as possible" and that person is as "morally worthy as can be" (91).

That morally worthy individual may not be happy, though, because happiness and pleasure are two different things; but notwithstanding that a virtuous person may not be blessed with constant happiness, virtues like "courage, loyalty, honesty, and fairness" matter more at the end of the day than pleasure and happiness. Aristotle wrote that there are two virtues: intellectual virtues (virtues of the mind -- understanding and reasoning) and moral virtues (practicing honesty, courageousness brings moral virtues) (MacKinnon, 92). Professor Charles D.

Kay echoes what MacKinnon wrote about virtue ethics: it relates to honesty, loyalty, courage and generosity. But Kay adds that for Aristotle (considered the author of the main ideas in virtue ethics) courage is manifested by the person by "…exhibiting the right amount of a particular behavior" between the "deficiency (cowardice) and the excess (foolhardiness)" (Kay, p. 2). Professor Torbjorn Tannsjo explains that virtue ethics embraces the "general traits of character," and traits of character can be learned, and they can be developed through education and through training (Tannsjo, 2008).

Traits of personality cannot easily be developed through training because they are "…more or less fixed through our biology" (Tannsjo, 91). What makes virtue ethicists unique among ethical scholars is that they "define certain character traits…and provide us with lists of those traits" (courage, et al.). Utilitarianism "An action is right only if in the situation there was no alternative to it which would have resulted in a greater sum total of welfare in the world" (Tannsjo, 18).

In other words, an action that produces the most happiness (Tannsjo prefers to use "welfare") for the most people is the right action. Tannsjo also emphasizes as part of the utilitarian ethic that if an action is not right, it is wrong, plain and simple. If an action is not wrong, then it is right. This seems overly simplistic but it is part of what John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham put forward as utilitarianism. Professor Kay takes a slightly different approach.

Actions are "right" to the degree that they "…tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number" of people (p. 2). The question then becomes, according to Kay, "what constitutes the 'greatest good'"? Kay notes that utilitarianism is a "simple theory" which can be attacked with logic.

He outlines several objections to utilitarianism: a) one can't judge the outcome of an action beforehand, nor can one know who will be affected; b) it is a time-consuming process to determine what is absolutely right, and frequently there isn't adequate time to make that determination; and c) the utilitarian ethical theory does not acknowledge that some rights of individuals might be violated in order that a greater number of people would be served (Kay, p. 2).

MacKinnon points to an example of how utilitarianism can help great numbers of people but stomp on the rights of some. In China, the government limits the number of children that any family can have -- each family may only have one child. Hence, China is impinging upon a "basic liberty -- the freedom to reproduce" (MacKinnon, 53). Moreover, in order to limit each family to one child, the "morally controversial" procedure of abortion comes into play when a family may be expecting a second child.

Why limit families to one child? China is a nation that is over populated, and there have been times in recent years when people were starving in China because there were more people than food to feed them. China was just trying to get its population to a place that was more manageable -- but in the meantime even if the "greater good" (the well-being of the society as a whole) was served, there were injustices imposed on families in the meantime.

Deontological Ethics While utilitarianism is about doing the thing that brings most people happiness or pleasure, deontological ethics is about doing what makes a person worthy to experience happiness -- a huge difference from utilitarianism. Philosopher Immanuel Kant is considered the author of deontological ethics. The word deontology means "theory of duty" and deontological ethics zeros in on "duties, obligations, and rights" (MacKinnon, 68).

Philosopher Jeremy Bentham described deontological ethics as "knowledge of what is right or proper" but contemporary philosophers view deontological ethics as a way to focus on "duties and obligations" rather than on outcomes or consequences (which utilitarian ethics focuses on) (MacKinnon, 68). In other words, there are certain things individuals should do, and ought to do, and a good comparison in terms of understanding deontological ethics is to contrast it with utilitarian ethics.

While utilitarian ethics relates to what produces "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" of people, deontological ethics zeros in on "what makes us worthy of happiness" (MacKinnon, 68). According to Kant, people are only worthy of happiness if they do their duty, and finish what is expected of them; Kant went on to assert that morality (ethical behavior) is not necessarily a "doctrine of happiness" -- or an agenda for how to be happy, MacKinnon explains (68). Rather, it was Kant's belief that morality is the "rational condition of happiness" (MacKinnon, 68).

What would you do -- and why? I would listen to Wayne Jones, the engineer, who has the best vantage point to know the flaws in the prototype and the potential catastrophic results that can.