Understanding the Role of Moral Principles in Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective

Abstract

Does effective moral judgment in business ethics rely upon the identification of a suitable set of moral principles? We address this question by examining a number of criticisms of the role that principles can play in moral judgment. Critics claim that reliance on principles requires moral agents to abstract themselves from actual circumstances, relationships and personal commitments in answering moral questions. This is said to enforce an artificial uniformity in moral judgment. We challenge these critics by developing an account of principle-based moral judgment that has been widely discussed by contemporary Kantian scholars. In so doing we respond to some basic problems raised by so-called "moral particularists" who voice theoretical objections to the role of principles as well as to contemporary business ethicists who have criticized principle-based moral judgment along similar lines. We conclude with some future areas of research.

Bankers’ Personal Moral Thought Evidence

“…The reliance on principles requires moral workers to abstract themselves from actual circumstances, and in the other hand it allows less moral workers to respond passively on relationships and personal commitments, Smith and Dubbink (2011). One objection comes from the notion that principles are incomplete statements of generalized moral commitment and therefore provide little practical guidance when workers are confronted with complicated problems in new possibly unforeseen circumstances.…”

“…In spite of the previous criticisms, the moral judgment is still necessarily endeavor tied to a careful awareness and assessment of the complicated features of specific situations, Smith and Dubbink (2011). When two parties do not share one moral judgment, they hold different expectations and demonstrate different moral functioning.…”

“…The human morality is essentially a process of "seeing" or "perceiving" situations correctly, essentially grasping the comparative "shape of the circumstances" Smith and Dubbink (2011). The problem is seen if one's general commitments may embody or express certain values shaping incapable common answers to a specific banking issue or dilemma about what he ought to do in specific contexts of action.…”

Deriving and Critiquing an Empirically Based Framework for Pharmaceutical Ethics

“…Others have argued that we need a single, deductively derived, organizing theory, such as Kant's categorical imperative or the Utilitarian principle if principles are to provide a clear guide to action (Lee 2010;Herissone-Kelly 2011;Lee 2010;Strong 2000). At the same time, principle-based ethics has been criticized for being too determinate, imposing a rigorous and excessively uniform grid on moral thinking, and being insufficiently attuned to the cognitive and emotional complexities of moral reasoning and decision making (Smith and Dubbink 2011). Each of these criticisms has been countered, but no final resolution has been reached and principlebased ethics remains controversial.…”

Moral Reasoning, Academic Dishonesty, and Business Students

“…), and utilitarianism (the ends justify the means), individuals make moral determinations of their conduct based on consequences, be it onto themselves or to others. In addition to these consequentialist theories, there are other non-consequentialist approaches based on the virtue theory and/or Kantainism (Categorical Imperative), whereby the action itself or the means must pass the ultimate ethics test (sometimes described as the Kingdom of Ends test) regardless of consequences (Cavanagh, Moberg, & Velasquez, 1981;Smith & Dubbink, 2011).…”