Prescriptive Approaches to Ethics

1. Prescriptive Approaches to Ethics Geoffrey G. Bell, PhD, CA University of Minnesota Duluth October 2003

2. Sources for Lecture • Our text • Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (many editions) • Mill, J.S., Utilitarianism (many editions) • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. • Cavanagh, G.F., D.J. Moberg, and M. Velasquez (1981). “The ethics of organizational politics,” Academy of Management Review, 6(3): 363-374.

3. Problems with Prescriptive Approaches • People tend to be a “blend,” not “purely” Utilitarian or Kantian or whatever. • Prescriptive approaches give conflicting advice, or no advice at all.

4. Who gets the heart transplant? • Rejean is 55 years old, recently retired, and covered fully by health care. He is married, and his children are adults with children of their own. Historically, Rejean has been active, but with his recent heart attack, he has become bed-ridden. Without a transplant, he will die. • Mary is 23 years old, and a single mother of one 2-year-old boy. She is on welfare, and has no health insurance. Her parents are retired, but “just barely making ends meet,” so cannot provide financial assistance for the operation. She needs a transplant to survive. • Tom is a 35 year old, married, laborer; the father of a 15-year-old daughter and a 10-year-old son. His work provides partial health care, but he would need to take out a second mortgage on his house to pay much of the cost of a transplant operation. Without the transplant, Tom can expect to live probably 5 years before other vital organs fail. • Who should get the heart, assuming it’s a “fit” for all, and why?

5. Consequentialist Theory • Also called “teleological.” • Concerned with outcomes or consequences of action, and hence the name. • Utilitarianism is well-known example. • Utilitarianism seeks to maximize welfare of all people concerned with decision. • Makes for very difficult calculus (information-processing demands very high).

6. Deontological theory (Kantianism) • Focused on ethics as duty (what ought to be done). • “Pure” Kantianism has no regard for outcomes of decision. • Can the decision rule be turned into a universal rule? If not, then it’s unethical. • (e.g., promise-breaking is wrong; lying is wrong) • Always treat people as ends and never as means to an end. • Problem with “horrendous” outcomes. • E.g., axe murderer.

7. An Introduction to Justice • Justice is often used to refer to what is fair. • Justice concerns giving people what they deserve. • Often arises in questions of distribution: • If there are a fixed number of organs to be donated, what is a just way to allocate them? • If there is a shortfall of state revenue, what is a just way to allocate the cuts? • If taxes must be raised, what is a just apportionment of the raises? • Business is concerned with wealth allocation, so justice is a relevant concept.

8. Rawls’ Theory of Justice • Rawls asks people to imagine a situation in which free and equal self-interested persons attempt to arrive at unanimous agreement on principles that will serve as the basis for constructing the major institutions of society. • Rawls pre-contractual situation (the “original position”) is one in which people act behind a veil of ignorance. • They are asked to agree on the principles of justice without knowing about themselves and their position (sex, race, class, natural ability, intelligence, etc.).

9. Rawls’ Principles of Justice • Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. • Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: A. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and B. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

10. Rawls’ First Principle • Reasoning – an equal share of whatever is available is the most any person could reasonably expect, given his requirement of unanimous consent. • No one would voluntarily take less than an equal share because to do so would make that person comparatively worse off. • Based on the idea that “he who cuts the cake gets the last piece.”

11. Rawls’ Difference Principle (2a) • Persons in the original position would accept inequality when the least advantaged person is better off. • Assumes that there is a “worst off” person, although we don’t know who in advance. • Situation II is preferred to I as the worst off is advantages, but III is not preferred to II. • Based on a “maximin” strategy – a rational person will maximize the minimum outcome.

12. Rawls’ Principle of Equal Opportunity (2b) • Whether a person gets a certain job (or whatever) should be determined by competence rather than any irrelevant characteristic. • In a just society, every attempt should be made to eliminate differences that result from accidents of birth and social condition.

13. Putting it together:Cavanagh et al Figure 1 Are there overwhelming factors justifying suboptimization? No Does the decision maximize economic efficiency? No Yes Yes Are there overwhelming factors justifying abrogation of rights? Does the decision respect rights of all involved? No No Yes Yes Are there overwhelming factors justifying violation of canons of justice? Does the decision respect the canons of justice? No Yes Yes No Accept decision Reject decision

14. Notes re: Cavanagh et al • Argue you can start with any of the questions. • For any decision to be “ethical,” it must normally accord with all three major ethical frameworks (utilitarianism, rights, justice). • If any decision violates any of the three, there must be an “overwhelming reason” to make it “ethical.”

15. Conclusions • There are several prescriptive approaches to ethics. • The problem with them is they often either provide no advice or provide conflicting advice to practicing managers. • Cavanagh et al sought to overcome this problem by providing a flowchart to help assess the ethicality of a decision.