OBJECTIVES

1. Discuss ethical theories that we can use to guide our

moral decisions
2. Explain how ethical theories affect human condition
in the workplace
3. Compare the different ethical theories as to their
strengths and weaknesses
4. Develop a practical model for decision making
Work ethics furnishes standards that deal
with rules of behavior for the proper conduct
of work. These standards determine what are
ethical and what are unethical in the work
place.
Ethical theories are devices which a worker
may use to analyze and determine the moral
goodness of his decisions, what he should do
or why he should refrain from doing an act.
Three major theories most
applicable to the daily affairs of the
workplace may be considered

1. Utilitarianism
2. Categorical Imperative
3. Situation Ethics.
UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is a theory in ethics by which actions are judged to

be right or wrongs solely according to their casual
consequences.

Under the utilitarianism theory of morality, an individual should

seek only those things that tend to produce “the greatest
happiness of the greatest number”. Moral assessment of acts,
therefore, involves the calculation of casual consequences:
actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness or
pleasure to the greatest number, wrong, if they produce
unhappiness or pain. The utilitarianism morality as a rational
enterprise includes not solely the pursuit of happiness, but the
prevention and mitigation of unhappiness. Understandably,
putting the concept of pleasure at the heart of this theory made
many detest it as a decent standard of conduct
THE UTILITARIAN PRECEPT OF PLEASURE-REGARDING

Two General Forms of Pleasure

Physical Pleasure
Physical pleasures are sensual indulgences or bodily
gratification that include, among others, sexual intercourse,
eating, drinking, rest, etc. Ill-regulated desires make man
pursue pleasure to the injury of health, even if man knows
that health is greater good. This kind of pleasure is considered
by the utilitarian’s as animalistic or beastly and make up the
lower forms or inferior types of pleasure. Physical pleasure
appeals to peoples lower faculties and persons desiring
nothing, but physical pleasure are considered lowly and less
dignified.
Mental Pleasure

Mental pleasure refers to intellectual, spiritual and

moral pleasures. Mental pleasures feed mans noble
feelings, imaginations and moral sentiments. They
are a higher or a superior form of pleasure, more
desirable and more valuable as compared to those of
mere sensation. Mental pleasures are generally more
difficult to achieve, but make man more dignified.
They include, among others, the enjoyment of free
will and intellect, Social recognition and regard
feeling of self worth and respect, feeling of peace
and security.
UTILITARIAN RULES OF MORALITY

Rule One: If the end of an act promotes

unhappiness, even if it intended to promote the
greatest happiness, the act is morally wrong.

This rule is perhaps the most important deduction

we could possibly derive from the principle of utility.
The rule demonstrates the unconditional
requirement of Utilitarian morality to produce the
greatest happiness of the greatest number of people
before any act can be considered morally good.
Rule two: If the end of an act is the greatest amount
of happiness of the greatest number of people,
whatever means the act employs is morally
justified.

This rule implies that regardless of an acts means to

achieve its end, as long as act achieves the happiness
of the greatest number of people, the act is good
and the means morally justified.
Rule three: If an act unintentionally produces the
greatest amount of happiness, the act is still
considered morally good

This rule means that as long as the consequence

accidentally brought by an act, satisfies the utilitarian
end, that is, the promotion of the greatest happiness
of most people, then, the act is morally good. For the
utilitarian theory, it is not important whether the
consequence of an act is by design or by chance, the
only question is if the consequence of an act has
promoted the greatest amount of happiness of the
greatest number of people.
UTILITARIANISM AND THE WORKPLACE

A theory of ethical behavior, utilitarianism holds that an

action is "right" to the extent that it benefits people or
society, either by creating happiness, improving well-being,
or reducing suffering. Utilitarianism in the workplace
focuses on ethics, democracy, rights and responsibilities
within the business environment. Work in the 21st-century
workplace is no longer merely a means to an end; it is
meaningful and calls upon people’s ambitions, beliefs and
passions. The traditional concept of work was more
individualistic than the contemporary concept, which
considers work to be something done collectively and in
collaboration to realize communal good.
PROBLEMS OF UTILITARIAN MORALITY
The strength if the utilitarian theory as a theory of life lies in its
emphasis of human welfare as the ultimate standards of right and
wrong. This is like a two-bladed sword, however. It is its strength
and the same time, the source of its own weakness. Many
correctly argue that the most serious problem of this theory is its
attempt to quantify human dignity, that is, the treatment of
human beings as mere numbers especially in the utilitarian
calculation: the happiness of fifty persons justifies the denial of
the happiness, or even the life of one person. The other problem
of utilitarianism is its overemphasis on the calculation of casual
consequences. Most of the time, life presents situations where we
need to decide fast, with little room for calculation. If we calculate
all the persons who will benefit and all who will suffer every time
we make our decisions, we will all end up doing nothing or we will
find ourselves acting too late.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Categorical imperative is the name given by

Immanuel Kant to the unconditional and
unyielding principle of morality, a law by which
reason unconditionally binds itself. The
categorical imperative, unlike hypothetical
imperatives, does not rest on some interest,
thus, it binds unconditionally and morally. This
theory focuses on the motive of an act and
means employed by an act.
TWO THINGS WHICH PRECEDE THE MORAL WORTH OF AN ACT

The Motive or Intention of an Ac

A person’s action has moral value only if his motives for acting is to
do what is right. The motive to do what is right stems a person’s
goodwill. Describing the nature of goodwill. Kant declared, nothing
can possible be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can
be called good without qualifications, except the good will. Kant
explained that the intelligence, temperance, fearlessness and other
qualities of man are good but cannot stand as basis or as a firm
foundation for moral acts since they can be used to promote evil.
However, if a man acts from good will or from the intention to do
what is right, then his acts are good regardless of the consequence.
Kant believed that there exists in man a sense of duty or a moral
sense. Man has innate ideas of the good, of what are to be done and
what should not be done.
The Nature of the Means Employed by the Act

The act must be respectful of human dignity, that is, it should not
use or treat persons as means, instruments or tools for other
ends. Before an act can be considered morally right, it should
respect and treat human beings as ends in themselves. Thus, the
theory of categorical imperative assesses moral acts solely on the
basis of the nature of the motive and the means used by the act,
and not based on its consequences: If the motive and the means
employed by the act are good, then the act becomes good
regardless of its consequences. If telling the truth, for instance, is
good, then the act of telling the truth is good, even when it is
perceived that many will suffer from its consequences. The same
is true of unethical acts, if stealing is unethical, then the act of
stealing is always unethical, even if it is likely to result in the
happiness of many. This explains why it is called categorical
morality: it is fixed, absolute or unconditional form of morality.
The Two Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

Universalizability

The formula of universalizability commands: act only on

maxims that you can, and at the same time, will to become
a universal law. This is not difficult to understand. It simply
means that for ones action to be morally right, one must
be willing to have everyone act in the same way. What
Kant wanted to emphasize is that we should only do those
acts which can become universal law: that is, a rule of
conduct for all men under the same circumstances and
refrain from doing those acts which cannot and should not
be a maxim for all.
Two simple tests to determine the moral rightness of
every alternative act:

First Test: Ask yourself, Is this what I want others to

do?

If we immediately realize that we do not want others

to do the act, or we cannot will it to be a maxim for
others, then it is morally wrong and we should
refrain from doing it. If we do not mind others doing
it, then it is morally good and we should do it
regardless of its consequences.
Second Test: Think of a hypothetical situation
and imagine what happens when all people do
the act all at the same time.

If we want a situation where all people are

doing the act all at the same time, then, we can
will it and can proceed to do the act regardless
of its consequences. If, on the other hand, we
do not want the situation to happen, then we
cannot will it, hence, we must refrain from
doing the act, regardless of the consequences of
not doing it.
Respect for Persons

A major implication of the formula of Universalizability is

the respect for persons. It is expressed as follows: Act
always so as to treat humanity, in your own person or in
that of another as an end in itself, never merely as a
means.
For Immanuel Kant, persons are ends in themselves;
hence, they must not be used as means for other ends.
What makes Kant think that persons are ends in
themselves is his belief that all human beings, regardless of
their accidental characteristics (e.g., race or nationality,
social status, age, gender, etc.), equally posses inalienable
dignity and rights. Any act, insofar as they degrade human
dignity and rights, necessarily violates this formula.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE AND THE WORKPLACE

The Categorical Imperative furnishes us with the values

that we need in the world of work. The workplace has
been for a very long time in need of more people who
are honest, who love their work, have a genuine
dedication to serve others, are obedient to the laws,
and always recognize and respect the dignity and rights
of others, and place a higher order of importance on
the welfare of others than on the acquisition of material
gain. By trying to help man strip of selfishness, his work
or his profession becomes more meaningful and of real
value to his society and to the entire humanity.
PROBLEMS OF CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

But like utilitarian ethics or the other models of

morality, Categorical Imperative as a theory of life,
also has its own problems. A major criticism is that
they unrealistically set very high standards of conduct
attainable only by "angels and saints". It unfairly asks
for moral perfection from an imperfect man. It’s cold
objectivity and especially its indifference to human
emotion detach if from the everyday realistic of
human existence in the social world.
Another problem usually raised against it is the
inability of the kantian theory to address possible
situations where moral duties come in conflict with
each other. For instance, if we are asked to tell the
truth, but in so doing will endanger the life of
another, what should we treat as our moral duty, to
tell the truth or save life? Some Kantian postulates
are also observed to be contrary to human
experience. Because they assume that humans have
an intuition or a priori knowledge of what is good,
they fail to consider the effect of society on persons
in their moral development.
SITUATIONAL ETHICS

Situational Ethics is a form of a particular-case

intuitionism and is opposed Utilitarian and
Kantianism. Situational Ethics claims that
morality of action depends on the situation and
not on the application of any categorical law or
principles of morality to the case. Unlike
Utilitarianism Imperative on the formulas of
Universalizability and Humanity than as
absolutes or directors of human conduct.
TWO TYPES OF DUTIES
Prima facie duties are duties that could be
overridden by other duties as determined by
some morally significant circumstances in a
given situation.
Duty proper refers to actual duty which a
person, after his assessment of
circumstances and finally thinking it more of
a duty in a particular situation, ought to do
regardless of whether it brings the most good
or not.
Division of Prima Facie Duty

Of prima facie duties, Prof. Ross suggests, without claiming

completeness or finality for it, six general division. Each of
these division rests on a definite circumstance which are
morally significant:

1. Some prima facie duties rest on our previous acts and

seem to include two kinds, Duties of Fidelity and Duties of
Reparation. Duties of Fidelity rest on a promise, whether
explicit or implied, such as the duty of fulfilling promises,
the duty not to tell lies when one enters into a
conversation, etc. Duties of Reparation, on the other hand,
rest on a previous wrongful act, such as paying
compensation for harming or wrongfully injuring others.
2. Some prima facie duties rest on some previous
acts of other men, i.e, services done by others to us.
These are called Duties of Gratitude and include our
duty to reward others for their services or for their
good deeds to us. Reward is not necessarily
monetary. Saying "thank you" when we are helped
by others is a performance of duty.

3. Duties of Justice are prima facie duties that rest

on the fact or possibility of a distribution of pleasure
or happiness not in accordance with the merit of the
person concerned. In such cases, there arises our
duties to upset or prevent such distribution.
4. Duties of Beneficence are prima facie duties that rest on
the mere fact that there are other beings in the world
whose conditions we can make better in respect of virtue,
intelligence and pleasure. These include our duties to love
and to care for our neighbors, to help strangers in distress,
our duty to benefit others from our expertise and
knowledge, etc.

5. Duties of Self-improvement are prima facie duties that

rest on the mere fact that we can improve our own
condition in respect of virtue or of intelligence. These are
duties that we need to do for our personal growth and
development, such as our duty to educate ourselves, to
know and to seek the Good, the True and the Beautiful,
and our duty to live the good and virtuous life.
6. Duties of Nonmalevolence are prima facie duties
that may be summed up as the duty not to injure
others. It is distinct from the duties of beneficence in
that it is a duty of a more stringent character. It does
not only tell us not to injure others, but also not to
desire harming or injuring others.
SITUATION ETHICS AND THE WORKPLACE

Some people think Situation Ethics have come into

prominence because it is a theory of life favorable to the
sentiments of the contemporary world. And, in a world
that values personal freedom very much, the flexibility and
the stress it imposes on human freedom and responsibility
in making moral decisions, makes Situational Ethics more
appealing. Unlike the rigidity of both Utilitarianism and
Categorical Imperative, Situation Ethics provides for some
flexibility in making moral judgment. It provides room for
us to be more forbearing and considerate of others who
may sometimes fail to do what is right, and for us to be
more liberal in our interpretation and application of laws
or rules of conduct.
Problems of Situation Ethics

One of the problems of Situation Ethics is its

intuitionist approach to human morality. It assumes
that there exists in us an intuitive knowledge of what
should be done and what we should not do in every
case we find ourselves in. What a person honestly
thinks and feels right in a particular case is
presumed, as that person is concerned, to be right
without qualifications. And, because there is no
definite principle which we can all agree to use as a
basis for our moral decision, right becomes relative
and very subjective.
APPLYING CATEGIRICAL INPERATIVE IN DECISION
MAKING

The task is to formulate a framework for making decisions

that will not only include, but also highlights, the basic tenets
of the categorical imperative theory of morality. It is very
important for students, our future workers and employers, to
be trained in becoming more sensitive and respectful of the
rights of the other people. The framework should not focus
solely on the solution of the problem, but most importantly,
on the process of solving the problem. Respect of law and
the consideration of the legitimate policies of the firm are
important factors that should be considered when one makes
a decision.
Diagram illustrating the decision making process
based in the categorical imperative.
Deliberation. Deliberation means knowing or understanding
the problems. Problems cannot be solved satisfactory if
these are not properly understood. Identify the cause of the
problem or why the problem occurred. Have all the relevant
date collected and considered. Categorize data and identify
gaps, inconsistencies or conflicts. Determine the extent of
the problem and other problems related to it. Stay in focus
along the way.

Identification. Identification means determining all possible

alternatives or course of action available to solve the
problem. After deliberating on the problem and identifying
the main issue, identify key alternatives. What are the things
I can possibly do? It will help to list down all the available
options you can possibly think of.
Evaluation. Evaluation means assessing all alternatives
previously identified. Evaluate your alternatives in light of the
following guide questions:
a. Does the alternative act respect the rights of all persons
concerned?
b. Does the alternative act observe and not violate applicable
laws of the land?
c. Does the alternative act observe and not violate applicable
policies of the firm?
Alternatives that fail to respect moral rights and violate the
basic notion of fairness should not be pursued, regardless of its
consequences. Remember that violating human rights or
sacrificing truth because of noble purposes is not justifiable.
Stick to the principle. The end does not justify the means. It is
important that the assessment be done objectively.
Discrimination. Discrimination means judging or
choosing from available alternatives. The best
alternative is that which respects the moral rights of
others, does not violate law, nor violate standing
policies of the firm. If an alternative satisfies these
requirements, then that alternative is the most
ethical and should be chosen over and above all
other alternatives.
Implementation. Once an ethical course of action
was identified, it should be performed regardless of
its possible consequences. Stand firm and believe
that you have done the right thing.
OTHER MORAL THEORIES

Authoritarian Ethics
This is an ethical system which claims that the
goodness or badness of human acts is based on
authority. It is dogmatic and blindly accepted as
infallible, e.g. customs and traditions, religious ethics
and legalistic morality, Investigation is already out of
the question. Principles are accepted and practiced
by people who are either too lazy to think and are
cowards to think and bear the costs and
consequences of thinking for themselves.
Self-Realization Ethics
Focuses on the fulfillment or the maximum realization of
human potentials or capacities. It inspires training and
excellence in thinking, feeling and acting. According to Plato,
the good life begins when man learns how to control his
emotion with his rationally. A good life of reason. For Aristotle,
the good life is the pursuit of excellence- or the life following
the principle of the Golden Mean.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism states that the goodness or badness of human acts
is determined by their practicality, usefulness, feasibility and
economy. It is results-oriented: thus, a modified version of
utilitarianism. This ethical theory was popularized by William
James and is also known as American ethics. It claims that
morality is not categorical but relative: that is, if an acts works
well then, it is good, if not, then it is a bad or immoral.
Cultural Relativism
Cultural relativism that what is good or bad depends on or is relative
to the norms or standards of a particular culture. Thus, what is good
or bad to a particular culture is applicable only for persons
possessing or living in that culture. No culture must assume the
ultimate measure or standard of what is good and bad.
Communist Ethics
An ethical theory which focuses on equal distribution of goods and
services and of society’s burdens. “Each according to needs (this
concerns the good e.g., education, foods, shelter, health, services,
etc.), each according to ability (this concerns the burden e.g.,
administrative, military, utility works, etc.)”. it preaches universal
brotherhood of man, society without class distinction: a world
without state and nationality, existence without God and religion.
Communist ethics promises the liberation of man from superstation
and ignorance. The good is something that will advance the
realization of communism, and the bad will hinder the fulfillment of
the communist life.
Power Ethics
Power ethics claims that the ultimate good of man is power.
Friedrich Nietzsche, the founder of this moral movement,
argues that the Christian morality is the morality of the weak
and of the slave. This theory focuses on the transvaluation of
morality, where the traditional bad is moral and good. It
encourages man to be a law of his own existences, to be a
superman who is ever willing to bear the burden of his
existence without illusions.
Capitalist Ethics
Capitalist ethics focuses on the distribution of goods based on
individual contributions to the economic pool of society.
Capitalist ethics emphasizes the importance of individual
freedom and the right to accumulate wealth, to possess, and
enjoy private property. Wealth fulfills the desire of man for the
good life.