Ethical Decision Making and Sustainable Development Essay

Introduction

Ethical decision making is always a difficult task since the decisions made affect to some individuals and the society. There exist ethical dilemmas in determining the right path to follow when values are in conflict. For example, there are some instances where the requirements of the customer may disagree with the organizational goals and mission. This implies that decisions need to be made in order to establish the course of actions.

Consequently, when there is difficulty in decision making, pressure always is directed to the executives who are responsible for making decisions. In this sense, a comprehensible and dependable ethical framework can enhance the decision making process and establish company initiatives that will help guarantee that the results are appropriate and maximize the available efforts in line with the decision making and the anticipated outcome. Managers often benefit form several approaches to solving ethical quandaries.

These approaches include the utilitarian theory, the moral rights theory, individualism, and the justice approach. The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast the two common approaches: utilitarian approach and the moral-rights approach. The paper also expands on the ideas about the drawbacks of the utilitarian approach. The last section focuses on the role of multinational organizations in ensuring that there is a sustainable development globally.

Utilitarian Approach

To begin with, making ethical decisions require consideration of the facts, the subjects involved, the best approach to follow, the effect of the approach, and the examination of the whole process. The utilitarian approach to making ethical decisions was advocated by the nineteenth-century by Bentham and Mill.

This approach requires that an individual should take a moral action that produces the greatest value for many people (Draft, 2010). In this strategy, a decision maker is expected to take into consideration the impacts of each decision alternative on all parties and choose the one that is of great value to a maximum number of people. Many people use this type of reasoning in making daily decisions.

When requested to describe why we have a moral obligation to carry out some action, we normally consider the benefits that will result from the action or the bad effects it will avoid. Managers, doctors, and legislators weigh daily the good and bad effects of policies when deciding, for instance, when to endorse a new medicine, whether to allocate resources in a project, or whether to monitor employee use of the internet.

Furthermore, as a consequentialist theory, utilitarianism has different approaches in which all of them agree on the principle of utility; which requires that in every action we must always consider good over evil.

To determine if our actions are certainly going to produce the greatest value, there is need to engage in a “utilitarian calculus”. Thus, we start by weighing the good and bad effects of an action. If the moral action produces a greater value of positive results than negative results for all the parties affected, then the action is good; otherwise, the action is bad (Samson & Daft, 2009).

However, utilitarians differ in the way decision makers should make decisions. One side argues that action is the most important facet in making decisions; this is known as act-utilitarianism. This concept maintains that for each single act we are about to carry out, we need to abide by the principle of utility. In essence, a decision maker should ask himself/herself if an action has a generally acceptable good over evil.

For instance, if grapevine would be an efficient communication style, then we should engage in gossips. Others, referred to as rule utilitarians, argue that we should select an action that conforms to the common rule that would result to remarkably good consequences. For example, a rule “always drive while sober” in effect promotes the good of everybody and hence should be adopted. Generally, a utilitarian approach tries to look beyond individual’s interest in determining the correct action to take.

Moral Rights Approach

The utilitarian approach considers the consequences of an action. The moral rights approach does not consider consequences, but it is concerned with the moral principles that govern individual’s rights. In this domain, some actions are generally considered to be good or bad and it affirms that human beings have basic rights and freedoms that cannot be violated by an individual’s decision.

Therefore, an ethically correct decision is one that takes into consideration the rights of people affected. Many moral dilemmas today revolve around rights and there is a global need to appeal to those rights. Certainly, people behave as they wish because they have rights – employee rights, gay rights, smokers’ rights, animal rights, and prisoners’ rights.

Draft (2010) outlines six moral rights that should be considered by decision makers. These are: the right to free consent; the right to privacy; the right to freedom of conscience; the right to free speech; the right to due process; and the right to life and safety. It is required that managers should not interfere with the rights of their employees or other individuals. In most cases moral rights are not documented in law and therefore they are justified by moral standards that many people understand.

One of the most influential philosophers of the moral rights approach was Immanuel Kant. He maintained that everyone has the right to be respected and treated with dignity. Through his principle, Kant maintained that humanity should be treated as an end, and not as means. To use an individual as a mean is to use that person to gain one’s own interest. But to take an individual as an end is to respect his or her dignity by allowing each to freely choose what he or she desires.

The moral principle is normally used to affirm both the basic moral right, the right to freedom of choice, and also the rights linked to this fundamental right. In essence, such rights can be categorized as negative and positive rights. Rights like right to privacy, the right to use freely your resources, and the right not to be killed are some of the negative rights that safeguard human freedom.

These rights are negative rights since such are claims by one individual that inflict a “negative” responsibility on all others; people should not interfere with other people’s activities. On the other hand, positive rights strive to positively assist others in fulfilling fundamental requirements of human well-being like education and shelter (Valasquez et al., 1981).

However, rights may conflict with other rights and therefore it may require the decision maker to sideline other rights. Besides, there is no universally recognized list of rights that can help the decision makers to defend his or her claim on a moral action. Furthermore, moral rights approach is not helpful in normal situations as compared to the utilitarian approach which is obvious in such circumstances.

Shortcomings of the Utilitarian Approach

Although very popular, the utilitarian approach is sometimes not the best method to solve ethical decisions. To begin with, the utilitarian estimation commands that we determine the benefits and harms that result from our actions and try to compare them with other actions. It is almost difficult to measure and compare the consequences of certain actions.

For example, managers find it difficult to compare the value of money and the value of life, and it is hard to justify the consequence of actions taken (Hitt, Black, & Porter, 2008). Consequently, utilitarianism does not consider justice in decision making. Certain unjust actions might be taken in a view to cater for the well being of the society. Without justice, moral decision making cannot be entirely right.

Moreover, the principle of utility is subject to some errors. These include the limited stakeholder error – where one considers only the outcome of his or her domain, the short term error – where immediate consequences are considered as opposed to long term effects, single alternative error – this involves taking an action that produces the greatest benefit without considering the benefit/cost ratio (Valasquez et al., 1981).

The Journal of Medical Ethics (1984) asserts that the objections to utilitarianism can be put in the sense of its coherence, justification, and results. In terms of coherence, the claim of the theory is unclear; for example the meaning of ‘greatest happiness to greatest number’? How can we quantify happiness? Is it total or average happiness? Justification of the principle is also a problem since happiness is not the only important moral principle.

As stated out in the moral rights theory, there are several other important rights that individuals require. The third objection to this principle is the derivation of the results. It is common that an individual’s right can be overridden by the interest of the society.

Sustainable Development: The Role of Global Multinational Companies

The global multinational companies (MNCs) have been working to attain the goal of sustainable development in several ways. First, MNCs ensure that physical and financial capital is channeled to nations with capital shortages. As a result, wealth is created, which generate new employment opportunities. Besides, tax revenues arise from the income generated by such corporations, enabling developing countries to upgrade their infrastructures and to reinforce their human capital.

By doing so, MNCs lessen global poverty levels and provide sustainable international relations that is at par with the United Nations’ (UN) mission. Second, through competition, MNCs have been able to provide the world with high quality and affordable products. Competition reduces monopoly and manipulation of the interest of consumers (Hitt et al., 2008).

Multinational corporations also diversify their operations through encouraging local capacity building. This involves co-operation with the domestic society, such as business interests, and creating enterprise’s operations in local and foreign markets in line with the need for good business conduct. MNCs encourage business partners and mergers.

These enable the corporations to sustain and apply effective management principles, thus diversification. Lastly, MNCs conduct environmental protection and the sociopolitical network. MNCs strive to: use environment-friendly technologies; reduce the use of energy and no-renewable resources; and use materials that can be recycled (Quinlivan, 2000).

Conclusion

In the normal and business environment, ethical decision making is affected by ethical quandaries that must be addressed. Such situations require the application of ethical principles in the correct manner. Sometimes it might be essential to apply several ethical theories in one instance of a moral action.

This paper has compared two approaches to ethical decision making: the utilitarian approach and the moral rights approach. The utilitarian approach considers the consequences of actions taken in regards to the greatest value for the parties involved, while the moral rights theory tends to rely on the rights of individuals and the principles that govern those rights. However, the utilitarian approach is not the best decision making approach since it is difficult to quantify the results and even justify if a claim is right.

In real sense claiming that happiness is the only right that individuals need is wrong; everyone has special interests and needs in relation to an action taken. On the other hand, global multinational companies have been able to work hard to ensure that there is sustainable development through: channeling of resources to underdeveloped countries, engaging in healthy competition, encouraging local capacity building, and conducting environmental protection for the well being of living things.

References

Daft, R.L. (2010). Management. (9th Ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Hitt, M., Black, S., & Porter, L.W. (2008). Management. (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Journal of Medical Ethics. (1984). Utilitarianism. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics. 10. 115-116.

Quinlivan, G. (2000). Sustainable Development: The Role of Multinational Corporations. United Nations Article.

Samson, D., and Daft, R.L., (2009) Fundamentals of Management. 3rd Asia Pacific Edition. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning.

Valasquez et al. (1981). Rights. Markula Center For Applied Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/rights/