Essay on Business Ethics
What is the Categorical Imperative? How are the principles of Universalizability, Dignity of Persons, and the Kingdom of Ends derived from this Deontological Theory?
Immanuel Kant is an outstanding philosopher who managed to give explanation to various concepts regarding responsibility and morality. Kant states that responsibility can be viewed as moral action that has its value. Kant defined the Categorical Imperative as “the statement of the moral law, or of supreme principle of morality” (De George 64). According to his philosophy, the principles of duty can make any action a Categorical Imperative, while any purpose that affects an action is Hypothetical Imperative. According to Kant, there can be only one Categorical Imperative, which was identified in his formulas of universal law. The Categorical Imperative is connected not only with the matter of the action, but also it is connected with its form and the principles followed by it. As a result, the Categorical Imperatives ignore any purposes and outcomes of the action. De George states that technical terminology of Kant helps to better understand the nature of the moral law. According to Kant’s philosophy, “the moral law commands categorically, not hypothetically” (De George 64). The Categorical Imperative differs from Hypothetical Imperative. According to De George, “the Categorical Imperative supplies the basic criterion of morality, even though in ordinary life we tend to solve moral problems by using second-order moral principles or rules”(70). Thus, the Categorical Imperative should not be applied to any situation. One of the examples of the application of the Categorical Imperative is Ten Commandments, which reflect human morality, grounded on ethical principles.
The principles of Universalizability, Dignity of Persons, and the Kingdom of Ends are derived from this Deontological Theory. According to Deontological Theory, some actions may be prohibited, while other actions may be obligatory. The principles of Universalizability can be viewed as a Deontological Principle, because it reflects Deontological Ethics. According to Kant’s philosophy, there may be only one Categorical Imperative, which is represented in three formulations: the universal principle of the law of nature, the principle of ends, and the principle of autonomy. These principles are called the principles of Universalizability. Nevertheless, it becomes clear that the principles of Universalizability do not generate any concrete norms of action, morally permissible. According to De George, According to De George, the Deontological Theory considers that “being moral is the same as being rational” (24). If a principle can be regarded as moral or rational, it must refer to Universalizability, and should be applied to everyone and to any situation. The Principle of Ends says, “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end, and never as merely a means” (qtd. in De George 66). Each individual can be regarded as a rational being as he/she has a dignity. This fact means he/she should never be exploited as a means to generate good. The principles of Universalizability, Dignity of Persons, and the Kingdom of Ends are derived from Deontological Theory because of the morality of actions. According to Kant, the major principle of morality must be focused on the moral law that has universalizability characteristics, applied at all times to any moral agent.
Thus, the Categorical Imperative is a significant criterion that helps to evaluate morality and moral principles. Kant’s philosophy claims that it is necessary to derive morality from reasoning. Morality depends on moral good. Deontological Theory generates the Categorical Imperatives that stand for the duties independent of any theory of good, placing emphasis on the action rather than on the results or outcomes. Deontological Theory helps to solve the problems of morality. De George states that Kant’s moral theory is deontological because he is focused on the actions that are considered to be morally right in their motives, and that should be derived from duty rather than from inclination.
Question 2
What is the distinction between causal responsibility and moral responsibility? What are, if any, the excusing conditions for moral responsibility? What role do these excusing conditions play in terms of a) moral responsibility and b) moral accountability?
There is the distinction between causal responsibility and moral responsibility. De George, the outstanding American philosopher, states that moral responsibility can be lessened in case of excusing conditions, which may prevent the individual’s action, making it impracticable. Moral responsibility can be viewed as a minefield as it is based on the concepts that do not include obligation or freedom of choice. It is possible to punish an individual on the account of his/her moral responsibility. However, causal responsibility has a different meaning because it depends on someone’s will. Let’s take another example: self-defense and murder. An individual may be causally and morally responsible for an action. In some cases, causal responsibility can be viewed as an essential condition of moral responsibility. De George states, “I am responsible for having hit him” (100). An individual may not be morally responsible for this action, but he/she will be causally responsible in any case. In other words, an individual may be causally responsible for some action if he played some role in bringing this action about. An individual may be morally responsible for some action if he/she not only played some role in bringing some action about, but also he/she initiated or organized some events which led to the occurrence of the action. It is necessary to understand the significance of moral responsibility for business organizations. According to De George, causal responsibility is “an ingredient in both moral and legal responsibility” (100). De George believes that the chain of responsibility can be represented as a long chain, which involves individuals to bear both causal responsibility and moral responsibility. There is much evidence that causal responsibility is part of moral responsibility. For De George, it is very important that corporations are guided by corporate members who play the role of moral agents. This fact means that corporations can be morally evaluated.
There are two types of excusing conditions for moral responsibility. These excusing conditions include ignorance and force. According to De George, “excusing conditions supply reasonable ways for lessening or predicting moral responsibility”(103). An individual may be morally responsible for the action, but because of excusing conditions, he/she is not responsible. Excusing conditions help to mitigate moral responsibility. For example, in the law, excusing conditions are recognized, and the murder committed of passion is considered to be less serious that the murder committed as a premeditated murder (De George 103). Moral responsibility is associated not only with the following concepts: “duty, obligation, possibility, knowledge, freedom and choice,” but also with “liability, accountability, age, praise, blame, intention, pride, shame, remorse, conscience and character” (De George 104).
Moral accountability is a rather complicated concept as it is focused on an individual’s obligation and willing to act. Moral accountability can be found at all organizational levels in any business organization. An individual is ready to give an account of another individual’s action. According to De George, different members of an organization should be morally accountable for their actions. Accountability is focused on an individual’s explanation of one’s responsibility for some actions. Excusing conditions play an important role in terms of moral accountability. According to De George, moral accountability consists of being prepared to render a moral account of an action either for ourselves or as agents for others”(105). This fact means an individual should be ready to give an account of his/her actions, for which he/she bears responsibility. Nevertheless, it is necessary to mention that a moral account of an individual’s actions cannot be given clearly in moral terms.
Essay on Business Ethics part 2
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...