ICQ Log - Ethics: A look at 3 Famous Theories of Ethics  

And how they can produce different outcomes

Last Updated: 8 September 2020

Ed McDonald, FCOI, MA in Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, MBS and member of the ACOI Ethics Committee, discusses how we must have standards/values against which we measure. And if it’s in a company, how clear are the company’s standards and how well are they understood?

In my previous article, It’s easy to say “Do the right thing”, I posed a few questions about how we go about assessing what is the right thing to do. These included: according to what standard? What is the measure I use or should use? And is it the same measure as you would use? Or as the boss or manager would use? Or as my company uses? Who tells me what the measure should be and explains it? One way or the other, we must have some standards/values against which we measure. And if it’s in a company, how clear are the company’s standards and how well are they understood?

Importance of Values & Attitudes
Even without ever having formally studied Ethics as a subject, every one of us is frequently and even unconsciously involved in Ethics; our “ethical” attitudes and actions are influenced by our Values (wherever we get them from), what we believe is the right way or wrong way to behave and act towards other people. When dealing with other people we don’t tend to tell them, or hand them our written “Code of Conduct”, to explain how we will act “ethically” with them, nor do we ask 
them how they will act “ethically” towards us. “Ethics” is actually presented in our attitudes and behaviours, in what we do and how we do things, no doubt influenced by Values that we have acquired or been encouraged to develop, and by influences on us by other people including family/parents, colleagues, 
peers or managers. Some people refer to their “personal” ethics as though each of us can have our own unique exclusive understanding 
of ethics, what we each choose.

Ethics is About People
But the reality is that “Ethics” is not simply personal but rather reflects on how we interact with others and them with us. That doesn’t mean that there is complete agreement on what our respective ethical values are or should be. It’s worth remembering that there can be “good ethics” and “bad ethics” and that within broadly 
accepted “good ethics” there are varied values, varied priorities, and varied emphasis. In addition, Values can change over time, and from generation to generation. New developments in society can lead to changes in Values, in what people see as important. And that indeed is part of the dilemma about “Ethics” – it isn’t as clear-cut as some people might paint it. So, when some behaviours or actions or choices are described as being “unethical” then there is a need to specify what standards and values are being used to make that conclusion. The reality is that “good” people can hold different values. But key to deciding what is right or wrong is our inclination to think seriously about what we intend to do and that we can justify our viewpoint.

The famous American management writer, Edgar Schein, saw organisational culture as having three elements – Artifacts (logos, images, posters, dress codes, workplace and office designs – aspects that one can readily see), Espoused Values (what the organisation says about itself and its ways of working and its desired standards) and Underlying beliefs (the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that really underlie the way it acts inside itself and may not be always displayed). McKinseys probably have the most concise definition, one that many people are aware of – “Culture is the way we do things around here”. Maybe the reality is one or the other or a mix of both, but they paint a picture of what this mysterious concept called “culture” might be in practice.  These can lead to blindspots, biases, groupthink, intolerance, or indeed,
tolerance of some questionable practices. So we can find ourselves in situations where we don’t seem to share the same sense of understanding or values as others. Our values may be at odds in terms of how they are practised or displayed, nods and winks, turning a blind eye, not thinking things through. And therein lies a problem. As the renowned American journalist, Walter Lippman once said, “When all
think alike, then no one is thinking”.

Three Theories of Ethics Among Many
So, let’s look at just three famous theories of Ethics and see how they contrast – and these are just three of many theories. The three I’m summarising are: Virtues theory, Duty theory and Utilitarianism. There are a lot more ethics theories such as Egoism, Relativism, Justice, Rights, Communitarianism, Existentialism, 
Individualism, Objectivism, Stoicism, and others. And all of these theories give different emphasis and different insights about how we should behave ethically, all offering different interpretations of how we should behave, and each looking at different issues with a different perspective AND a different set of Values guiding why one should act in a particular way. So, this just goes to show that there is no one, single, agreed way to behave or interpret what one should do or should have done, and that Ethics can be really difficult to be clear about. As Angie Hobbs, Professor of Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, said: 
“Philosophy isn’t a magic wand which can just sprinkle fairy dust and fix your life... Books summarising the views of famous philosophers – Plato, Nietzsche or whoever – need to be very honest about the fact that they are simplifying very complex often very difficult and challenging and knotty thought systems”. 

Putting it all in a Context
It’s worth remembering that the world population is currently around 7.7 billion people (it was 3 billion as recently as 1960). In 1800 it was around 1 billion and in 2,500 BC it is estimated as having been around 30 million (just millions). My point in saying this, can you imagine what it would be like if we all had our own individual exclusive set of Ethics values? To have some kind of reasonable understanding of how to get on, we seek to agree broad principles that can be applied to most people.

Theory - Virtue 

Origin, Author

Aristotle, building on Plato and Socrates (ancient Greece)

When

Aristotle (384-322BC) – c.2,400 years ago

Society at the Time
World population was c. 30m. Greece was a leading location of philosophical thinking. Aristotle was a student of Plato. Interestingly, Confucius in China and the 
Buddha Gautama in India, were setting out their ethics around the same time, and to a remarkable extent, despite their relatively unconnected locations, had 
significant common themes, focused on the character of a person.

Later & Current Theorists 
Who Share Their Views Alasdair McIntyre, Phillipa Foot, John McDowell, Rosalind Hursthouse, G E M Anscombe, Martha Nussbaum, Robert Audi and Robert C Solomon

Type of Ethics, its School
Teleological/Personcentred (Purpose)

The Core of the Theory
Seeking to live a good life and be the best you can be; the importance of character; importance of role models; learning and acquiring virtues (skills) and developing good habits. Virtues of character are inclinations to act in certain ways in response to situations, the habits of behaving in a certain way. Good conduct results 
from habits that are acquired by repetition and correction. 

Key Points of the Theory
Aristotle identified a range of key Virtues (or skills) as part of a person’s character which could be taught and learned and used all the time. These included: 
wisdom, justice, fortitude, temperance (the “cardinal virtues”) as well as courage, liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, proper ambition, wittiness, 
truthfulness, friendliness, righteous indignation and modesty. Other later Virtue ethicists have added newer Virtues/skills to reflect changing society. ≠A Virtue (skill/excellence) is The Mean between two Vices (one of excess and the other of deficiency) and depends on the situation.≠From this, Aristotle identified 
theoretical and practical wisdom – practical meaning that you have worked it out.≠The importance of role models (to show what a good person would do).
≠One must be taught how to do things, how to assess what is the right thing to do, or trained in how to do them.

A View of the Theory
Aristotle offers no specific rules; he says that you have to work it out. Some people may not be at ease with this.≠Personal character is seen 
as the foundation of how we should behave.≠It presents the right thing to do as being somewhere on a Mean, a “line” between two extremes (Vices).
≠One is responsible for one’s own actions and has to think issues through. Thinking is a key part of Virtue theory.≠One is responsible for one’s 
own actions and has to think issues through. Thinking is a key part of Virtue theory.

Theory - Duty

Origin, Author

Immanuel Kant (Prussia, Germany)

When

1724 – 1804

Society at the Time
World population was 1 billion. This was The Age of Enlightenment and start of The Industrial Revolution in England, and of major political and societal change, the French Revolution and its subsequent Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), the US Declaration of Independence (1776). And Mozart (1756 – 1791) and Beethoven (1770-1827) were there too.

Later & Current Theorists 
Onora O’Neill, John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas and Rene Descartes

Type of Ethics, its School
Deontological (Rules and Duty)

The Core of the Theory
Strong focus on a sense of Duty and what one ought to do, as well as absolute rules that should apply to all in every situation. Devised a concept called The Categorical Imperative – “You can only do what you would agree everyone else should also be allowed to do”

Key Points of the Theory
Having a good will, good intention, is the core point.≠Actions are moral only if done with good motives and no concern for their outcomes, purely for the moral correctness of the actions themselves. Our capacity to reason about issues enables us to “know” certain moral truths, to know what is right and wrong. This is the “a priori” principle. It’s deductive reasoning based on a general principle, an assumption from something previous, not supported by a fact. ≠Act in accordance with 
a clear sense of duty.≠Only do or act in a way that you could readily see as being a universal rule for everyone to follow. ≠He espoused a sense of absoluteness about this. Thus, it’s always wrong to lie or deceive.≠Always treat other people as “ends in themselves” not simply as a means to do something. Respect each person’s dignity.

A View of the Theory
This theory is based on specific rules that apply equally to all situations. One can have two Values that may conflict or even two issues within the one Value that may conflict.≠The Categorical Imperative, the sense of being Absolute, can be too absolute and not always practicable despite also having an underlying sensible proposition.≠Reasoning and rationality are considered to be essential

Theory - Utilitarianism

Origin, Author

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (England)

When

Bentham: 1748 – 1832
Mill: 1806 - 1873

Society at the Time

A time of parliamentary and monarchical reform in England. Bentham was an academic, social and political reformer in that political climate. He rejected the 
idea that people had natural or God-given rights and focused on reason and science to explain behaviour. Mill modified Bentham’s theories. He was a leading 
English philosopher, libertarian, civil servant, of his time

Later & Current Theorists 
Peter Singer (Australia), Henry Sidgwick, Francis Hutcheson, David Hume and R M Hare

Type of Ethics, its School
Teleological (ends, goals, outcomes)

The Core of the Theory
Based on the notion of maximising outcomes. Sometimes referred to as “The greatest good for the greatest number” and based on maximising pleasure 
and minimising pain, a basic human instinct. Mill refined this concept to include human rights, and he championed the idea of human freedom.

Key Points of the Theory
What is right for the majority is the right moral choice. The majority outcome (greatest good for greatest number) is what decides. Utilitarianism emphasises the 
consequences or aims of the act. It claims to be objective (totally practical), rational (not metaphysical or theological), universal (applicable to all human 
behaviours) and quantifiable. ≠For the latter Bentham devised the “hedonic calculus” to measure the intensity, duration and probability of a particular desired result. 
≠Actions are judged solely by their expected desired outcomes, and that’s what decides right and wrong.≠Utilitarianism is widely used by businesses in decision-making, along the lines of cost/benefit.≠Mill varied Bentham’s theory quite extensively by including human rights, freedom of expression (which he saw as the basis for all other rights) and the need for deliberation. 

A View of the Theory
The calculus devised by Bentham and refined by Mill is difficult to quantify and measure.≠How does one give weight to the interests of all the people 
or those who conflict?How would you calculate the “majority” – majority of whom?≠How is right or wrong developed and by whom if the answer can only be estimated by a projected or targeted outcome? That seems to suggest that there are no individual rights, that the only right is what the estimated majority decides.

These are just three theories of Ethics that have been developed by significant philosophical thinkers, and yet they can produce very different outcomes. How does your “personal” Ethics thinking sit with these? And have you thought yours through? Don’t forget, it’s all about Values and Attitudes. The reality for most of us is probably that we use bits of each of them, without knowing that we may share some thoughts with these famous thinkers.

Author: Ed Mc Donald

FCOI, MA in Ethics and Corporate Responsibility, MBS and member of the  ACOI Ethics Committee 

< Back to all Log Posts

ICQ Autumn Edition 2020

This article was taken from the ACOI's ICQ Autumn Edition 2020