Assignment: Describe moral objectivism moral relativism and divine command theory

Assignment: Describe moral objectivism, moral relativism and divine command theory

Assignment: Describe moral objectivism, moral relativism and divine command theory

Chapter 1

Ethical Principles and Business Decisions

A businessman in handcuffs standing trial.

Comstock Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter, you should be able to:

Describe moral objectivism, moral relativism, and divine command theory.

Explain the theories of psychological egoism and psychological altruism, and the relation between gender and morality.

Explain how virtue theory, duty theory, and utilitarianism provide standards of morality.

Describe the relation between morality and government in social contract theory, human-rights theory, and the four principles of governmental coercion.

1.1 Introduction

Some jobs have higher moral reputations than others, and national surveys are routinely conducted to reveal public attitudes about various professions. One poll asked people to rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in different fields (Jones, 2010). The results of the survey were as follows (the numbers indicated the percentage of those surveyed who ranked the respective vocations very high in terms of honesty and ethical standards): Nurses: 81% Bankers: 23% Military officers: 73% TV reporters: 23% Druggists, pharmacists: 71% Newspaper reporters: 22% Grade school teachers: 67% Local officeholders: 20% Medical doctors: 66% Lawyers: 17% Police officers: 57% Business executives: 15% Clergy: 53% State officeholders: 12% Day care providers: 47% Advertising practitioners: 11% Judges: 47% Members of Congress: 9% Auto mechanics: 28% Lobbyists: 7% Nursing home operators: 26% Car salespeople: 7% There is a clear pattern here.

The highest ranking professions involve helping people, and nurses, who are at the very top, are clear examples. Among the lowest ranking occupations are those associated with the business world: bankers, business executives, advertisers, and, at the very bottom, car salespeople.

What is it that makes us have such low opinions of the moral integrity of the business world?

Part of it may be that, in contrast with nurses, businesses have the reputation of caring only for themselves and not for others. Part of it may also be that the competitive nature of business pushes even the most decent of people to put profits above responsibility to the public. The concept of business ethics is by no means new; in fact, some of the earliest written documents in human civilization wrestle with these issues.

The Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi, from almost 4,000 years ago, had this to say about the responsibility of building contractors: If a builder build a house for some one, even though he has not yet completed it; if then the walls seem toppling, the builder must make the walls solid from his own means. … If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense.

(trans. 1915 by L. W. King, sections 233 and 235; see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.asp#text)

This entire book is devoted to understanding the ethical challenges that businesses face and what can be done to meet those challenges. In this chapter, we will explore several basic and time-tested principles of morality. Some of history’s greatest minds have reflected on the nature of morality and devised theories of where morality comes from and how moral principles should guide our conduct. Many of these principles have direct application to ethical issues within business, and we will explore that connection.

Assignment: Describe moral objectivism moral relativism and divine command theory

1.2 Where Moral Values Come From

A good definition of ethics is that it is an organized analysis of values relating to human conduct, with respect to their rightness and wrongness. Ethics is not the same as etiquette, which merely involves customary codes of polite behavior, such as how we greet people and how we seat guests at a table. The issue in ethics is not what is polite, but what is obligatory. Ethics is closely related to morality, and although some ethicists make subtle distinctions between the two, they are more often used interchangeably, as will be done throughout this book. One of the most basic ethical issues involves an understanding of where our moral values come from.

Consider the moral mandates that we should not kill, steal, or lie. Are these universal and unchanging truths that are somehow embedded in the fabric of the universe, or are they changeable guidelines that we humans have created ourselves to suit our needs of the moment? The question of where our moral values come from often involves two issues: The first is a debate between objectivism and relativism, and the second concerns the relation between morality and religion. We will look at each of these. Moral Objectivism and Moral Relativism Some years ago, the Lockheed Corporation was caught offering a quarter of a billion dollars in bribes overseas.

A major U.S. defense contractor, Lockheed fell on economic hard times. The U.S. government commissioned the company to design a hybrid aircraft, but after one crashed, the government canceled orders. Because of this and other mishaps, Lockheed believed that the solution to its financial woes was to expand its aircraft sales into foreign countries. To get military aircraft contracts with foreign governments, it made a series of payoffs to middlemen who had political influence in West Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and several other countries.

The company was eventually caught and punished with a heavy fine, and its chairman and president were forced to resign. A consequence of this event was the creation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which includes an anti-bribery provision that involves stiff fines and prison terms for offenders. The message of the law was that, when in Rome, you should not do as the Romans. There are overarching standards of ethical conduct that business are expected to follow, regardless of where they are in the world and what the local business practices are there.

When Lockheed engaged in systematic bribery, did it violate a universal standard of morality that is binding on all human societies, or did it just violate a standard of morality that is merely our personal preference in the United States? On the one side of this question is the theory of moral objectivism, which has three key components: Morality is objective: Moral standards are not created by human beings or human societies. According to many objectivists, they exist in a higher spirit realm that is completely apart from the physical world around us.

Moral standards are unchanging: Moral standards are eternal and do not change throughout time or from location to location. No matter where you are in the world or at what point in history, the same principles apply. Moral standards are universal: There is a uniform set of moral standards that is the same for all people, regardless of human differences like race, gender, wealth, and social standing. The classic champion of this view is the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (424 BCE–347 BCE), who argued that moral truths exist in a higher level of reality that is spiritual in nature. According to Plato, the universe as a whole is two-tiered.

There is the lower physical level that consists of rocks, trees, human bodies, and every other material object that we see around us. All of this is constantly changing, either decaying or morphing into something else. Within this level of the universe, nothing is permanent. Someone accessing a drug database on a computer in a pharmacy. Associated Press/Jim Mone Many hospitals have password protected medication cabinets to prevent drug theft. But is stealing always wrong? Would your answer change if you knew the person stealing the drug needed it for her cancer treatment? What if she were stealing it for her child?

On the other hand, Plato argued, there is a higher level of the universe, which is nonphysical and is the home of eternal truths. He called this the realm of the forms, which are perfect patterns or blueprints for all things. Mathematical principles are good examples. They are completely unchanging and in no way dependent for their existence on the changing physical world. Even if the entire physical universe were destroyed, and another emerged, the principles of mathematics would remain the same, unchanged. According to Plato, moral principles are just like mathematical principles in that respect, and they also exist in the higher realm of the forms.

Just as the principle that 1 + 1 = 2 exists permanently in this realm, so too do moral principles of goodness, justice, charity, and many others. The greatest appeal of Plato’s theory is that it gives us a sense of moral stability. When someone is murdered, we often believe that an absolute and unchanging moral principle has been violated that goes well beyond the shifting preferences of our particular human community.

On the other side of this dispute is the theory of moral relativism, which has three contrasting key features: Morality is not objective: Moral standards are purely human inventions, created by either individual people or human societies. Moral standards are not unchanging: Moral standards change throughout time and from society to society. Moral standards are not universal: Moral standards do not necessarily apply universally to all people, and their application depends on human preference. Defenders of moral relativism are typically skeptical about the existence of any higher realm of absolute truth, such as Plato’s realm of the forms.

Although notions of eternal moral truths are appealing, the fact is, says the moral relativist, we do not have any direct experience that such higher realms exist. What we know for sure is the physical world around us, which contains societies of human beings that are everchanging. The moral values that we see throughout these societies are ones that are created by human preference and change throughout history and with geographical location. Simply put, morality is a human creation, not an eternal truth. Between moral objectivism and moral relativism, which is right?

Some philosophical questions are not likely to be answered any time soon, and this is one of them. However, we can take inspiration from both sides of the debate. With the Lockheed bribery incident, the position of the U.S. government was that there is a standard of integrity in business that applies worldwide, not just within U.S. borders. This is a concession to moral objectivism. On the other hand, some business practices are culturally dependent. In Japan, new businesses typically have an opening ceremony in which a Shinto priest blesses the company building.

U.S. companies operating in Japan often follow this practice, and this is a concession to moral relativism. Religion and Morality An organization called the Center for Christian Business Ethics Today offers a Christian approach to ethical issues in business. According to the organization, God is the ultimate source of moral values: “God’s standards as set forth in God’s Word, the Bible, transcend while incorporating both the law and ethics” (Center for Christian Business Ethics Today, n.d.). This view is by no means unique, and is in fact part of a long history of efforts to ground morality in some aspect of religion. According to the classic view of religious ethics, true morality does not emerge from human thought processes or human society alone.

It begins with God establishing moral truths, instilling moral convictions within human nature, and reinforcing those moral truths through scripture. Religious believers who follow God’s path will be motivated to follow God’s established moral truths, perhaps more so than non-believers who view ethics as a purely human invention. This classic view of religious ethics raises two questions: Is God the creator of moral values? Do religious believers have better access to moral truth than non-believers? Regarding the first question—whether God creates moral values—a position called divine command theory answers yes: Moral standards are created by God’s will. God in essence creates them from nothing, not even basing them on any prior standard of reason or logic.

God pronounces them into existence through a pure act of will. There are two challenges that divine-command theory faces: It presumes in the first place that God exists, and that is an assumption that non-believers would reject from the start. Many religious believers themselves would hold that belief in God is a matter of personal faith, not absolute proof, and so we must be cautious about the kinds of activities that we ascribe to God, such as creating absolute moral truths. The moral standards that God willfully creates would be arbitrary if they were made purely from scratch, without relying on any prior standard of reason.

What would prevent God from willfully creating a random set of moral values, which might include principles like “lying is OK” or “stealing is OK”? God could also willfully change his mind about which moral principles he commands. Maybe he could mandate that stealing is wrong on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, but that stealing is OK during the rest of the week. Sketch of Voltaire.

Copyright Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images/Anonymous Voltaire (1694–1778), the French philosopher who famously stated that “if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

Many ethicists throughout history—even ones who were devout religious believers—have rejected divine command theory for this reason. To avoid arbitrariness, it seems that morality would need to be grounded in some stable rational standard, such as with Plato’s view of absolute moral truths. That is, God would merely endorse these absolute moral truths since they seem rationally compelling to him; and he does not literally create them from nothing. If morality, then, is really grounded in preexisting truths, then we humans can discover them on our own, and do not need to depend on God for our moral knowledge.

Again, the second question raised by the classic view of religious ethics is whether believers have better access to moral truth than non-believers. The answer to this throughout much of history was yes: Religion is an essential motivation for moral conduct. To behave properly, people need to believe that a divine being is watching them and will punish them in the afterlife for immoral conduct. The French moral philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778) famously stated that “if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him,” precisely because moral behavior depends so much on belief in divine judgment (quoted in Gay 1988, pg. 265).

In more recent times, this position has fallen out of favor, and there is wider acceptance of the view that believers are not necessarily more moral than non-believers. One reason for this change in attitude is that our society as a whole has become much more secularized than Voltaire’s was, and, from our experience, non-believers do not appear to be particularly bad citizens. Also, it appears that believers fall into the same moral traps as everyone else. The upshot is that both components of classic religious ethics are difficult to establish: It is not clear that God creates moral values, assuming that God exists, and it is not clear that believers have a special advantage in following moral rules.

It is undeniable that, for many believers, religion is an important source of moral inspiration, and that fact should not be minimized. Undoubtedly, this is true for the members of the Center for Christian Business Ethics Today. At the same time, though, there are plenty of nonreligious motivations to do the right thing, such as a fear of going to jail, a desire to be accepted by one’s family and friends, or a sense of personal integrity. In the business world there are additional motivations to be moral, such as the desire to avoid lawsuits, costly fines, or tarnishing the company name.

Assignment: Describe moral objectivism, moral relativism and divine command theory

1.3 Ethics and Psychology

An important set of ethical issues involves our psychological makeup as human beings. There is no doubt that our personal expectations, desires, and thought processes have an impact on what motivates us to behave morally. In this section, we will look at two issues of moral psychology; one focuses on our psychological inclination to be selfish, and the other on how gender shapes our moral outlook. Egoism and Altruism When the U.S.

…