PDF | On Jan 1, , Amrendra Kumar Singh and others published ETHICAL THEORY & BUSINESS A study based on Utilitarianism and. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS AND PROBLEMS. Morality and Ethical Theory 1. Morality and Prudence 2. Morality and Law 4. The Rule of Conscience 5. ETHICAL THEORY AND BUSINESS. Tom L. Beauchamp and Norman E. Bowie, editors. Englewood. Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., , pp.
|Language:||English, German, Hindi|
|ePub File Size:||29.78 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.11 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Ethical Theory and Business 8th Edition PDF - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Ethical Theory and Business Beauchamp PDF - Free download as PDF File .pdf) , Text File .txt) or read online for free. Read PDF Ethical Theory and Business (9th Edition) | Download file Ebook Free Download Here mencosulwiemudd.gq
You can change your ad preferences anytime. Upcoming SlideShare. Like this presentation? Why not share!
An annual anal Embed Size px. Start on.
Show related SlideShares at end. WordPress Shortcode. Published in: Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No. Be the first to like this. No Downloads. Views Total views.
Ethical Theory and Business 8th Edition PDF
On the contrary, rule utilitarianism emphasized the view that it is possible to both embrace a concequentialist view of what makes actions right and wrong, and give an important place to moral rules. Keeping certain rules produces better consequences than trying to judge the consequences of each individual action. Moreover, in this theory of rule utilitarianism, rules are not for the sake of rules but as a means to achieve the desired consequences in the best way.
Preference utilitarianism theory takes in to account the preferences of all those involved in a particular course of action. Bentham focuses on the doctrine of ethical hedonism, which asserts that the only ultimate, intrinsic good is pleasure.
According to him happiness or pleasure should be measured in terms of its duration; its intensity; how near, immediate and certain is; how free from is its pain, and whether or not it is likely to lead on to further pleasure. He emphasizes the quantitative notion of moral action, which is to say each action is good or bad according to its predicted results in generating the maximum amount of happiness and he makes no qualitative difference among the different types of pleasures.
He notoriously claimed that, provided the quantities of pleasure yielded were equal, pushpin was as good as poetry. Mills famous work Utilitarianism, published in , elegantly explains and argues for utilitarianism Mill, He develops a more refined and sensitive defense of this hedonistic doctrine.
He argues that it is not a doctrine that tells us to spend all our time in riotous living but a theory about what ultimately value. He rejects the idea that actions are right only because God says they are, or because they have any inherent moral properties of their own. Although, his theory is hedonistic it maintains that only ultimate value that is pleasure or happiness, he maintains a qualitative difference among the different types of pleasures.
There are, in other words, not only greater and lesser pleasures but also better and worse pleasures. Mill also goes beyond Bentham in proposing a positive place for rules within an overall utilitarian approach.
He accepts what we term rule utilitarianism, in that a utilitarian principle can lead to the forming of general rules, which, although may be broken in exceptional circumstances, should be taken account in any assessment of the result of an action. According to him, we ought to acquire certain habits, such as truthfulness or honesty, because there is a better chance of promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number with those habits than without them.
Thus, he emphasizes the importance of rules as a general means of securing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Finally, based on general assessment of utilitarianism it can be said that although in the course of development philosopher have emphasized the importance of rules and preferences to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, the main importance is given to only consequences rather than rules and preferences.
Thus, the distinction based on act, rule and preferences seems useless in the context of practical execution and goal satisfaction of the theory. Deontological Ethical System In deontological system, morality of an action is based on rules or principles that govern actions and decisions. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant developed perhaps the most persuasive and fully articulated vision of ethics as measured by the rightness of rules, rather than by consequences.
Kant emphasizes that the rightness of an act depends on the very principle, rule or duty by which it governs and not at all on the consequences of an action. I do not merely conjecture them and see them as though obscured in darkness or in the transcendent region beyond my horizon: I see them before me, and I associate them directly with the consciousness of my own existence.
When Kant defines the reason, he differentiates between theoretical reason and practical reason. According to him, these are not two separate reasons but two separate functions of the same reason. He explains that theoretical reason gives the knowledge and understanding of this physical world by which we come to know the principles of physical world and matter of facts, while practical reason directs us towards choice in accordance with moral law and when physically possible, to the implementation of choice in action.
According to Kant, the primary task of philosopher should be that of isolating the apriori element in our moral knowledge and showing their origin. Kant emphasizes that a moral law should be apriori as well as necessary and universal because necessity and universality are marks of apriority.
Kant actually extracts the universality from the physical universal law but at the same time, he leaves the determinism of physical world intact and lays the foundation of morality on the free will and autonomy. Moreover, here it is customary to discuss that how Kant defines the supreme principle of morality, which is to say categorical imperative, and differentiates between the principle and maxim.
It is a principle on which all men act if they were purely rational moral agents, while a maxim is a subjective principle of volition. That is to say, it is a maxim on which an agent acts as a matter of fact and which determines his decisions. Such maxim can be, of course, of diverse kinds; and they may or may not accord with the objective principle or principles of the moral law. That is why; Kant makes further distinction between empirical or material maxim and a priori or formal maxim.
The first refer to desired ends or results while second do not. Kant refers second type of maxim when he talks about moral value of an action in the context of maxim. He says, if the subjective principle of volition is obedience to the universal moral law, out of reverence for the law, the actions governed by this maxim will have moral worth.
Kant defines categorical imperative as an apriori moral principle, which is based on practical reason. He emphasizes freedom as the condition of the possibility of a categorical imperative. Moreover, he formulates it in several ways.
In the context of a priori universal moral law, he precisely says that universal law has no exception and can be reached independent of the observation of the world.
When Kant defines categorical imperative, he makes a distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperative. The hypothetical imperative depends on the conditions and is used to achieve certain means, for example, if you want to be healthy men then do exercise.
Therefore, in this case the imperative is subsequent and used as a means. On the contrary, categorical imperative by the very nature exists without conditions. It is always used as an antecedent as well as an end in itself. Kant lays his foundation of morality on autonomy and self-legislation. For Kant, autonomy is rule by reason rather than desire , and rule by reason entails the free adoption of objectively valid moral principles.
This is known as a formula of end in itself, and is another way of stating the categorical imperative.
Kant believes that if I ought to do something then it follows that I can do it. Morality thus implies freedom, but freedom of special kind. Thus, according to Kant morality originates from reason, and is based on autonomy and self-legislation.
Kant defines will as a rational capacity, which is completely different from psychological inclinations. However, there is possibility that a will may be used for the sake of desired consequences and inclinations.
He emphasizes that a good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty and disparate from acting out of mere inclination or desire. Moreover, the only motive to action, which can confer moral worth on the agent, is the motive of duty. He defines good will as beyond the space-time in the sense that it is not related to empirical and material facts. Its value is not governed by the consequences but it is valuable in itself.
Kant emphasizes good will as an only perfect good, which is apriori as well as good in itself. But how does the person of good will know what is right? Here, Kant defines the nature of good will in terms of categorical Imperative, the notion that every person should act only those principles that she or he, as a rational person, would prescribe as universal laws to be applied to the whole mankind. Thus, according to Kant your will is good will if it can be applied categorically as well as universally.
According to him treating another person as a mere means is to subvert his free will or autonomy; it is cease to respect him for what he essentially is, a rational being capable of formulating the moral law for himself and adopting morality as a motive.
Kant harmonizes a-priori, autonomous moral law within the causally determined empirical world. In this context, he talks about phenomenal world and noumenal world.
He states that we are able to view ourselves from two standpoints. There is the standpoint of the phenomenal world, the natural world of cause and effect, the world which is presented to us in sensory experience.
Thus, Kant provides us a rationalistic, noumenal, and autonomous moral system which ultimately explains that we are not only causally determined physical being but we can look ourselves as an autonomous moral agent. In other worlds, we are noumenal as well as phenomenal being. Significance of Traditional Ethical Theory Consequentialism and Deontology In this section, we try to figure out the significance of these two ethical theories.
Muneer Hussain. Marcus Lo. Ashesh Poudel. Magdy M. Reina Erasmo Sullera. Nidhish Shah. Popular in Social Institutions.
Lauren Joanne Lister. Seth Infante. Ma Gabriellen Castor Quijada. Jem Pascua. Team Angry Filmworks v. Mark H. United States v. Otis Cutler, Jr. Scribd Government Docs.
Ethical Theory and Business PDF Download
Pauline Macas. Press Release: Sanjana Hattotuwa. Anonymous fQx. Mauricio Justin. Jazztine Masangkay Artizuela. Nayara Jomy. Michael Duntz. Andrew Bass. Karla Bee.Its value is not governed by the consequences but it is valuable in itself. Following the Utilitarian theory, consequence based principle focuses on the consequences of business functions in the context of morality because it imposes the compulsion of social responsibility or duty on the bases of the consequences of business functions.
Embed Size px. We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. Beauchamp and.