MULUNGUSHI UNIVERSITY/ZAMCOM

BACHELOR OF COMMUNICATIONS IN JOURNALISM/PUBLIC RELATIONS

BMG 101 ETHICS AND SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOUR

SCHOOL: BUSINESS STUDIES.
PROGRAMMES: First YEARS.
COURSE TUTOR: KUNDA WINFIELD FR, MA CS, BST, DIPL PHIL, DIPL IT, CERT TEACH
Pre-requisite: None.

Lesson 1 NATURE OF ETHICS

At the end of this lesson students should be able to explain clearly the meaning of the following terms:
ethics, ethos, norms, values, virtues, law and morality

1.1 Definition and meaning

a) Why Study Ethics? Cf. A story of a 27-year old prince

The story demonstrates a variety of moral issues
Ethics is a vast field of study that really addresses one question:
How should we live our lives?
How we ought to live our lives?
What duties do I have, and to whom do I owe them?
What values are reflected by the duties I have assumed?

Ethics takes us out of the world of ‘This is the way I do it’ or ‘this is the way it is always been done’ into
the realm of ‘This is what I should do’ or this is the action that can rationally be justified.

Socrates – ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’

b) What is ethics?

Ethics derived from the Greek Word ethos, refers to those values, norms, beliefs, and expectation that
determine how people within a culture ought to live and act. At its most basic level, ethics is concerned
with how we act and how we live our lives. Ethics involves what is perhaps the most monumental
question any human being can ask. How should we live?

Ethics is the measurement to identify right from wrong. Ethics is the standard set of norms that prescribe
what ought to do and what ought not to do. Ethics means leaning to make rational decisions among an
array of choices, all of which may be morally justifiable, but some more so than others. Rationality is the
key word here. Ethics is a rational discussion of the process of making moral judgements.

c) Academic Approaches to Ethics:

There are three approaches to the studies of ethics:

 i. Descriptive Ethics
Descriptive ethics approaches the question of’ right and wrong in society ethically, using the
method of social sciences’. This differs from philosophical ethics, in that descriptive ethics tries
to find out what is believed to be right or wrong in a given place or culture, philosophical ethics
asks: is this action right or wrong according to reason, to do or to accept in social relations?
Descriptive ethics, on the other hand just gives the morals of a particular society, often by
studying other cultures.

Social Sciences, such as psychology and sociology, do examine human decision making and
actions; but these sciences are descriptive rather than normative discipline. By being descriptive,
we refer ethics the fact that they provide an account of how and why people do act the way they
do – they describe; as a normative discipline, ethics sees an account of how and why people
should act in a certain way, rather than how they do act.

Social ethics refers to how we live together in a community and how social organisations ought to
be structured. Social ethics involves questions of political, economic, civic, and cultural norms at
promoting human well-being.

ii. Meta-ethics
Meta-ethics studies ethical theory of what constitutes right or wrong. It uses the theoretical reason
to explain what is right from what is wrong. Theoretical reason is the pursuit of truth, which is
the highest standard for what we should believe, e.g., the study of science. Meta-ethics deals with
the justification of ethical theories and judgment, e.g.,

All doctrinal theories of ethics point to the fact that many would inevitably disagree about the
nature of right and wrong. Principles of any ethical theory can be challenged elsewhere or in the
same place by a rival school of thought.

iii. Prescriptive or normative Ethics

Philosophical ethics is said to be prescriptive if it provides guidelines to decide rationally what is
good and what is bad. Prescriptive or normative ethics deals with the rightness or wrongness of a
specific course of action in particular areas of human activity and interaction (applied ethics or
special ethics), and it also deals with guidelines of what is good from what is bad rationally
(General Ethics).

Philosophers often emphasise that ethics is normative, which means that it deals with our
reasoning about how we should act. As a normative discipline, ethics deals with norms and
standards of appropriate and proper (normal) behaviour. Norms establish what we should do,
how we should act, what type of person we should be. Ethics is part of practical reason which
deals with a reasoning about what we should do and not through theoretical reasoning – what we
should believe. When most people debate about ethics, they are debating normative ethics, that
is, what the moral norms should be and how those norms apply to the issue at hand.

d) What are norms?

Norms are standards or guidelines that establish appropriate and proper behaviour. Norms can be
established by such diverse perspective as economics, etiquette, or ethics. Norms establish the guidelines
or standards for determining what we should do, how we should act, and what type of person we should
be. In other words, norms appeal to certain values that we would be promoted or attained by acting in a
certain way.
e) What are Ethical Values?

Values1 are underlying beliefs that cause us to act or to decide one way rather than another.
“A value is a belief that something is good and worthwhile. It defines what is worth having and
worth striving”. It is a preferred course of action.The value that I place on an education leads me to
make the decision to study this evening, rather than to play video games.

Indicating that values are meant to

serve as guides or criteria for selecting good and desirable behaviours.

There are different types of values namely financial, religious, historical, nutritional, political, scientific,
and aesthetic values.2 In in all, values serve various ends and they are distinguished by those acts and
choices they aim to serve. E.g., financial values serve monetary ends, religious values serve spiritual ends,
aesthetic values serve the end of beauty. Equally ethical values serve the ends of human being well.

A company’s core values, for example, are those beliefs that provide the ultimate guide to its decision
making.

Categories of values:

Terminal values are the preferences about desired ends, such as the goals one strives to achieve in life.
Examples of these values considered important to managers include self-respect, family, security,
freedom, inner harmony and happiness.

Ethical values are those beliefs and principles that seek to promote human well-being in an impartial
way. “Ethical values are those properties of life that contribute to human well-being and a life well
lived.”

Ethical values would include such things as happiness, respect, dignity, integrity, freedom,
companionship, and health. Ethics requires that the promotion of human well-being be done impartially.
From the perspective of ethics, no one person’s welfare is more worthy than any others.

Class Exercise: identify the values of any company or corporation. Discuss what could be ethical news
values?

1.2 What is Morality?

1
Although there are variations about what constitutes a value in the literature of ethics, a value can be defined as
an item of worth. People attach values to all sorts of things: careers, money, cars, love, education and so on. What
people value they find worthy of their pursuit and pursue only that which they value. In short, values are one of
the prime motivating factors in human behaviour.
2
For instance, A political value is something that one believes in that relates to how the government should
operate, whom it should serve or not serve, who pays for it and who benefits (common good). Examples of political
values: a small limited government, a strong national defense, low taxation/Fiscal discipline, constitution, individual
freedom, free market, personal responsibility.
Examples of religious (ethical principles that are based on religious traditions text and belief) – charity -showing
compassion to those in need, being respective, treating others humanly, being modest in your relations with others,
growing spiritually.
a) Introduction:
Morality matters because most people, when they are genuinely honest with themselves, associate doing
well in life with being a good person. Having moral character is still essential to most people’s conception
of what makes a person flourish in his or her life. For example, it is difficult to imagine a person being
considered a success in life if he gained his wealth dishonestly; it would be difficult to call a person a
success who is at the top of his profession but cheats on his wife, abuses his children, and drinks too
much.

The same is true for society as a whole. Most people would not want to live in a society in which morality
was unimportant, in which conceptions of right and wrong carried little weight.

Morality is primarily concerned with the moral good – what is right and wrong and the ability to
distinguish the too. Technically speaking, morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong.

Ethics rationally argues about the moral good. The argument must start from the premise that ‘if
proposition Q logically follows from proposition P, and if P is true, then Q must logically be true.’

In Ethics the First Principle of morality is derived from the natural law which states: ‘do good and avoid
evil.’

b) Why morality matters?

i) At Personal level
It is helps to form a moral character that may describe who a good person is; for what
constitutes good life in a given society? Critical to this is how one views the world; what is
reality, who is the author of reality, what are the moral obligations?

ii) Morality and diversity/pluralism

In the increasingly diverse global culture, it is critical for solving what may be the most
important issue for our survival – getting along with each other peacefully despite
differences (religious, ideological, common public life).

iii) Morality and the professions

Professionals face moral choices every day, both in the workplace and in your private life (in
medicine, Journalism, Mining etc...)

iv) Morality and Social issues

There are a lot of debates on several issues, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, capital
punishment, issues driving from the advancement of technology

c) Human beings as Moral Agents

Human beings are considered as moral agents moral subjects such as cars, animals or even small children
because we can reason and be responsible for our actions- morally responsible.

Human beings are responsible for their actions either causally or morally. A causal responsible act is
one in which a human being does might not have been intentional, but he is the one who has caused it
while the responsible act it is intentional.
Moral judgment states acceptable or unacceptable behaviour on the basis of its consequences on us and
others. Human actions are moral in that they express the performer’s inner disposition.

Three elements are used to evaluate a moral action:

i. The object or the deed
For an action to be morally good, its ‘object’ or the deed must be good and acceptable. Generally,
all actions in harmony with man’s rational nature are considered to be good and proper. Human
action is ordered if, and only if, it aims at its end. To be good, an object must be in harmony with
the moral law.

ii. The intention

Moral agents always act for a person, or intention, which is the goal aimed at by the moral agent.
When what is intended is in harmony with the object of the action and in order, the intention is
good. Good intention therefore is not sufficient to make an action morally good.

iii. Circumstances
Circumstances are the actions in itself, surrounding the action, who is doing it, where and when,
what instruments are used, and how it is carried out. All these factors will affect the moral
seriousness of the action.
- Circumstances that can reduce moral responsibility
 Freedom - is a necessary condition for moral responsibility, which is precluded when
mental or physical impairments affect our capacity to freely choose. E.g., if there is only
one possible action, and really no alternatives, not even refraining from acting, I cannot
be said to have chosen the action, though I may or may not consent to it.
 External coercion – refers to any violence that compels one to do what one would not
freely have chosen to do. External compulsion may involve the use of physical force, the
threat of death, of violence to oneself or to others, including psychological pressure.
However, not all such pressure can be considered for reducing moral responsibility. The
kind of external duress will have to be carefully weighed.
 Internal duress- This is an internal coercion. It can be clinically abnormal. A
kleptomaniac, who steals under inner compulsion, suffers from a psychological disorder
that compels him/her to steal things unnecessarily. Such impulsive behaviour is out of
control.

Although we are morally responsible for our actions and their consequences., one may ask: since we
cannot possibly know all the consequences of our actions, which of them are we morally responsible?
- Human Beings are responsible for the consequences of their actions
We are responsible not only for the short term run consequences of our actions, but also for the
reasonably foreseeable ones.

Ignorance does not excuse us from moral responsibility when in a position to know the negative
circumstances or consequences. Invincible ignorance can diminish moral responsibility because
we cannot be expected to know what it is, is impossible for us to know.

d) Conscience
Conscience measures an action’s moral worth against a certain standard. It judges and qualifies it as
good, less good, bad, very bad or serious. The Conscience is the ‘the silent voice’ of reason, which
is not arbitrary.
 Conscience can be defined as the rational judgment, based on the knowledge of right and
wrong, of one’s own action, either past or about to be carried out.

1.3 Morality and Law

All societies have laws that set guidelines for what person can and cannot do, e.g., in most societies,
murder, theft, and various other kinds of violence are both immoral and illegal, yet some things are illegal
in some societies and legal in others. Some countries allow prostitution and capital punishment, but others
do not.
Most societies distinguish between morality and the law in that not all immoral acts are illegal. E.g.,
Filming someone in the street without their consent may not be illegal but might be immoral depending
on the circumstances or may even be unethical.

Dilemmas frequently arise where there may be a conflict between what might be ethical and what might
be legal. There are essentially differences between morality -ethics and law

a) Moral rules are not formally made by any body or any authoritative institution. There is no
inherent structure to the universe. Moral beliefs and moral systems tend to evolve overtime to
meet new ethical challenges and dilemmas.
b) Moral systems don’t usually entail formal institutions of detection, trail and punishment
c) Legal rules define an action as wrong (illegal) on that basis that it was ‘antecedently’
objectionable before it was subsequently made illegal.
d) In law, the effect of the rules is to make something non-legal or pre-legal to become either legal
or illegal. In case of morality, the forming of a rule seems to add nothing to the view that certain
kinds of actions are morally wrong, e.g., lying.

1.4 The roles of values and principles in life

Principles create a compass to which one can refer whenever something is in doubt or one needs to take
a stand or evaluate any opportunity, behaviour, or situation.

Principles can ultimately drive one’s values and goals. Principles do help to determine goals and values
and help one choose between them when confronted with conflicting issues or circumstances.

Further Reading.
Read Chapter 3 by J Circic on Theories of Ethics.
LESSON 2 INTRODUCTION TO ETHICAL THEORIES (5 HOURS)

At the end of this lesson students should be able to

• Explain ethical theory
• Explain the ethical absolutism and ethical relativism
• dilemma Historical perspectives on Ethics
• Making ethical decisions using the Potter Box theory

2.1 Introduction

This lesson gives students knowledge on how to apply ethics in journalism as profession. This is
a very practical study and has met a lot of challenges because journalism as we know it is
“history written in a hurry”. This experience makes journalists make decisions very quickly
without much reflection.
Ethics is important in all aspects of public life and the media is no exception. The media has
the capacity to influence people in society who tend to believe information published by
media houses. Non-adherence to ethics by the media can result in loss of public trust and
worse monies in lawsuits.
“Trust is earned, not freely given”
The professional life of a journalist centres on making decisions; journalists should learn to
analyse very stage of decision-making process to arrive at defensible and justified ethical
decisions.
There should be grievance procedures that people who are aggrieved by what the newspaper
or magazines or any media house has published about them that should be put in place. Above
all there are professional ethics bodies that are in place to promote the highest levels of
professional and ethical conduct besides editorial guidelines.

2.2 What is Media Ethics?

Media ethics is about morals and values:

 are professional code of conduct that govern or regulate the journalism
profession.
 are principles and standards of professional conduct in the media industry that
include electronic and print media, film, theatre, arts, and the internet.
 Ethics is the measurement to identify right from wrong.
  Media Ethics are moral principles of behaviour that ought to be observed by
media practitioners.
 A standard of conduct that indicates how journalists should conduct
themselves based on moral duties.

The guiding principle behind media ethics is responsible journalism in which the media will
have to report accurately, truthfully, fairly and objectively and that it should be for the
benefit of the public and respect the right to privacy.

Every journalist is individually responsible for maintaining standards in his or her own work.

2.3 Basic Ethical Theories

What is an Ethical theory?

A theory: Explains the phenomenon. In science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory is a
fact-based framework for describing a phenomenon.
A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. A theory is based upon a hypothesis
(supposition/proposed explanation) that is backed by evidence.

An Ethical theory is an attempt to provide a systematic answer or proposition to the

fundamental question: How should human beings live their lives?

Since ethics does not just attempt to answer the question of how we should live, it also gives
reasons to support their answer. Ethical theory therefore seeks to provide a rational
justification for why we should act and decide in a particular prescribed way. Anyone can offer
advice for what you should act and how you should act, but a philosophical and reasoned ethics
must answer the “why?” questions as well.

Case Story I:
During the war in Afghanistan a reporter drove into a village where he saw two men
about to be executed inf front of a firing squad. He asks the captain why they are going
to be shot and the captain tells the reporter that some of his men were killed by some
members of that village and that he wants to teach the villagers a lesson. He also tells
the reporter that, as far as he knows, these two men could be innocent. The reporter
expressed shock that he would kill innocent men. At that point the captain gives the
reporter a gun with one bullet and tells him that if he kills one, he will let the other man
go free. What would you do?

Case Story II:

 A student of ethics had asked me how I graded her paper, particularly why she had
received an unexpectedly low grade. When I pointed out that much of her essay offered
little more than her opinions, she asked a question that is familiar to us many ethics
teachers. “How can you say that my opinions are wrong? Isn’t everyone entitled to their
own opinions? I answered that while people may be entitled to hold any opinion they
wish, not all opinions are equal. Some are right, some are wrong, some are reasonable,
and some are unreasonable, some are thoughtful, and others are less thoughtful. “But
this is ethics,” she responded. “Who is to say what’s right or wrong?”
I suggested that anyone who had reasons could say what was right or wrong and asked
if he herself had reasons to support her opinions. I asked her why did she believe what
she had written? She responded that she didn’t know, but that it was “just the way I
feel.”

Some Ethical theories

a) Religion/Divine Command Theory

The Divine Command Theory states that God’s will and commandments define goodness. This
theory states that God not only defines and reveals the moral rules, but also enforces them in
this life and the next.

Hinduism – One respects life, practice vegetarianism, not steal, not commit adultery, and give
to the poor. Women must be reincarnated as a man to achieve salvation. The cow is considered
sacred and so are some monkeys and snakes and must not be killed (The Vedas and Bhagavad
Gita – The Song of God)

Judeo-Christian Ethics - All principles are relative in relation to “Love your neighbour as yourself.” This
principle is based on the Judeo-Christian values and the Ten Commandments in the Bible (Ex 20: 1-17)
and the New Testament teaching ‘you shall love your neighbour as you love yourself” (Matt 22:37-39).
Love of neighbour is normative and that it goes beyond contractual obligations one has towards the
other; it includes justice, concern for the other and equality, honour one’s father and mother... shall not
Kill, not commit adultery, shall not steal, shall not bear false witness…

Buddhism – The Eightfold Path is the way to overcome desire and ignorance. It is a list of moral and
meditation practices and rules: 1) Have right knowledge (especially understand the Four noble Truths
and what they mean); 2) Right thought (avoid envy, jealousy); 3)Right speech (no lying); 4) Right conduct
(no killing of any living thing, no theft, no sexual impurity); 5) Right work (not being a butcher, alcohol
seller, prostitute or slave trader); 6) Right efforts (courage, will power); 7) Right mindfulness (discipline
the mind); 8) Right concentration (meditate and achieve enlightenment or Nirvana). (Sermon at
Benares)
Islam - The moral teachings are summarised in the Five Pillars of Islam: 1) Belief in one God, Allah, and
accept Mohammed as His prophet; 2) Pray five times daily; 3) Give alms to the poor; 4) fast during the
month of Ramadan; 5) Make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in life. The Koran further states: “be
good to your parents… Approach not lewd behaviour, …. Take not life... Give full measure and weight in
justice... If you give your word, do it justice…. And fulfil your obligations before God.” (Koran, 6.151-53)

Conclusions
 There is a lot of similarity among the world religions in morality and ethics – Hinduism,
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism…. (reject murder, stealing, lying, gossip, idleness,
ignorance, selfishness, adultery and promiscuity.
 There are moral agreement and disagreement found in the world religions, even within
their own religious circles – christian denominations
 The Divine Command theory has its strengths and weaknesses – it provides motivation for
many to be moral. The idea of divine reward and punishment does give many a reason for
acting morally. It can bring to extremism -Hitler, Radical Islam
 Note: A moral system based on religion is in practice subject to the interpretation of those
individuals who have the authority to make the interpretations. This introduces the human
element of possible error, biasness and other complications).

b) Aristotle’s Golden Mean – Virtue Theory

Aristotle believed that happiness was the ultimate human good – purpose of one’s
existence. He believed that practical reason was exercised by individuals who understand
‘virtues’ and demonstrated them in their lives and calling. Only by acting morally can one
attain happiness. Morality is not a luxury, but a necessity to enjoy human dignity.

Virtue ethics -flows from both the nature of the act itself and the moral character of the
person who acts. In the Aristotelian sense, the way to behave ethically is that (1) you must
know (through the exercise of practical reasoning) what you are doing; (2) you must select
the act for its own sake – in order to flourish; and (3) the act itself must spring from a firm
and unchanging character.

According to Aristotle, human actions can either be rational or irrational. Their rational
dimension implies the existence of a rational principle: whose operative powers are the
mind (reason or intellect) and the will. Their irrational dimension is that of those actions
which man shares with animal nature. Such actions are based on sentiments or emotions.
They pertain to the body, and are driven by the appetites or passions

Deliberate actions follow knowledge and desire. So long as such actions can be controlled
by reason, they are free. Morality therefore implies freedom. Man has the capacity to
control, or master, his rational as well as the greater part of his irrational ones. Virtues are
rationally controlled dispositions that become permanent trait of character.
 According to Aristotle, virtues are those traits that enable one to perform one’s functions
well. They are habits which help us achieve happiness. Virtue lies at the mean between two
extremes of excess and deficiency. When journalists are making any decision, should take a
position that is in the middle of the two extremes. In journalism for instance the virtues of
balance, fairness and equal time are recognised.

 Note: Aristotle’s virtue theory has been adopted by many thinkers, E.g., Thomas
Aquinas who built a whole christian moral philosophy chiefly is the Natural Law
theory3.
 Virtues are character traits or habits of action that define the moral person. Virtues
are courage, justice, temperance, humanity, transcendence and wisdom. 4

c) Deontological5 theory – Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Deontological theory has bee attributed to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) theory of ethics. A
deontological ethics holds that moral goodness is determined by the nature of the
underlying principle of our intent, not the consequences of our actions.

Immanuel Kant’s theory is based on the notion that it is in the act itself, rather than the
person who acts, where moral force resides. Kant believed that one ought to do what is
right because what is right for one should be right for all.

Categorical means unconditional. Kant’s golden rule was “Do what is right though the world
should perish”. Categorical imperative is a rule or command which applies to all rational
creatures. It has two main forms: the first states that an individual should act as if the
choices one makes for oneself could become universal law, i.e., we as human beings are
rational and so must be logical in our thoughts and actions. To be logical means to be
consistent and to be consistent in ethics means that if some action is right for me to do
under some circumstances then it must be right for all persons to do similar actions in all
similar circumstances. The second form of categorical imperative states that you should act
so that you treat each individual as an end and never as merely a means. In other words,
never use a person as a thing, but only as having absolute value. Moral behaviour is then

3
Aquinas saw the universe as perfectly structured whole in which all things have a purpose. The highest structure is that of
‘eternal law’ the law of God’s reason or mind, which rules the entire creation. ‘Divine Law’ is the law that is revealed to
mankind in the Bible. This law helps a Christian achieve salvation by revealing to humanity what reason alone cannot. Then
there is natural law – a moral law revealed to us by reason.
4
Courage is defined as the rational response to fear and has three main aspects, physical, moral and psychological. Virtue of
justice concerns fairness and giving to people what they deserve or merit. Virtue of temperance concerns moderation in the
pursuit of pleasures associated with eating, drinking, sex and the like. The Virtue of transcendence concerns belief in a larger
purpose beyond self-interest. The virtue of wisdom is defined as having knowledge of the basic truths of life and the ethical
application of this knowledge to real life situations.
5
The term deontology-from two Greek words, deont- and logos – it is right , the study of that.
 defined by consisting of universal rules that respect persons as free and autonomous
individuals

The code of conduct and morality must be arrived at through reason and should be
universally applicable to all. According to Kant, the conscience tells one to choose right and
shun evil. Violation brings about feelings of guilt meaning that there are certain actions
which will always be wrong e.g. cheating, stealing or being dishonest.

Deontological thinking rejects acts which will harm minorities or individuals e.g. the racial
identity is not important. Humanity is humanity. You only mention the racial or ethnic
identity if it is really important. If the means is immoral, you should not use it. E.g. as a
journalist, you should not use deception to get a good story.

For Kant, there are certain moral things you do and not do. His concern is about moral
obligations and actions which people take in order to arrive at the end.
For Kant, the end does not justify the means. In journalism you ask about the actions that
the journalist is going to make to get a story, write a story or publish a story. If the action is
wrong, then it is not justified. For Kant, it is not accepted to harm the people for you to get
a story because it is wrong.
Nevertheless, Kant’s theory encourages obedience and faithful practice. He places
responsibility on the individual journalist to reason out what is good.

Conclusion

 Deontological Ethics is the called the ethics of duty. Here the end does not Justify
the means
 The duty is to do what is right
 The test of a moral act is its universality.

d) Utilitarian ethical theory – John Stuart Mill

In utilitarianism the consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are
ethical. An act’s rightness is determined by its contribution to a desirable end.
It is linked to the belief that one must act in order to achieve the greatest good for the greatest
number.

John Stuart Mill objected to Kant’s emphasis on the intentions behind the act and argued that it
is the outcome or consequence of an act that counts.

Mills’ theory is summarized as “Seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number”.
This theory instructs to;
(i) Produce the greatest balance of good over evil.
(ii) Distribute a good consequence to more people rather than to a few when we have a choice.

It doesn’t matter the action as long as the end will benefit many.
When in doubt, consider which alternative would result in the greatest amount of happiness for
the greatest number of people. In utilitarian view, it may be considered ethical to harm one
person for the benefit of the larger group.

For instance, in investigative reporting, the results may harm individuals in the hope of
providing a greater societal good. In the utilitarianism view, it may be considered ethical to
harm one person for the benefit of the larger good.

2.4 Ethical decision making

Ethical decision making does not involve the automatic application of arbitrary rules. This so
because “Ethics cannot be summed up in a series of inviolate rules or commandments which
can be applied everywhere and always without regard to circumstances, thought of
consequences, or comprehension of the ends to be attained”, Maclver (1922).

But how does one know which option is “the most ethical?” Decisions about ethical questions
usually follow an individual’s consistent behaviour patterns. Because such decisions involve
questions of right and wrong, they are deeply rooted in the values system that is most
important to the decision maker.

Though Philosophy has had a major impact on the development of ethics, there have been
other influences including tradition, politics, religion, race and gender.

Two theories that encompass most approaches to ethical decision making have been identified
by modern philosophers, and these are Ethical Relativism & Ethical Absolutism.

Ethical Absolutism Vs Relativism

Definition of ethical absolutism

What is Ethical Absolutism? Ethical absolutism holds that moral commands are always true. It
is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be
judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. This
means that they are true in all cultures and situations.

Ethical absolutism holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of
humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source. Under this view, actions such as
murder and stealing are objectively wrong, regardless of their circumstance or results.
For ethical absolutism, there are actions that are inherently moral or immoral regardless of the
beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in actions.

Absolutist moral theories are deontological, as they do not consider consequences. Examples of
absolutist moral theories include Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Divine Command
Theory.

Critique of Ethical Absolutism:

 It is impossible to know and accept morals that can be truly absolute and universally
unquestioned.
 The diversity of moral opinions which exists between societies (and even within
societies) in the world today, which suggests that there cannot be a single true morality.

Definition of Ethical Relativism

What is Ethical Relativism?
Ethical Relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective
and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or
personal circumstances. Ethical relativism holds that all ethical principles are relative to time,
place and circumstances. Ethical relativism views moral values as entirely relative to different
societies and contexts. Therefore, whether an action is right can depend on the context (such
as culture) in which it takes place.

Relativist moral theories may consider the consequences of moral actions when deciding if they
are right or wrong. These theories are therefore described as teleological. Examples of
relativist moral theories include Classical Utilitarianism and Situational Ethics6.

Ethical relativism, however, does not deny outright the truth-value or justification of moral
statements (as some forms of Moral Anti-Realism do) but affirms relative forms of them. It may
be described by the common aphorism: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”.

Moral Relativists point out that humans are not omniscient, and history is replete with
examples of individuals and societies acting in the name of an infallible truth later
demonstrated to be more than fallible, so we should be very wary of basing important ethical
decisions on a supposed absolute claim.

6
Situational ethics is involves an action that is driven by whether it fits in society, whether the situation desires of
human nature. In situational ethics one is not guided by universal ethical values but by situations. It is also known
as the ethics of specific acts. Whether the end will justify the means depends on situation. In situational ethics,
moral principles are relative.
There are two types of ethical relativists:
 Ethical egoists -believe that one should always maximize what is good for oneself, no
matter what the consequences for others.
 Ethical utilitarians - argue that the most important thing is to seek the greatest good for
the largest number of persons

Ethical relativism is not a recent invention but was already known in ancient Greece. Among
the early followers were the Sophists and Herodotus. In most recent times, John Staurt Mill,
Jeremy Bentham, and Segmund Freud were among those who followed this approach.

All these taught that ethical decisions should be made on the basis of maximizing pleasure and
avoiding pain.

Critique of the Ethical Relativism

 Some suggest that this approach to practice is very asocial and perhaps even amoral
because it assumes that individual satisfaction is the primary value.
 Others say that the only thing that matters with this approach is the result. If the result
is the only thing that matters, is there no difference when someone dies because an
armed robber kills a by stander during a bank holdup, or a soldier kills an enemy in
combat, or one loses a job because they were framed of a crime?

Contemporary Approaches to Ethical Decision Making

Some of the approaches in ethical decision making are:
 Clinical Pragmatism
This view suggest that the type of service provided, the nature of problems dealt with,
and the modes of intervention used are determined by society so that a person’s personal
ethical stance is far less important than societal ethics.
Those who follow this approach, focus on implementing the values of the society that
sanction their activities.

Humanistic Ethics
Many practitioners have found the humanistic ethical approach attractive because it
combines a strong idealism (optimism) with opportunities for individual choices.
An idealistic view of human nature as essentially positive, together with an optimistic
stance toward the future, provides the basis for this approach.
The focus here is on casual rather than on moralistic explanations of human behaviour.

This approach stresses the capacity, opportunity and responsibility of every person to
make choices that make sense to him or her.
The individual or group rather than any institution or ideology, occupies the center of
attention. This approach seem to be suited to contemporary Zambia as the emphasis is
shifting to individualism and pluralism.
Here human beings are believed to be inherently good and to have the ability to behave
ethically.

This means the inner core of the human personality is intrinsically ethical. Individual
freedom and responsibility form the basis of social life.
Proponents of this approach can be found to be in the forefront of many causes that
promote freedom and equality. Some propose and experiment with disrupting power
hierarchies in the organization or society, in this way opposing the stable social authority
structures; others emphasize hedonistic rather than traditional values
Followers of this approach feel that they have minimized the ethical dilemmas they face’
by clearly identifying value priorities, they feel that they can cope with ethical aspects of
most practice problems.

More important, by emphasizing individual responsibility, the major burden for ethical
decision making is shifted from the practitioner to the individual.

 Religious Ethics
Religious ethics presupposes a belief in the existence of God. While secularist
philosophers teach that men and women are creators of their own values, religious
philosophers maintain that there is a set of divine values that humans must try to
discover.

Unlike those who deny the existence of absolute truth and absolute ethical rules, this
approach declare that there are eternal rules that give direction for correct behaviours at
all times.

Believers are convinced that religious faith and ethical morality are two sides of the same
coin. They cannot conceive of long term effectiveness of ethical principles that come from a
source other than the divine will.

The ethical aspects of interpersonal relationships can only exist if one accepts the
authority of God.
They agree with Ivan in Dostoyevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazou” when he said, “ if
there is no God, everything is permissible”.

Jacques Maritain, a Christian Philosopher, argued that a secular ethics in which the
individual becomes the ultimate goal does not deify (glorify, exalt) the person but
degrades him/her because “the greatness of man consists in the fact that his sole end is
the uncreated Good”(1934.269).

For believers, the search for divine meaning is meaningful, while nonbelievers consider
this search futile.

The consequence of accepting this approach is that ethics and law merge into one
comprehensive, interrelated system.
Since ethical principles are usually stated in general and abstract terms, the authorized
interpreters of religious law deduce specific applications to daily problems.
These deductions become precedence or law. When this occurs, law is no longer separated
from ethics but implements ethical principles in the daily life of societies.

The only difficult here is that those who follow this approach face a serious problem when
applying it because they practice in what is essentially a secular society and the law/ethics of
one religious grouping may conflict with the law/ethic of another societal group.