Moral reasoning

Moral reasoning has two important components:

1)      An understanding of what reasonable moral standards require.

2)      Evidence or information concerning whether a particular person, institution, policy or behavior has the features of these moral standards.

People frequently fail to make their moral standards clear when they make a moral judgment because they assume them to be obvious. This assumption is not always true but we must often, retrace a person's moral reasoning to figure out what their moral standards are. Obviously, it is not always simple to separate factual information from moral standards.

Moral reasoning concerns to the reasoning process by which human institutions, policies or behaviors are judged to be in relation with or in violation of moral standards. Moral reasoning always includes two necessary components:

(a) An understanding of what reasonable moral standards value prohibits condemn or require. (b) Evidence or information that shows that a particular policy, institution, person or behavior has the type of features that these moral standards prohibit value, require or condemn.

To assess the competence of moral reasoning, ethicists employ three main criteria:

1.   Moral standards must be consistent.

2.   Factual evidence must be accurate, relevant and complete.

3.   Moral reasoning must be logical.

Consistency refers not only to the information that one's standards must be able to coexist with each other but also to the requisite that one must be willing to accept the cost of applying one's moral standards again and again to others in similar state of affairs. The consistency necessity in fact, is, the basis of an significant critical method in ethics: the use of counter examples and imaginary examples.

This consistency necessity can be phrased as follows:

If  I  judge, one  person  is  morally  justified  (or  unjustified)  in  doing  A  in circumstance C, then I must accept that it is morally justified (or unjustified) for any other person:

(a) In any circumstances relevantly similar to C.

              (b) To perform any act relevantly similar to A

Arguments For and Against Business Ethics

Some people oppose the complete notion that ethical standards should be brought into business organizations. They make three general arguments.

First, they argue that the quest for profit in perfectly competitive free markets will ensure that the members of a society are served in the most socially advantageous ways. Naturally, the notion that industrial markets are perfectly competitive is highly suspect. Even more, there are many ways of mounting profits that will actually harm society. Producing what the buying public wants may not be similar to producing what the entirety of society wants. The argument is basically making a normative judgment on the grounds of some assumed but unproved moral standards ("people must do whatever which will benefit those who participate in markets"). Even if, the argument tries to show that ethics does not matter, it can do this

only by presuming an unproved moral standard that at least appears incorrect.

Second, they claim that employees as "loyal agents," are duty-bound to serve their employers intensely, in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interest.

As a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has an obligation to serve his or her employer as the employer would wish to be served (if the employer had the agent's expertise). An employer would want to be served in whatsoever ways will advance his or her self-interests.

Therefore, as a reliable agent of his or her employer, the manager has a responsibility to serve his or her employer in whatsoever ways will advance the employer's self-interests.

But this contention itself lies on an unproven moral standard that the employee has a responsibility to serve his or her employer and there is no cause to assume that this standard is acceptable. Duties of agents are defined as the law of agency, (i.e., the law that specifies the duties of persons who gives his consent to act on behalf of another party and who are certified by the agreement so to act). Furthermore, agreements to serve another do not automatically defend doing wrong on another's behalf.

Third, they say that following the law is enough for businesses and business ethics is nothing more than obeying the law. However, the law and morality do not always overlap (again Nazi Germany and slavery are appropriate examples). Some laws have nothing to do with morality because they do not include serious matters. These include dress codes, parking laws and other laws covering same matters. Other laws might violate our moral standards so that they are truly contrary to morality.

Thus, none of the contention for keeping ethics out of business seems forceful. In contrast, there are quite strong arguments for bringing ethics into business.

One argument points out that since all human activities should be governed by ethics. There is no reason to let off business activity from ethical scrutiny. Business is a mutual activity whose presence requires ethical behavior. Another more advanced argument points out that no activity included in business could be carried out in an ethical vacuum.

One  interesting  point  actually  claims  that  ethical  considerations  are  steady  with business activities such as the chase of profit. Indeed, the contention claims that ethical companies are more lucrative than other companies. The data is assorted on this question, but even though it cannot show that ethical behavior is always more gainful, it does clearly demonstrate that it is not a pull on profits.