There are no ethics

There Are No Ethics

Commentary by: Earle Airey

Many people think of ethics as the guide to help make the decision between right and wrong. Why I suggest there are no ethics is because the term has been tossed around so casually that the term is losing meaning. “Ethical behavior” now suggests an ethnically acceptable behavior. By that I mean whatever seems right or wrong to an individual or group of people. I suggest when ethics is used in a generic, catch all approach that the discipline becomes weakened. Just to say something is “unethical” must be judged accordingly to the ethical framework in which the implementer intended. Then it can be judged against the ethical framework of the community (which can be debated even further).

Ethics can be defined as, “that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics).” From this definition I don’t believe that ethics should be first applied to work in the gray areas between right and wrong without some understanding of the decision logic. Before ethical considerations are selected a review of the different philosophies (at times I refer to them as frameworks) is in order. I believe that ethics is a logical framework to justify the actions of an individual, group, or community as well as to provide consistent execution of those actions. The different ethical frameworks that have been developed over the years further reinforce this suggestion.

Utilitarianism

The utilitarianism ethical framework suggests that it is the end results that will determine if the actions were justified. If the positives outweigh the negatives then it is that end result that counts as being ethical.

An example could be corporate layoffs in time of financial troubles. If labor costs were not reduced the entire company would suffer bankruptcy. The end result is a company that now has financial wiggle room to reorganize and journey down the road to recovery. The layoffs would be ethically justified using this principle.

A deeper look at this example could be that the end result may have been justified; however misapplication would not take into account all of the families affected by such a layoff. Perhaps a temporary pay reduction would have been a better choice. Sure it probably would have taken more effort to implement, but a lower paying job would be better than no job.

To make complete and proper use of this framework using negative harm principles all stakeholders in the decision process must be considered. In the layoff example, stakeholders could include employees and their families, customer service quality, vendors, subcontractors, or even the diner across the street at lunchtime. The level of granularity will depend on the situation and the ability of management to discern relevant stakeholders and to what length and depth is necessary to achieve the most positive possible end result.

Ethical Relativism (aka Ethical Egoism)

This approach suggests that universal perspectives or individual frameworks cannot be applied to a specific individual and/or situation. A typical statement that would support this could be, “don’t do as I do,” or “what works for you may not work for me.” The premise here is that one’s personal moral judgment is the primary element of reasoning if an action is ethical. This relativism also extends to any definable group. This can be organizations, ethnic groups, geographical regions, political boundaries, and so on. When multiple individuals collectively share similar ethical principles the title of Cultural Relativism may apply (when in Rome, do as the Romans do).

In Bob Berg’s book Adversaries into Allies, Win People over without Manipulation or Coercion suggest that all actions we as human beings take are based on self-interest. We give to a charity not just because the cause is righteous, but also it makes us feel good. We may undertake a specific action because it aligns with our personal value system. Ethical relativism in a nutshell.

Understanding this form of ethics can help determine certain actions or reactions in dealings with other people or people groups. This provides an opportunity to inquire and gain insight into why others feel or think the way they do about an ethical relativism perspective. Then a dialog can develop that shares the perspectives of other stakeholders that the originator may not have thought of. However if that person feels that they are correct and sticks to the creed that “what works for you does not have to work for me” perspective, then at least you have a better idea behind the logic they are using.

Universalism (Kantian Ethics)

Immanuel Kant developed a set of principles referred to as imperatives that form the foundation for universalism or Kantian ethics. These imperatives are based on two elements. The first one states that an action can be taken if it was to become universal law (a duty-based approach). The second states that you never treat people as a means to a solution, but rather as the end result (people have certain rights). Simply stated one would act if that action was considered law and that law supported a conclusion that served people without infringing on their rights.

So an example would be to drive a vehicle not exceeding the speed limit. The speed limits have been set to promote safer vehicle operation on a given segment of roadway. This sounds like a good idea. The faster a vehicle travels the more difficult safe operation becomes as population and local traffic density increases. However where universalism becomes a challenge to promote is under circumstances of suggested greater need. In an emergency there could be a need to exceed the speed limit, especially if a life is at stake. Does the driver follow the universalism ethical approach and follow all traffic rules or break them to potentially save a life on the way to the hospital?

A business case could be to count it against an employee who comes to work late. The reason for the late arrival is due to a flat tire from road debris. This employee has been exemplarily in their dedication and performance over the years. Does his/her supervisor count it against them (as policy dictates) or forgive the matter?

Insight into the elements of this form of ethical reasoning can help determine how far to implement policies, understand the dutiful actions of others, and to consider the viewpoint/perceptions of affected stakeholders.

Justice based ethics

Batson and Neff in their book “Business Ethics, Sunday Ethic Monday World” suggest that business and management operations are looking for ethical reasoning based on the elements of justice, equality and integrity. Justice suggests proper application of equality and integrity as a balance is sought after. Justice can include punishment and reward. If a party wrongs another and an injury is suffered, justice would seek to correct that imbalance by requiring the offender to compensate the injured for their loss. It is suggested that justice comes in at least three flavors.

Contract justice is based on agreements that if one party performs an agreed upon action, the second party will respond by performing their agreed upon action. A simple example would be a contractor agreeing to build a house while the person commissioning the project agrees to pay them for their work. A workplace example could be a union labor contract, customer order fulfillment or a non-compete agreement.

Distributive justice deals with elements that should be available to those in need through proper distribution of those resources. Popular elements could be food, clothing, shelter, and basic medical attention. Many feel in a country with so much wealth that no one should go hungry. It becomes a matter of improperly distributed wealth. A positive example would be compensation based on contribution. Those who distributed more contribution more get distributed more compensation.

Compensatory justice seeks to compensate for losses due to the fault on another. An employee wrongly terminated may receive justice through compensation for lost wages. Compensatory justice would also be served if an auto accident resulted in personal injury, but was compensated for loss of income if that injury prevented them from earning wages.

One of the challenges with distributing justice is in estimating nontangible damage such as pain and suffering. Another could be in the case of deliberate criminal actions (think of Tyco, Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc.) the punitive damage estimate can be difficult to calculate. 

The symbol of the US Justice System is of a blindfolded woman holding a balancing scale. This is that balance that justice seeks to determine. To promote a medium of reasoning that equality for all is noble and the challenges to do so fairly deserves eternal diligence.

Natural Law

Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law). How people implement or choose a particular ethical philosophy can have roots in Natural Law. This law suggests that there are certain fundamental human rights that transcend the boundaries of position, nationality, religion, race, social status, and so on. These rights would include, but not limited to telling the truth, the right to life, not to harm other people, not to murder, and respect for others.

Another perspective of Natural Law is in reference to the perceived natural order of things. An example could be environmentalist against the construction of a hydroelectric dam that could upset the environmental balance of the area. Another could be to argue against the use of birth control as it interrupts the natural process of procreation. This perspective can become a point of contention if the thought is that a particular action goes against what they consider to be Natural Law is in opposition of opposing beliefs.

Rights

Rights deals with entitlement. Many people believe that there are certain rights that all people should have. The U.S. Declaration of Independence suggests the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Some feel that it should be everyone’s right to access free or affordable healthcare. Others feel strongly about the rights to free quality education. Entitlement can be simply a comment about “I did this (pay my taxes for example), so I should get that (prompt emergency service response).”

Rights are based on laws or legal rights, but they can stem from other elements or ethical philosophies. When dealing with a rights-based perspective, the thought is that others will help the cause of your rights (courts, consumer protection, emergency medical treatment, etc.) or at least not prevent access to those rights (barring use of aforementioned elements).

A perspective based on rights can also override other ethical considerations. An anti-abortion demonstration could result in the destruction of an abortion clinic due to the belief of a right to life. Actions that endanger that right can be subject to dismissal or abolishment.

An advocate of rights-based ethics should not be considered to be inconsistent, but rather flexible in the application of their moral and ethical beliefs. The questions becomes, does consistency exist within the scope of that flexibility. A, E, I, O, U…and sometimes Y.  

What do you believe?

Other ethical frameworks do exist with varying degrees of granularity. However when it really comes down to ethics…what do you believe? Some considerations is that when dealing with “ethical” issues that one operates with consistency and integrity. One thing that can help is to develop a personal statement of ethics.

As with many development projects it can change during the creation process, be remodeled later, or even overhauled. The idea behind this is that when elements in the mind make it to paper they have a tendency of making a different impact. During the process of creating such a document keep the various frameworks in mind. In no way should the writer feel restricted by a single ethical philosophy. As shown here these elements are not so clear cut and thus may differ from situation to situation. However one of the goals is to operate in a consistent manner when confronted with the same situation again. Another is to refine your statement as you grow in experience and wisdom. During this refinement process you will want to review your statement at major milestones in your career and on a regular basis (i.e. quarterly to annually, but no longer). As these review progress over time the less changes you will probably find yourself making.

Share your statement with those close to you to gain feedback and outside perspectives. Then start to seek feedback from others. The idea is to cultivate these elements in a safe environment with your close circle first. As feedback starts to come from beyond you will get various opinions about your viewpoints or get solicitations on their own. This is good in that you will gain insight into their perspectives on ethical behavior.

What do they believe?

I ask this to start a dialog. Not between you or me but in your own mind (internal). When people act a certain way we can ask ourselves if their behavior falls into a framework that justifies their behavior or beliefs they value. We can use this to create a dialog with others (external) and/or formulate a strategy for dealing with the situation. With an understanding of these different frameworks we personally benefit by being able to articulate our position more clearly. If all stakeholders have a better understanding of these ethical elements more quality dialog and exchange of ideas can result.

What I believe

I will be updating my personal statement of ethics within the next month or so and I will post it online as an example and to be held accountable. I will post that as a follow up article to this one. From the most basic elements comes my foundation for ethical behavior is to treat others how I would like to be treated. That concept in of itself sparked a discussion that led to an article I wrote here…

http://blog.victoryleadership.com/2014/09/treat-others-how-you-would-want-to-be.html

Ethics is topic that I only scratched the surface on. Hope this was of some value and I thank you for your interest. Two books I would recommend for more granular information about ethical philosophies and logic are…

Business Ethics. Sunday Ethic – Monday World. Batson & Neff Triangle Publishing

http://www.amazon.com/Business-Ethics-Sunday-Monday-World/dp/1931283141/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415824129&sr=8-1&keywords=Business+Ethics+sunday+ethics+monday+world

And

Business Ethics. A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach – Joseph W. Weiss

http://www.amazon.com/Business-Ethics-Stakeholder-Management-Approach/dp/B005CZNKOG/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1415824186&sr=8-5&keywords=Business+Ethics.+A+Stakeholder+and+Issues+Management+Approach

If you know of some good reading on ethics please share.