normative Ethical theory - CIPD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Normative <strong>Ethical</strong> Theory 31Iris Murdoch (1972), philosopher and novelist, argued against ethics as focusing simplyon narrow views of obligation – ie on ‘what it is right to do’ in any situation. It also has toarticulate what the good life is, ‘what it is good to be’ (Taylor, 1989: 5). And this requires notjust reason but a vision of the good, and thus imagination. Critical moral consciousness, areal awareness of all who were involved in any situation and of the issues that came fromthose relationships, was a key part of this. Murdoch stressed the importance of a persontaking responsibility for his or her ethical reflection and decision-making, but argued that itrequired more focus on the underlying meaning and how that connected to broader view ofthe good. For her, therefore, narrative and story become a key vehicle for ethical reflection.All this places value, and an awareness of what values one holds and why, before reasoningand action.This applies directly to the debate about bonuses. At its most crude, beneath the rightand wrong of bonuses are assumptions about human nature, and thus about what actuallymotivates people to work well. In fact, the wider data about the attraction and retention ofleaders suggests that financial compensation is not the only criterion (Milkovich and Rabin,1991). Top leaders in the armed forces and higher education, for instance, have jobs no lessdifficult than bankers, and find reward in the nature of the activity. It might be argued thatalthough a banker’s job is no less demanding than a general’s, it is less pleasant, with fewerintrinsic rewards. The argument for big bonuses assumes that, in Longley’s words, ‘Peopleare not driven hard enough to honest graft and creative industrial enterprise simply by anappeal to the common good’ (quoted in Robinson, 1992: 13). However, many leaders inbusiness argue the contrary – that motivation is more than financial. Although the intrinsicrewards of service through caring professions may be greater than those of business, thereis no reason why a significant sense of intrinsic reward should not be discovered through afocus on the positive purpose of business.This is clearly there in many different cultural worldviews around business. A goodexample is that of the Islamic scholar Fetullah Gülen. Gülen ties in the purpose of businessto a strong sense of stewardship based in creation theology (Robinson, 2008b). Humanityis called to take responsibility for the created world. This sense of stewardship is thenlived out in any profession, so that business people are seen as living the responsibility torespond to God in their profession. At the heart of this is the idea of hizmet or service.The business person has to provide evidence of such service. The theme of this approach isone of business as a vocation valued by society, in which business takes responsibility withothers. A similar worldview comes from Jonas (1984), who argues for the importance ofstewardship based on the worldview of a fragile physical environment that depends on theconcerted efforts of all for it to be sustained.pause for thoughtWhat is your worldview? How does it inform your view of the good?What are the dominant worldviews in the West?What are dominant worldviews in the developing world?Often worldviews are implicit or assumed. In the West, for instance, there is a strongconsumerist worldview (Miles, 1998). This is built around individual choice and thefreedom to choose. The worldview of nature as interconnected stresses rather a view ofcommunity, or people working together. Worldviews are thus not simply statements offact. They involve major ethical values such as freedom, community or equality. Theyprovide the value framework through which we view the world, what we believe aboutthe world.
32Business Ethics in PracticeAny person or group may have several different worldviews or may have worldviewsthat appear to conflict with other worldviews. So how do we judge between differentworldviews? Each worldview has to be tested against reality.●●●●●●Does it lead to harm, physical or psychological? Some worldviews, for instance, lead tothe exclusion of others who do not agree.Does it lead to good ends, such as resolving conflict? As noted above, there is goodevidence for instance that genuine working together leads to positive workplaces andgreater productivity. Underlying the bankers’ defence is a much broader worldview aboutfreedom, the nature of society and the effects of the bankers’ work – that big profitsmake wealth which will benefit society by ‘trickling down’ – all of which is contestable(Robinson, 1992).How far is the worldview engaging the major values, such as freedom, equality andcommunity? Stress on only one of these will tend to lead to a narrow worldview, such asindividual freedom against equality. We return to that in Chapters 3 and 4.Worldviews, then, are not right in themselves. Simply because I believe something aboutthe world does not make this view good. It is possible for any worldview to be used to abad end, and therefore – as Bauman (1989) notes – it is important to be aware of differentworldviews and to critically engage them.To illustrate this we turn at this point to perhaps the most prevalent basis for worldviewsglobally: those involving transcendence.transcendent worldviewsTranscendent worldviews are mostly expressed in religion. Some would argue that religionhas no place in applied ethics. However, the majority of the world in some way bases itsethics on religion.The first thing to say is that religion, like ethics, has many different approaches. The twobroad theoretical bases are natural law and care (ethics based in love, care or compassion),and these provide what is sometimes a competing view of ethics, even within religion.Natural lawNatural law is based in the idea of creation. In the Abrahamic religions (Christian, Jewishand Islamic) it is argued that God created the world and that his purposes are revealed inthat creation. Those purposes are what show us the good at the base of ethics. The obviousexample is to do with sexuality. Natural law argues that God created man and woman assexual beings for the purpose of procreation. From that it is argued that homosexuality, forinstance, does not fulfil God’s purposes and is therefore ethically wrong.There are real problems with natural law. As David Hume (1975) argues, we cannotsimply say that something is right or wrong because of what it is. You cannot base aprescription about what you should do on a description of how things are. It is an importantexample of an ethical fallacy (see Chapter 3). It makes a logical leap without any realevidence of what is good or bad. Of course, natural law thinkers would argue that they arenot basing their ethics in a description but rather on the purpose behind the description –that is, God’s purpose in creation. But who decides what God’s purpose is? Historically, ithas been those in power who have decided what is good. At different points in the historyof religion those in power have decided that order is paramount, allowing them to acceptslavery, exclusively male leadership, and so on. This led to powerful ideas that were usedto support the status quo. There is debate within the religions about this, some arguingthat natural law can only give general guidance (like general ethical principles) and othersarguing that the real basis of religious ethics is compassion, love or care.
Page 1: chapter 2Normative Ethical Theoryle
Page 4 and 5: Normative Ethical Theory 23●●
Page 6 and 7: Normative Ethical Theory 25●●
Page 8 and 9: Normative Ethical Theory 27inequali
Page 10 and 11: argues, such language tended to imp
Page 14 and 15: Normative Ethical Theory 33CareDiff
Page 16 and 17: Normative Ethical Theory 35Core ide
Page 18 and 19: Normative Ethical Theory 37referenc

normative Ethical theory - CIPD

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?