normative Ethical theory - CIPD

24Business Ethics in Practice●●In all, the use of utilitarian theory comes close to the slippery slope fallacy: ‘Believeme, if you supertax the bonuses, then you will lose the people who are making youmoney.’ A fallacy is an argument that is not logically coherent (see Chapter 3 fordetails). In this case it is not coherent because those consequences do not necessarilyfollow.Summing upIt is important to estimate consequences, but we cannot rely entirely on utilitarianarguments. The stress on utilitarianism in the bankers’ arguments is not well workedout – there is insufficient evidence to support their view of how big bonuses lead to goodconsequences for the most people.Because of the uncertainty about defining what is good, it could be argued that thatutilitarianism is not an ethical theory at all, but rather an important element in ethicaldecision-making.deontological theoriesThe theory that most immediately stands against a simple utilitarianism is the deontological(based on deon, the ancient Greek for ‘what is required’, and thus ‘duty’). The deontologicalapproach to ethics argues that duty or principles are the base of ethics rather thanconsequences. Right actions, according to Immanuel Kant (1964), are prescribed byprinciples, such as to keep promises, be truthful, be fair, avoid inflicting suffering on others,return the kindness of others. Kantian ethics is thus about doing the right thing regardlessof whether it makes one happy – quite the opposite of Mill’s view. Kant also notes dutiesspecific to the self, such as to do no harm to the self, and to develop one’s character andskills.Kant suggests that these duties:●●●●●●embody respect for personsapply without qualification to all rational personsare universal principles.What makes a person worthy of respect is the capacity to be rational, to develop thegood that will enable the person to do his or her duty, and to fulfil key purposes. Thisrespect involves treating people as ends in themselves, as having their own purpose andcapacity. This in turn means treating people not as a means to our own ends. Coercionand manipulation of different kinds exhibit disrespect in these terms, such that the other isregarded as only useful for what they can do for you.This leads to certain key moral imperatives. Kant contrasts these – referred to as‘categorical imperatives’ – with non-moral imperatives, which he refers to as ‘hypothetical’.Hypothetical imperatives are commands that are based on a condition, such as ‘If you wantto get fit, exercise regularly.’ Categorical imperatives have no such conditions. It is simplywrong to cheat, or to break a promise. These are basic principles which are true without anyreference to conditions or consequences.Such principles also have to be able to apply universally, and Kant argues that mostcommon principles pass this test. ‘Promises should be kept’, for example, applies in allsituations. If we did not keep promises, the very meaning of the word would be broughtinto question.For Kant this points to a view of ethics that is based upon absolute principles. Theauthority for such principles does not come from some outside source, such as God,but from their rational foundation. Beauchamp and Childress (1994) suggest four majorprinciples in professional ethics: respect for the autonomy (self-governance) of the client,justice (treating all parties fairly), beneficence (working for the good of the client), andnon-maleficence (avoiding harm to the client).