Those that determine the moral rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action’s intrinsic features or character.</li></ul>Consequentiality Theories is also further divided in to two types-<br /> 1. Egoism: <br />The view that morality coincides with the self-interest of an individual or an organization.<br />Egoists: Those who determine the moral value of an action based on the principle of personal advantage. <br />An action is morally right if it promotes one’s long-term interest. <br />An action is morally wrong if it undermines it.<br />Personal egoists: Pursue their own self-interest but do not make the universal claim that all individuals should do the same. <br />Impersonal egoists: Claim that the pursuit of one’s self-interest should motivate everyone’s behavior.<br />Egoists do not necessarily care only about pursuing pleasure (hedonism) or behave dishonestly and maliciously toward others.<br />Egoists can assist others if doing so promotes their own advantage.<br />Psychological egoism: The theory of ethical egoism is often justified on the ground that human beings are essentially selfish. <br />Even acts of self-sacrifice are inherently self-regarding insofar as they are motivated by a conscious or unconscious concern with one’s own advantage.<br /> Objections to egoism <br />The theory is not sound: The doctrine of psychological egoism is false – not all human acts are selfish by nature, and some are truly altruistic. <br />Egoism is not a moral theory at all: Egoism misses the whole point of morality, which is to restrain our selfish desires for the sake of peaceful coexistence with others.<br />Egoism ignores blatant wrongs: All patently wrong actions are morally neutral unless they conflict with one’s advantage.<br /><ul><li> 2. Utilitarianism</li></ul>Definition: The moral theory that we should act in in ways that produce the most pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people affected by our actions.<br />Main representatives: The British philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).<br /> The principle of utility: Actions are morally praiseworthy if they promote the greatest human welfare, and blameworthy if they do not.<br /> <br /> Six points concerning utilitarianism:<br />(1)In choosing between alternative courses of action, we should consider the net worth of happiness vs. unhappiness produced by each course of action.<br />(2)We should give equal consideration to all individual preferences, then calculate the net worth of the various kinds of pleasures and pains.<br /> (3) Anything can be morally praiseworthy in some circumstances if it promotes the greatest balance of pleasure vs. pain for the greatest number of people.<br />(4) We should seek to maximize happiness, not only immediately, but in the long run.<br />(5) We should avoid choosing actions if their consequences are uncertain.<br />(6) We must guard against bias in our utilitarian calculations when our own interests are at stake. So it is advisable to rely on rules of thumb.<br /> <br /> Utilitarianism in an organizational context:<br /><ul><li>Provides a clear and straightforward standard for formulating and testing policies.
Offers an objective way for resolving conflicts of self-interest.
Suggests a flexible, result-oriented approach to moral decision making.</li></ul> Criticisms of utilitarianism:<br />The practical application of the principle of utility involves considerable difficulties.<br />Some actions seem to be intrinsically immoral, though performing them can maximize happiness.<br />Utilitarianism is concerned with the amount of happiness produced, not how the amount is distributed, so the theory can run counter to principles of justice.<br /> Nonconsequentialist Theories<br /> Nonconsequentialist Theories it is also called Kantian theory.<br />Kant’s Ethics<br />Immanuel Kant (1724–1804): A German philosopher with a nonconsequentialist approach to ethics.<br /><ul><li>Said the moral worth of an action is determined on the basis of its intrinsic features or character, not results or consequences.
Believed in good will, that good actions proceed from right intentions, those inspired by a sense of duty.</li></ul>The categorical imperative: Morality as a system of laws analogous to the laws of physics in terms of their universal applicability. <br />The morality of an action depends on whether the maxim (or subjective principle) behind it can be willed as a universal law without committing a logical contradiction.<br />An example of the categorical imperative: <br />A building contractor promises to install a sprinkler system in a project.<br />But he is willing to break that promise to suit his purposes. <br />His maxim can be expressed as: “I’ll make promises that I’ll break whenever keeping them no longer suits my purposes.” <br />By willing the maxim to become a universal law, the contractor undermines promises in general.<br />Formulations of the categorical imperative: <br />Universal acceptability: To determine whether a principle is a moral law, we need to ask whether the command expressed through it is acceptable to all rational agents.<br />Humanity as an end, never as a means: We must always act in a way that respects human rationality in others and in ourselves.<br /> Kant in an organizational context:<br />The categorical imperative provides a solid standard for the formulation of rules applicable to any business circumstances.<br />Kant emphasizes the absolute value and dignity of individuals.<br />Kant stresses the importance of acting on the basis of right intentions.<br />Criticisms of Kant’s ethics:<br />Kant’s ethics is too extreme insofar as it excludes emotion from moral decision making and makes duty paramount.<br />Kant fails to distinguish between excepting oneself from a rule and qualifying a rule on the basis of exceptions.<br />It is not always clear when people are treated as ends and merely as means.<br />