Nowadays moral issues in business get great attention of specialists and such a direction evidently promises nontrivial results pertaining to the increase of efficiency and coherent working process. In order to settle moral issues, it is necessary to consider them from the point of view of individuals relating to them and from the point of view of their moral views. If it is possible to establish and maintain moral dialogue between the participants of a conflict, it can turn out to be a success despite their adherence to different ethical viewpoints. The present paper will present an attempt of putting theoretical concept of V. R. Ruggiero into practical situation of solving a conflict of the participants who are supporters of different normative theories.
Since the first step to solve a conflicting situation is to single out the concerns that are common for the opposing parties, Ruggiero suggests three possible common concerns: obligations, ideals, and effects of actions (Shaw, Barry, and Sansbury 2009, p. 90). From Ruggiero’s point of view, obligations play a part of a limiting factor that control human behavior relating to other people, dictating morality or immorality of certain actions in this perspective.
He also considers ideals to be a common concern of ethical systems from the point of view of consequences of our activity for these ideals (Shaw et al. 2009, p. 90). The notion of an ideal can be formulated as a common goal that determines human conduct. The category of ideal covers virtues (for instance, tolerance), abstract universal ideals (for instance, fairness), and institutional ideals (for instance, efficiency) (Shaw et al. 2009, p. 90). Morality of an action is determined by absence of violation of the ideals while their violation signifies immorality of action.
As for the third common consideration, Ruggiero singles out effects of actions (Shaw et al. 2009, p. 90). It means that probable consequences of the activity should also determine its morality before they occur. It is necessary to mention that consequentialists would rank this consideration higher than non-consequentialists though the latter would attribute certain importance to it as well.
Ruggiero also suggests a two-step procedure that can be resorted to when assessing actions from the point of view of their morality. The first step is to determine the considerations involved in the situation while the second step is to decide on the primary importance of a certain consideration in comparison with others.
Now it is necessary to apply this theoretical framework to a particular situation that needs decision-making when the participants support different prescriptions of normative ethical theories. Let us consider a following example: if a company-owner decides to create a new strategy of the attraction of clients: he/she would promise every existing client that he/she would donate a certain sum of money to charity if the client provides a name and a telephone of his/her relative or friend for the company to contact him/her and to offer its services. Should the decision be qualified as moral or immoral?
Let us operate two opposing normative ethical frameworks in the decision of the given problem. The first will be Act Utilitarianism, the second will be Kant’s moral theory (a form of deontology). From the point of view of utilitarians, the ideal is happiness and common good. The obligation that will be given priority by them will be to respect human rights. As for the effects, they will be as follows: to increase the number of company’s clients and to donate certain sums thus making an act of charity. Since the people who are put into this situation support Act Utilitarianism, they would put the effects to the top of the concerns (among ideals and obligations). Besides, the decision to put this strategy into action will not contradict with the ideals and obligations. If to consider the issue stating that the ideal of fairness is violated by this strategy as there is the goal of achieving personal profit, the theoretical framework of Ruggiero suggests determining the most important ideal. It will be the achievement of common good and since charitable contributions satisfy this requirement, the strategy can be considered moral.
If the same strategy is considered by the representatives of Kantian moral theory, applying Ruggiero’s framework, they would formulate the same obligations, ideals, and effects as the supporters of the previous theory. However, they believe that it is morally wrong to treat other people as the means of achievement of the goals of other people. If they put the effect of increase of the number of clients on the one scale, and charity on the other, the scale will outbalance the other one. They would consider the action morally wrong since the company’s profit received by means of “bought charity” is unethical for them. If charity will be considered the primary goal, the strategy can be recognized as moral.
Since it is impossible to come to a unanimous decision, Ruggiero’s framework can be considered to be ambiguous. He does not state how to determine what ideal or effect or obligation should be given primary importance. This leads to different results of the salvation of the same problematic situation by people who support different normative ethical theories.
Reference
Shaw, WH, Barry, VE, & Sansbury, G 2009 Moral Issues in Business. Cengage Learning, South Melbourne, Vic.