The document contrasts different worldviews in business through a framework of locus of reality and value sets. It discusses several worldviews including cultural relativism, ethical egoism, Kantian ethics, natural law ethics, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. For each view, it outlines key propositions, potential positives, and problems or challenges. The overall document provides a philosophic structure to analyze and compare different approaches to ethics and decision making in business.

1. CONTRASTING WORLDVIEWS
IN BUSINESS

2. The Big Ideas
• Worldviews really do differ from each other
both in terms of IDEA and IMPACTS.
• Worldviews matter because ideas have
impacts.
• While no worldview discussed in this course
is practiced in a “pure” form, we can capture
the major IDEAS underlying worldviews.
• All these worldviews are found in whole or
part in the business thinking today.
• All worldviews have both positive impacts and
problematic issues.

3. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
constructed internally or discovered
externally?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

4. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

5. CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• Propositions
– From one culture to another, and from one time to another within the
same culture, there is diversity in what is considered right and wrong.
– There are no absolute standards for right or wrong because all standards
for determining right or wrong are relative.
– Ultimately each person's culture is the standard by which actions are to
be measured.
– Therefore, no moral truth applies to all people at all times.
– No ethical system is any better than any other.
The only thing we can say about different cultural practices is that they
are different, not better or worse.
– People are obligated to follow the norms of the culture in which they live-
accepted practices constitute the moral obligations of that society.
– The first step toward eliminating intolerance is an awareness that all our
judgments of right or wrong are driven (even determined) by the circle of
cultural tradition and thought-forms.

6. CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• Positives
– Cultural differences are viewed as positive forces for enriching our
perspectives and ideas
– Warns us that what is familiar is inherently the right or only way
– Warns us that technological/economic advances does not mean cultural
superiority in other areas.
– Christians are warned to distinguish between the gospel, which is trans-
cultural, and our particular expression of the gospel (dress, music,
architecture).
• Problems
– Who determines which cultural views will prevail in a given culture at a
particular time?
– Should a moral system be based on practice (what we do) or principle
(what we should do)?
– Isn't cultural relativism self-contradictory by arguing "there is no absolute
truth," and "intolerance is absolutely wrong?“
– If cultural values change, how do we judge the motivation for that change
and whether that change is desirable or not?
– If change is inevitable, can there be anything called moral progress?
– Why is tolerance of every (or any) thing necessarily absolutely good?

7. CULTURAL RELATIVISM
• Possible interface with Christianity
– Should Christianity culturally-positioned or cross-culturally
positioned – or both?
– Christianity proposes certain biblical absolutes (for example,
monogamy) – are these culturally insensitive (moral imperialism)?
– Cultural expressions of Christianity (at least in the United States)
have changed over time (music, worship styles, authority
structures). Are these changes positive adaptations or perilous
concessions?

8. A Philosophic Framework for
Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

9. ETHICAL EGOISM
• Propositions
– The moral obligation of each individual is to act in their own self interest
rationally arrived at and seen over the long run
– It is our responsibility to use observation and reason to establish an
objective, observable and scientific basis for a rational ethic.
– Our actions should be aimed at self-fulfillment, self-enlightenment, self-
enhancement and self-respect (not self-sacrifice).
– Only as we value ourselves are we free to value others.
– We must realistically acknowledge and develop our capacity to act in our
own self-interest.
– We are responsible for whatever we achieve, or do not achieve, in life.
– Acts of so-called altruism are efforts to presume we know what is in
someone else's self-interest.
– We must respect, and allow others the freedom for, personal choice.
– We relate to each other as trading partners, freely exchanging what is in
our own self-interests.

10. ETHICAL EGOISM
• Positives
– Forges a strong link between personal responsibility and self-esteem
– Stresses personal moral agency
– Enhances the right to be an individual
– Reminds us that altruism can foster an unhealthy dependency be
paternalistic and could be done more to exert our own power and
superiority over others
– Provides a sensible argument for free market capitalism
– Honestly recognizes the role and power of self-interest
• Problems
– Is it honest (realistic) about the limits of the human capacity for rationality
and self-insight?
– Does the pursuit of self-interest necessarily lead to the enhancement of
the welfare of others?
– How do we resolve conflicts in competing self-interests?

11. ETHICAL EGOISM
• Possible interface with Christianity
– To what degree are self-interest and self-esteem appropriate goals or
characteristics of a Christian?
– To what degree is developing one’s individuality compatible with
Christianity’s call to “die to self?”
– Is it possible that our desire to help others is really more about our
feeling good about ourselves that an unselfish desire to help others?

12. A Philosophic Framework for
Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

13. KANTIAN ETHICS
• Propositions
– Being good is a matter of reverence for duty or obligation.
– Rules help us determine our duty, motives help us to be determined to
pursue our duty.
– The only ethical rules that should be adopted are those that meet the
demands of reasonableness for internal consistency and external self-
contradiction.
– Moral principles that meet the demands of reason are always valid for
everyone.
– Moral people seek categorical imperatives - commands or laws that
allow for no exceptions.
– These imperatives are not themselves ethical rules - rather, they allow us
to evaluate proposed ethical rules.
– The Categorical Imperative I (the primary absolute ought) states, "Act
only on that rule through which can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.“
– The Categorical Imperative II: Act in such a way that people are treated
as ends rather than (just) means.

14. KANTIAN ETHICS
• Positives
– Affirms the virtue of duty, rules and absolutes
– Stresses responsibility and reason
– Advocates an objective basis for truth
• Problems
– What happens when duties conflict?
– Is reason a sufficient basis for determining duty?
– Is our willingness to universalize a rule sufficient warrant for doing so?

15. KANTIAN ETHICS
• Possible challenges for Christians
– To what degree is it reasonable to think of Christianity as
importantly a call to rule-following?
– As Christians we have duties to many others: God, family,
employers, friends, etc. How do we reasonably determine how to
balance these duties when they are in conflict?
– To what degree is Christianity based on reason versus revelation?

16. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

17. NATURAL LAW ETHICS
• Propositions
– There is a unity designed into the universe, both in its parts and its
processes which, properly understood, leads to a recognition of God as
the designer (general revelation).
– God is rational and intentional
– God designs human beings in His image and they are naturally inclined
to be rational and, so, seek to live by God's intentions as revealed in the
natural law which reveals God's intentions.
– Reason, when it works correctly, guides and educates the conscience,
leading us to properly order our desires so that the higher order (reason)
controls the lower (like eating).
– Good involves responding to our higher inclinations - evil involves
irrationally responding to our inclinations and pursuing that which is
naturally damaging to us.
– Therefore, the primary principle of the natural law is that good should be
done and evil avoided.
– In a situation requiring a decision, we must apply primary principles (do
good, avoid evil), secondary principles (e.g. the Ten Commandments),
and positive laws (e.g., keep your word) and civil laws (e.g. enforcing
contracts).

18. NATURAL LAW ETHICS
• Positives
– Explains why people of different religious persuasions, or perhaps no
religious affiliation at all, frequently have a keen sense of right and
wrong, and live highly moral lives.
– Portrays morality and Godliness as rational, rather than simply
emotional, responses
– Argues for a well-ordered life ruled by our highest aspirations at all levels
of life - physical, social, intellectual, moral and spiritual.
• Problems
– Do facts naturally suggest values, and does reason lead us to truth?
– What is the effect of sin on reason?
– How do we resolve conflicting conclusions about what moral message
"nature" is sending?
– How can we separate the effects of nature and nurture?

19. NATURAL LAW ETHICS
• Possible challenges for Christians
– To what degree should Christians rely on reason and conscience to
make moral decisions? To what degree has the “Fall” made either
or both of these foundations problematic?
– If non-Christians can act as morally responsible as Christians, what
good is Christianity?
– How does one determine that another’s “take” on the Christian life
is “reasonable?”

20. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

21. UTILITARIANISM
• Propositions
– Acts are morally right when they succeed in (or are useful for) bringing
about a desired result.
– Happiness is a worthy pursuit when defined as a desire for intellectual,
spiritual and social well-being
– We should seek happiness for the greatest number.
– When interests conflict, the will of the majority (or the happiness of the
majority) should prevail.
– We can objectively understand the positive/negative consequences of an
action in terms of
• intensity (how much)
• probability (how certain)
• purity (how much pain comes with the pleasure
• extent (how many are affected)
• duration (how long)
• propinquity (how soon)
– There are higher (nobler) and lower (narcissistic) orders of happiness.
– The only thing ethically significant in judging an action is the result.

22. UTILITARIANISM
• Positives
– Establishes a link being doing good and happiness - we should work to
bring about good and oppose that which causes pain
– Focuses attention on substantive results in evaluating an action rather
than intentions and feelings
– The principle of utility can be applied to both personal and public
decisions/issues
– Balances the equality of each individuals' claim to happiness with the
necessity for mutual concessions in a group
• Problems
– Can we fully know all the results?
– Can we fairly balance the results?
– What about the rights of the majority?
– Do motives or intentions count?
– Who determines what are "higher" and "lower" sorts of happiness?
– Is happiness the only or most significant result of importance?

23. UTILITARIANISM
• Possible challenges to Christianity
– Christianity focuses on the needs of individuals – is it ever
imaginable that we could harm another for the good of someone
else?
– Is it realistic to expect fallen and sinful people to make accurate
moral calculations?

24. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

25. VIRTUE ETHICS
• Propositions
– Virtue is a predisposition to do good things, an internal motivation that
both loves and does what is right.
– Virtue manifests itself in learned (teachable) character qualities such as
courage, self-discipline and benevolence.
– There are objective standards for what is good character.
– Pursuit of the good is a pursuit of our highest order functions
– Plato pose three levels: appetite (hunger, sex), spirit (anger, ambition)
and reason. Appetite tempered by reason produces the virtue of
temperance. Spirit tempered by reason produces courage. Reason
produces the virtue of justice.
– Aristotle defined virtue as a mean between two vices - for example
courage is the virtue lying between cowardliness and foolhardiness,
remorse is the virtue lying between indifference and chronic guilt; proper
pride is the virtue between vanity and undue humility
– Virtue is not created by us - it us discovered and then grown toward
through the process of character education.
The first question is not, "What should I do?" but, rather, "Who should I
be?“
– An act is good because (1) we understand what we are doing and why it
is good, (2) we must be free to choose to act and (3) our action
emanates from our character.
– Character is learned through modeling, imitation and (then)
internalization.

26. VIRTUE ETHICS
• Positives
– Focuses on the core issue of character as it influences both private and public
behavior
– Stresses the quality of our relationships with others
Places abstract ideals into concrete human behavior and interaction
– Distinguishes between a good act and a good person
– Allows for ethics beyond rules - that is, while there may be no rule to cover lack
or patience or generosity, these are certainly laudable virtues
– Whereas rules tend to define our minimum duty or obligation, virtue encourages
aspiration to the highest ideals
– Whereas rules than to focus on what we do not do, virtue ethics is more
concerned by what we do and to what we are moving.
• Problems
– Do character-based ethics provide concrete guidance is specific situations (for
example, while compassion is virtuous, which is more compassionate: to offer
someone a meal, or a job to earn a meal)?
– How do we resolve conflicts between competing virtues (in criminal cases,
should we be merciful or just?)
– Cannot acting out of virtue still lead to unwanted, unethical consequences?
– Does virtue ethics answer the question, why be virtuous?
– How do we decide which virtues are really virtuous and worthy of pursuit?

27. VIRTUE ETHICS
• Possible challenges to Christianity
– Can fallen and sinful people really ever choose to be good – and
why would they?”
– Even IF we might choose to be good, what would allow us to
achieve that goal?

28. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

29. SITUATION ETHICS
• Propositions
– Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love.
– Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed.
– Love wills the neighbors good whether we like him/her or not.
– The end (love) alone justifies the means.
– Decisions ought to be made situationally, not universally.
– Every other consideration, all laws and rules and principles and ideals
and norms apply only contingently if they happen to serve love in a
particular situation.
– Actions have no moral content - they are only tools to help express love.
– In some situations breaking man-made or Biblical laws is the right thing
to do.
– Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating its duties, obligations,
opportunities and resources.
– Agape love is not a feeling - it is a commitment to serve the best interests
of the other.
– Something is good because it leads to loving consequences.
– Abstract ethical questions are unanswerable - the actual facts of the
situation determine what the loving thing is to do.

30. SITUATION ETHICS
• Positives
– It provides an absolute foundation for all action – love
– It is based on the character of God
– It advocates a deep concern for others and a realistic appraisal of
situational demands
– It focuses on our personal responsibility to decide and to act
• Problems
– How do we determine all that should be included in our appraisal of a
situation? Who should be included? What time period should be
included? What consequences should be recognized?
– How are we to determine with any confidence what love is?
– How can we ever judge the rightness or wrongness of anyone's
situation?
– How do we resolve conflicting judgments about what love demands?
– Why is love the preeminent value?
– What allows, or even encourages, anyone to act in a loving way?

31. SITUATION ETHICS
• Possible challenges to Christianity
– Is the loving thing to do always clear – what happens when love
may demand action the other considers “unloving?”
– How does one deal with the apparent “unloving” remarks and
actions of Christ?
– Is the essential essence of God love – rather than holiness, justice,
etc.
– Is the loving thing to do always the pleasing thing to do – can love
be “tough?”

32. A Philosophic Framework
for Contrasts
LOCUS OF REALITY: Is reality
internally constructed our externally
discovered?
VALUE SET: Are value judgments INTERNAL EXTERNAL
relative and subjective or absolute LOCUS OF LOCUS OF
and objective? REALITY REALITY
RELATIVISTIC Situational Ethics Cultural Relativism
VALUE
SET Ethical Egoism Utilitarianism
ABSOLUTE Kantian Ethics Natural Law Ethics
VALUE
SET Virtue Ethics Divine Command

33. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
• Propositions
– God has made and communicated clear rules of right and wrong and our
duty is to obey these rules.
– Sin is missing the standard (God's Will) and rebelling against God who
has the right to our loyalty and obedience.
– Mankind is limited in nature, mentally and spirit - thus only following
(trusting and obeying) God (who is unlimited in all ways) will lead us to
live a moral life.
God reveals His will propositionally in the Bible as the Holy Spirit
provides illumination.
– Our chief point of contact with God is our will , not our mind - the
principle issue is the submission of our will through a conscious choice of
obedience.
– Obedience to God's authority places us in a redemptive relationship with
Him.

34. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
• Positives
– Assigns God the characteristics of transcendence, omniscience, and
omnipotence
– Assigns man the characteristics of limited mental and moral capacity
– Recognizes the damaging and limiting effects of sin.
– Maintains the central role of an authentic, authoritative Scripture
• Problems
– How do we reckon with God's commands (in the Old Testament) which
seem unreasonable or cruel?
– Is all we can know about what is good/moral found only in scripture?
– What role does reason have with faith?
– How do we apply God's commands ("Thou shalt not kill") to specific
situations (Do we engage in self-defense? Should we go to war? Can
someone refuse a costly medical treatment?)
– Is the Bible best understood as a rule book, or as a multi-dimensional
revelation?
– Does the Bible tell us all we need to know?

35. DIVINE COMMAND THEORY
• Possible challenges to Christianity
– Is there the very real possibility that rules will substitute for a living
relationship with God?
– Is there the very real possibility that we will confuse human rules
for God’s rules?
– How do we determine which Old Testament rules still apply?
– What is the role of grace and forgiveness

36. Positive Ethical Guidelines Drawn
from 8 Philosophical Approaches
• (Cultural Relativism) Perspectives about the nature of morality are significantly
colored by culturally conditioned aspirations and expectations.
• (Ethical Egoism) Self-awareness and self-accountability are critical to building a
meaningful and enduring ethical system.
• (Utilitarianism) The actual and anticipated results of our ethical options should
play an important (though not determinative) role in our ethical decisions.
• (Kantian Ethics) Ethical decisions should be adequately reasoned and should
reflect a clear application of ethical rules and a clear appreciation of ethical
duties.
• (Virtue Ethics) The capacity to do what is right is importantly linked to the strength
of our character defined as the internal motivation to be a person of virtue.
• (Situational Ethics) Each ethical situation carries with it unique demands and
dynamics that should be considered before a final commitment is made.
• (Natural Law Ethics) Ethical principles and practices should be developed in
compliance with the moral order designed into the world by God.
• (Divine Command Theory) Ethical principles and practices should be rooted in
obedience to God’s expressed will revealed in the Bible.