Ethical Theories and Principles

Ethical theories and principles are the foundations of ethical analysis because they are the viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained along the pathway to a decision. Each theory emphasizes different points such as predicting the outcome and following one's duties to others in order to reach an ethically correct decision. However, in order for an ethical theory to be useful, the theory must be directed towards a common set of goals. Ethical principles are the common goals that each theory tries to achieve in order to be successful. These goals include beneficence, least harm, respect for autonomy and justice.

Ethical Principles
Beneficence The principle of beneficence guides the ethical theory to do what is good. This priority to "do good" makes an ethical perspective and possible solution to an ethical dilemma acceptable. This principle is also related to the principle of utility, which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world (2). This principle stipulates that ethical theories should strive to achieve the greatest amount of good because people benefit from the most good. This principle is mainly associated with the utilitarian ethical theory found in the following section of this paper. An example of "doing good" is found in the practice of medicine in which the health of an individual is bettered by treatment from a physician. Least Harm This is similar to beneficence, but deals with situations in which neither choice is beneficial. In this case, a person should choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm to the fewest people. For instance, in the Hippocratic oath, a physician is first charged with the responsibility to "do no harm" to the patient since the physician's

primary duty is to provide helpful treatment to the patient rather than to inflict more suffering upon the patient. One could also reasonably argue that people have a greater responsibility to "do no harm" than to take steps to benefit others. For example, a person has a larger responsibility to simply walk past a person rather than to punch a person as they walk past with no justified reason. Respect for Autonomy This principle states that an ethical theory should allow people to reign over themselves and to be able to make decisions that apply to their lives. This means that people should have control over their lives as much as possible because they are the only people who completely understand their chosen type of lifestyle. Each man deserves respect because only he has had those exact life experiences and understands his emotions, motivations and body in such an intimate manner. In essence, this ethical principle is an extension of the ethical principle of beneficence because a person who is independent usually prefers to have control over his life experiences in order to obtain the lifestyle that he enjoys. There are, however, two ways of looking at the respect for autonomy. In the paternalistic viewpoint, an authority prioritizes a dependent person's best interests over the dependent person's wishes. For example, a patient with terminal cancer may prefer to live the rest of her life without the medication that makes her constantly ill. The physician, on the other hand, may convince the patient and her family members to make the patient continue taking her medication because the medication will prolong her life. In this situation, the physician uses his or her authority to manipulate the patient to choose the treatment that will benefit him or her best medically. As noted in this example, one drawback of this principle is that the paternalistic figure may not have the same ideals as the dependent person and will deny the patient's autonomy and ability to choose her treatment. This, in turn, leads to a decreased amount of beneficence.

A second way in which to view the respect for autonomy is the libertarian view. This standpoint prioritizes the patient's wishes over their best interests. This means that the patient has control over her life and should be content with her quality of life because she has chosen the path of life with the greatest amount of personal beneficence. Although this viewpoint is more mindful of the patient's desires, it does not prevent the patient from making decisions that may be more harmful than beneficial (1). Justice The justice ethical principle states that ethical theories should prescribe actions that are fair to those involved. This means that ethical decisions should be consistent with the ethical theory unless extenuating circumstances that can be justified exist in the case. This also means that cases with extenuating circumstances must contain a significant and vital difference from similar cases that justify the inconsistent decision. An ethical decision that contains justice within it has a consistent logical basis that supports the decision (1,3,4). For example a policeman is allowed to speed on the highway if he must arrive at the scene of a crime as quickly as possible in order to prevent a person from getting hurt. Although the policeman would normally have to obey the speed limit, he is allowed to speed in this unique situation because it is a justified under the extenuating circumstances.

Ethical Theories
Ethical theories are based on the previously explained ethical principles. They each emphasize different aspects of an ethical dilemma and lead to the most ethically correct resolution according to the guidelines within the ethical theory itself. People usually base their individual choice of ethical theory upon their life experiences (1,2).

Deontology The deontological theory states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties when analyzing an ethical dilemma. This means that a person will follow his or her obligations to another individual or society because upholding one's duty is what is considered ethically correct (1,2). For instance, a deontologist will always keep his promises to a friend and will follow the law. A person who follows this theory will produce very consistent decisions since they will be based on the individual's set duties. Deontology provides a basis for special duties and obligations to specific people, such as those within one's family. For example, an older brother may have an obligation to protect his little sister when they cross a busy road together. This theory also praises those deontologists who exceed their duties and obligations, which is called "supererogation" (1). For example, if a person hijacked a train full of students and stated that one person would have to die in order for the rest to live, the person who volunteers to die is exceeding his or her duty to the other students and performs an act of supererogation. Although deontology contains many positive attributes, it also contains its fair number of flaws. One weakness of this theory is that there is no rationale or logical basis for deciding an individual's duties. For instance, businessman may decide that it is his duty to always be on time to meetings. Although this appears to be a noble duty we do not know why the person chose to make this his duty. Perhaps the reason that he has to be at the meeting on time is that he always has to sit in the same chair. A similar scenario unearths two other faults of deontology including the fact that sometimes a person's duties conflict, and that deontology is not concerned with the welfare of others. For instance, if the deontologist who must be on time to meetings is running late, how is he supposed to drive? Is the deontologist supposed to speed, breaking his duty to society to uphold the law, or is the deontologist supposed to arrive at his meeting late, breaking his duty to be on time? This scenario of conflicting obligations does not lead us to a clear

ethically correct resolution nor does it protect the welfare of others from the deontologist's decision. Since deontology is not based on the context of each situation, it does not provide any guidance when one enters a complex situation in which there are conflicting obligations. Utilitarianism The utilitarian ethical theory is founded on the ability to predict the consequences of an action. To a utilitarian, the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the most people is the choice that is ethically correct. One benefit of this ethical theory is that the utilitarian can compare similar predicted solutions and use a point system to determine which choice is more beneficial for more people. This point system provides a logical and rationale argument for each decision and allows a person to use it on a case-by-case context. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism adheres exactly to the definition of utilitarianism as described in the above section. In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as laws. Rule utilitarianism, however, takes into account the law and is concerned with fairness. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time. As with all ethical theories, however, both act and rule utilitarianism contain numerous flaws. Inherent in both are the flaws associated with predicting the future. Although people can use their life experiences to attempt to predict outcomes, no human being can be certain that his predictions will be true. This uncertainty can lead to unexpected results making the utilitarian look unethical as time passes because his choice did not benefit the most people as he predicted. For example, if a person lights a fire in a fireplace in order to warm his friends, and then the fire burns down the house because the soot in the chimney caught on fire, then the utilitarian now seems to have chosen an

unethical decision. The unexpected house fire is judged as unethical because it did not benefit his friends. Another assumption that a utilitarian must make is that he has the ability to compare the various types of consequences against each other on a similar scale. However, comparing material gains such as money against intangible gains such as happiness is impossible since their qualities differ to such a large extent. A third failing found in utilitarianism is that it does not allow for the existence of supererogation or heroes. In other words, people are obligated to constantly behave so that the most people benefit regardless of the danger associated with an act. For instance, a utilitarian who sacrifices her life to save a train full of people is actually fulfilling an obligation to society rather than performing a selfless and laudable act. As explained above, act utilitarianism is solely concerned with achieving the maximum good. According to this theory an individual's rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater population. In other words, act utilitarianism is not always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of people. Another source of instability within act utilitarianism is apparent when a utilitarian faces one set of variable conditions and then suddenly experiences a change in those variables that causes her to change her original decision. This means that an act utilitarian could be nice to you one moment and then dislike you the next moment because the variables have changed, and you are no longer beneficial to the most people. Rule utilitarianism also contains a source of instability that inhibits its usefulness. In rule utilitarianism, there is the possibility of conflicting rules. Let us revisit the example of a person running late for his meeting. While a rule utilitarian who just happens to be a state governor may believe that it is ethically correct to arrive at important meetings on time because the members of the state government will benefit from this decision, he may encounter conflicting ideas about what is ethically correct if he is running late. As a rule utilitarian, he believes that he should follow the law because

this benefits an entire society, but at the same time, he believes that it is ethically correct to be on time for his meeting because it is a state government meeting that also benefits the society. There appears to be no ethically correct answer for this scenario. Rights In the rights ethical theory the rights set forth by a society are protected and given the highest priority. Rights are considered to be ethically correct and valid since a large or ruling population endorses them. Individuals may also bestow rights upon others if they have the ability and resources to do so. For example, a person may say that her friend may borrow the car for the afternoon. The friend who was given the ability to borrow the car now has a right to the car in the afternoon. A major complication of this theory on a larger scale, however, is that one must decipher what the characteristics of a right are in a society. The society has to determine what rights it wants to uphold and give to its citizens. In order for a society to determine what rights it wants to enact, it must decide what the society's goals and ethical priorities are. Therefore, in order for the rights theory to be useful, it must be used in conjunction with another ethical theory that will consistently explain the goals of the society. For example in America people have the right to choose their religion because this right is upheld in the Constitution. One of the goals of the founding fathers' of America was to uphold this right to freedom of religion. However, under Hitler's reign in Germany, the Jews were persecuted for their religion because Hitler decided that Jews were detrimental to Germany's future success. The American government upholds freedom of religion while the Nazi government did not uphold it and, instead, chose to eradicate the Jewish religion and those who practiced it. Casuist The casuist ethical theory is one that compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of similar ethical dilemmas and their outcomes. This allows one to determine the severity of the situation and to create the best possible solution according to others' experiences. Usually one will find paradigms that represent the extremes of the situation

so that a compromise can be reached that will hopefully include the wisdom gained from the previous examples. One drawback to this ethical theory is that there may not be a set of similar examples for a given ethical dilemma. Perhaps that which is controversial and ethically questionable is new and unexpected. Along the same line of thinking, a casuistical theory also assumes that the results of the current ethical dilemma will be similar to results in the examples. This may not be necessarily true and would greatly hinder the effectiveness of applying this ethical theory. Virtue The virtue ethical theory judges a person by his character rather than by an action that may deviate from his normal behavior. It takes the person's morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating an unusual and irregular behavior that is considered unethical. For instance, if a person plagiarized a passage that was later detected by a peer, the peer who knows the person well will understand the person's character and will be able to judge the friend. If the plagiarizer normally follows the rules and has good standing amongst his colleagues, the peer who encounters the plagiarized passage may be able to judge his friend more leniently. Perhaps the researcher had a late night and simply forgot to credit his or her source appropriately. Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior. One weakness of this ethical theory is that it does not take into consideration a person's change in moral character. For example, a scientist who may have made mistakes in the past may honestly have the same late night story as the scientist in good standing. Neither of these scientists intentionally plagiarized, but the act was still committed. On the other hand, a researcher may have a sudden change from moral to immoral character may go unnoticed until a significant amount of evidence mounts up against him or her.

Ethical theories and principles bring significant characteristics to the decisionmaking process. Although all of the ethical theories attempt to follow the ethical principles in order to be applicable and valid by themselves, each theory falls short with complex flaws and failings. However, these ethical theories can be used in combination in order to obtain the most ethically correct answer possible for each scenario. For example, a utilitarian may use the casuistic theory and compare similar situations to his real life situation in order to determine the choice that will benefit the most people. The deontologist and the rule utilitarian governor who are running late for their meeting may use the rights ethical theory when deciding whether or not to speed to make it to the meeting on time. Instead of speeding, they would slow down because the law in the rights theory is given the highest priority, even if it means that the most people may not benefit from the decision to drive the speed limit. By using ethical theories in combination, one is able to use a variety of ways to analyze a situation in order to reach the most ethically correct decision possible. We are fortunate to have a variety of ethical theories that provide a substantial framework when trying to make ethically correct answers. Each ethical theory attempts to adhere to the ethical principles that lead to success when trying to reach the best decision. When one understands each individual theory, including its strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision when trying to achieve an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.

what is ethical? / what is an ethical issue?

How can managers grapple with the problems establishing what constitutes the ethical in different cultures ? Before answering this question, a more preliminary question is : what is ethical ? , an ethical issue ? We previously saw, that ethics was a set of customary principles and practices embodying some sort of a normative code (of behaviour, values) to adhere to being ethical would mean carrying out that code (putting it into practice). An ethical issue/dilemma : when there's a conflict between two or more parties where one is benefiting at the expense of another (put into other words : the means justify the ends). Is that all it is? An ethical dilemma can also arise when there's a conflict between moral rules or when one is violated. For example, Being torn between moral rules: your best friend has a mistress and his wife raises the question of his fidelity to you. How would you respond ? The moral rules of loyalty and keeping one's promise versus being honest are at stake. This example is particularly rich as it can be considered as an ethical dilemma in one culture but not necessarily in another. Having a mistress in one culture may not be considered immoral (France or in polygamous societies) whereas in others (U.S., England) it would. Is an ethical dilemma, an urgent cry to humanity for justice , a revalidation of moral beliefs ? What constitutes the ethical in different cultures depends on their perceptions of : Human nature : Freedom good good/evil evil

very important important insignificant

Man's relationship to nature : dominant harmony subjugation Activity doing controlling being

Applying Mcgregor's theory x and y based on the level of trust in employees two cultures perceive it differently. For example, if the manager trusts employees then he/she will act differently from the manager who doesn't trust his/her employees; one will create an open environment with less control, whereas his/her opposite would create an environment with lots of controls. Each reinforces his/her original perception through his behaviour. In a society that deems human nature good, trust would be easily granted and inversely in a culture that thinks of human nature as evil. Given an ethical dilemma in this context would just pronounce these two initial positions. Another example, is whistle blowing, a procedure to report peers misconduct: For Americans, it is considered a natural procedure usually set up with an anonymous hotline ( not risking one's job) ; For the French, they are against using this procedure and see it as denouncing peers . As solidarity is important amongst colleagues, this procedure would undermine it. Fear of misuse or abuse of the whistle blowing policy also characterizes its refusal. Perhaps there's also an uneasiness with their collective historical consciousness between the collaborators and the resistance, in which denunciation took on a negative aspect during World War II. The French are more human relations oriented and feel the management can discover the misconduct on their own, whereas Americans are more rule oriented and have a higher sense of responsibility to the company. We would have to perform a cultural audit in order to discern what is ethical. Cultural dimensions of Business Ethics We speak of cultural dimensions to designate structures of organizing and thereby characterizing a particular group of people. The culture tends to take on a supra-identity constituting the framework for each individual in the group. Cultures can be very broad as seen in examples of national identity : the French, the Americans. Or they can be more specific to the common interests it binds the different participants/stakeholders as seen in corporate culture, urban culture, ethnic minority culture. In either case, the culture that results is usually a general, predominant composite of all the constituent parts giving rise to an intangible entity that incorporates its different elements (an intersubjective identity).

It is the framework by which a personality develops even if this personality is intangible it represents one, the representation is found in its image and acts like the glue holding the picture together. Culture is opposed to nature in that it is constructed by man (man-made) not by the physical universe (though the physical universe has an impact on the way in which man constructs culture). One could come up with a 'natural' culture, which may appear as a contradiction in terms. But, if we understand this expression 'natural' culture to be an emphasis on the 'natural' elements in inquiring into 'human nature' and the 'universe', then it just qualifies the culture to be of that type. We can debate on and on about what constitutes the 'natural' (though an essential question regarding environment, we cannot elaborate this now). Questions of the sort : is man basically good or evil?, is it natural to formula feed your baby?, is man in the state of nature prior to social existence?, which parts does society have to maintain for man in his social being? (shelter, survival, , etc); what does man have to give to society in order to sustain it? We must consider the economic model used and its influence on the cultural dimension as applied to business ethicsthe global economy is based on the assumption of capitalism: a free market economy. If we take the economic model as socialist or communist, our evaluations of ethical dilemmas would differ as some norms would be modified in their importance. For example, the ownership of production and the distribution of wealth would be structured according to specific economic systems following their respective norms. For the purposes of this inquiry, we'll use the economic model of capitalism in a 'free market economy'. Traditionally, this model is exemplified by Carr & Friedman, both espousing that the main objective of business is to make profits within legality. The role of the corporation and its management is to ensure profits and be accountable to the shareholders. The notion of corporate social and/or moral responsibility has made inroads into this position. The image and moral position of corporations have become so important these days, that their strategies are designed around this preoccupation. Need we be reminded of Total's recent oil spill off of the French coast, or Nike's difficulties

with child labour, not to mention the most recent Enron tragedy; just open the newspaper or watch the news to see that corporate roles are beyond making profit. The question of how this profit is to be earned has become as important as the profit itself. Taking the social and moral aspects into account is essential to developing strategy, which in turn affects the corporation's profit capacity. Ethics on the other hand, coming from the Greek roots 'thik' meaning the ways and habits of a group of people, would translate into the actual customs, and practices characterizing specific cultures. However, over time this meaning has taken on not only a descriptive quality, but a prescriptive one as wellwhile describing it prescribes (behaviour). Philosophically speaking, ethics is viewed from morality (having its roots in Latin 'mores' customs and habits of a group), which has also developed the character of oscillating from descriptive to prescriptive behaviour. That is, what we dos becomes what we should do, in describing behaviour there's an inference to prescribing it. This is the way it's done almost sounds like you should do it this way. One may ask how ? Explicitly, any documented policy drawn from actual experience usually takes on a prescriptive nature once it is transmitted as such. Putting behavioural practices into written rules for others to abide by, no longer describes that behaviour but rather prescribes it. Implicitly, the disapproval shown by others creates a pressure to conform to the norm. We'll come back to this idea later on. Briefly, ethics concerns itself with establishing norms, evaluating when a moral act is right or wrong as well as helping one to make moral decisions when confronted with a moral dilemma. Culture and ethics are interrelated and intertwined in such a way that it makes it difficult to know which factor is guiding / motivating the behaviour arising from a given situation. Is it the cultural vision of his/her ethics or is it the ethical vision of his/her culture that guides someone to do or not do certain things. Trompenaar's survey questioning people's reaction to a given situation shows that cultures with more emphasis on human relationships and loyalty (particularists) scored lower than those that emphasized obeying rules (universalists).

The situation : you're riding in a car driven by a close friend, who's driving at least 35 mph in a 20 mph zone. He hits someone. No witnesses. His lawyer says if you testify under oath that your friend was driving at 20 miles per hour, it might save him from serious consequences. What right has your friend to expect you to protect him ? Lying was more prominent in cultures stressing human relationships, whereas it was less prevalent in cultures stressing rules. Telling the truth is an ethical value that appears in this context. One could say, people in cultures emphasizing human relationships would most likely lie to protect the relationship; whereas, people in cultures putting a greater value on rules would lie less in order to abide by the rule. Adler differentiates between cultures that are universally oriented (all rules apply to everyone) and particularly oriented 'the nature of the relationship determines how someone will act in a particular situation'. When it comes to the actual experience of the individual in question it is not certain if that person is motivated by cultural influences and/or ethical implications of his/her act and/or decision. Paul Ricoeur suggests three positions in ethical development : 1) the self , 2) relations with others, 3) institutional. Through this process of moral integration, the self eventually becomes autonomous (auto self- nomous - norms which becomes understood as self-regulatory) in its experiences and interactions with others and institutions. The self internalises the cultural norms and values through socialization Key concepts to be distinguished : culture, ethics, and ethical theories of evaluation: Culture and cultural dimensions are considered the collective horizon representing a specific social reality (the objectivity of subjectivity). Culture comes from the Latin 'cultura' meaning to till ; in other words, preparing the environment for people to live in. Anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn define culture : "Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of

traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other, as conditioning elements of future action" Ethics is the common agreed upon practice of different moral principles or values. It concentrates on the general nature of morals and the specific moral choice an individual makes in relationship to others. It represents the rules and/or standards governing the conduct of the member of a profession. The context of this inquiry will be ethics applied to business. Ethical theories applied in decision-making as a methodology or an approach to evaluating acts and moral choice. Deontological theory consists of a set of moral rules in which moral choice is evaluated. Teleological theory consists of a guiding principle such as 'the good life' in which acts are evaluated in terms of fulfilling this principle. Utilitarianism, uses the principle 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number' as its underlying principle to evaluate moral choices. Norm theory (neutral omnipartial rulemaking) requires that 'conduct must be publicly known and acceptable to all persons in society' as the underlying principle in which moral choice is evaluated.

Applying Ethical Theory: Some General Suggestions

After considering four very different ethical theories, it is natural to ask when considering moral dilemmas: Which one should I apply? There is no pat answer that can be offered to this question, but some suggestions can be made that might be helpful when dealing with moral issues from theoretical perspectives. In recent decades, many ethicists have relinquished the goal of developing a single ethical theory as the basis of all reasonable moral judgment in favor of a more flexible, multitheoretic approach guided by the concept of reflective equilibrium. The

central idea of this approach is that reasonable moral judgment attempts to establish an equilibrium or balance between three factors that come into play when considering moral issues: (1) normative principles that provide criteria for moral judgment applicable in a range of moral situations, (2) moral intuitions, or basic moral sentiments and viewpoints that come into play when we reflect upon particular moral situations, and (3) factual beliefs pertaining to morally relevant factors in moral situations. To say that moral reasoning aims at a balance of these three factors is to say that no one of these factors has paramount importance in moral justification. We cannot approach moral problems by assuming that one given normative principle will always be valid when developing a justification for a moral viewpoint, nor can we always rely on our moral intuitions. What is required is a consistency between these various factors--a consistency that has its basis in the principle of universalizability that we considered in an earlier chapter. The implication of this approach for the application of ethical theory in moral deliberation is that our choice of what theory to apply must be based at least in part on how well a given theory "fits" into a consistent moral viewpoint that takes into account basic moral intuitions and relevant factual beliefs. The question then is how do we determine what constitutes the right fit. Recent studies in the moral development of children have revealed the such development proceeds along two parallel lines: (1) a development of empathy for the feelings and concerns of others that constitutes a morality of care, and (2) a sensitivity to issues of fair treatment that constitutes a morality of justice. 1 These developmental paths are independent of one another in the sense that they at times direct moral sentiments in distinct directions. The morality of care raises concerns about how our actions affect the general physical and psychological well-being of others. The morality of justice disregards to a large extent such considerations in favor of the question of whether a given action treats others in a manner that is consistent with the equal treatment of all. From the former perspective we might feel a certain sympathy for someone who has, for example, treated us unkindly for reasons of personal trauma or distress, even though from the latter perspective we might judge such treatment to have been unjust, and deserving of moral sanction.

No moral justification proceeds directly from these empirical results (attempting to do so would commit the naturalistic fallacy), but they do reveal something about the general character of our moral intuitions. Specifically, they suggest that at times our moral intuitions respond most strongly to the good or bad effects of actions upon people-effects that can be the object of our empathy--and at other times intuitions respond more strongly to how actions constitute unfair or unjust treatment. When the former intuitions are prominent, we can say as a general rule that a teleological approach, and more specifically utilitarian theory, which takes into account the effects of actions, is likely to provide a justificatory basis that captures more accurately the substance of our intuitions. On the other hand, when concerns of justice are paramount, a deontological approach is likely to provide surer guidance. Within the deontological framework, the decision of which of the three principles we considered--the universal law and end-in-itself formulations of the Categorical Imperative and the contractarian priniciple--provides surer guidance can require some reflective consideration of the reasons behind our belief that some given act was unfair or unjust. If these reasons center upon the view that the agent who performs this action could not possibly want everyone to do the same, and thus takes a liberty that he or she would not want others to take, then the universal law formulation provides a straightforward approach to moral justification. If we believe that an action exploits or uses another person, the end-in-itself formulation provides a way of offering a clear moral justification. Finally, if our sense is that another person breaks an implicit trust with us based on reasonable expectations of how people should act in social relationships where mutual interests are involved, contractarian theory is likely to provide the surest guidance. It is helpful when considering these issues to make trial applications of the different ethical theories. Often when we consider in some detail how different ethical theories would define the morally relevant facts concerning a given moral question, it becomes clear that these facts as defined by one ethical theory accord more closely with what we consider to be most significant with regard to the moral question than alternative ethical theories.

Again, it should be stressed that these are at best rules of thumb. Ethical thought, like any complex human endeavor, is a creative process where progress can require some considerable effort mixed with some creative insight. No set of rules can be offered that assures outcomes that in the long run will be found acceptable. But the history of ethical discussion and debate does demonstrate progress, and there is no reason not to expect that further progress can and will be made on the ethical issues that at present trouble and perplex us.

Ethics vs morals and morality

Ethics is the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."

-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995

Often the word "moral" purports to describe something as if there were a fact of the matter. As if "murder is wrong" were the same sort of claim as "snow is white". In this sort of usage, the ethical needn't be the factual. It might be unethical (that is, a breach of a particular code) for doctors to sleep with their patients; but it's possible that there are circumstances where no one would call it immoral.

"What is ethics? The word itself is sometimes used to refer to the set of rules, principles, or ways of thinking that guide, or claim authority to guide, the actions of a particular group; and sometimes it stands for the systematic study of reasoning about how we ought to act. In the first of these senses, we may ask about the sexual ethics of the people of the Trobriand Islands, or speak about the way in which medical ethics in The Netherlands has come to accept voluntary euthanasia. In the second sense, 'ethics' is the name of a field of study, and often of a subject taught in university departments of philosophy...

Some writers use the term 'morality' for the first, descriptive, sense in which I am using 'ethics'. They would talk of the morality of the Trobriand islanders when they want to describe what the islanders take to be right or wrong. They would reserve 'ethics' (or sometimes 'moral philosophy') for the field of study or the subject taught in departments of philosophy. I have not adopted this usage. Both 'ethics' and 'morality' have their roots in a word for 'customs', the former being a derivative of the Greek term from which we get 'ethos', and the latter from the Latin root that gives us 'mores', a word still used sometimes to describe the customs of a people. 'Morality' brings with it a particular, and sometimes inappropriate, resonance today. It suggests a stern set of duties that require us to subordinate our natural desires -- and our sexual desires get particular emphasis here -in order to obey the moral law. A failure to fulfil our duty brings with it a heavy sense of guilt. Very often, morality is assumed to have a religious basis. These connotations of 'morality' are features of a particular conception of ethics, one linked to the Jewish and Christian traditions, rather than an inherent feature of any ethical system. Ethics has no necessary connection with any particular religion, nor with religion in general." The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) seems to show that, from the earliest times, the words had very similar meanings.

"Ethic" as a noun has the senses "The science of morals" and "A scheme of moral science", and these are treated as parts (a) and (b) of a single meaning. The earliest citation is from 1387.

"Ethics" (in the plural) divides into a number of meanings. The sense of "The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty" dates from 1602. The sense of "The moral principles or system of a particular leader or school of thought" dates from 1651. "Morality" in the sense of "The doctrine or system concerned with conduct or duty; moral science" dates from 1449. In the sense of "Moral conduct; usually, good moral conduct; behaviour conformed to the moral law; moral virtue" it dates to 1609.

And finally, "morals" in the sense of "Moral habits or conduct; habits of life in regard to right and wrong conduct" dates to 1613. And the sense of "Moral science; moral doctrine; ethics" is said now to be rare, but dates at least as far back as 1651.

ethical leadership and management model

Below is a modern model for management and leadership in the 21st century. It's an interpretation of the 'personality' of good ethical modern management and leadership. As such it's not a process or technique - it's an attempt to characterise good modern ethical management and leadership.

P4 (PPPP)
Purpose, People, Planet, Probity (or Purity or Principles). The four cornerstones of sustainable success in any modern business venture, and a maxim for today's management and organisational philosophy. (Probity means honesty, uprightness - it's from the Latin word probus, meaning good). 'Purpose' is an apt replacement for 'Profit' and thus makes the acronym appropriate for use in not-for-profit organisations. Profitfocused corporations can of course substitute 'Profit' for 'Purpose'. This model is not a process or technique - it's the character or personality of a good ethical organisation, (or manager or leader). The aim of all good modern organisations is to reconcile the organisational purpose (whether this be profit for shareholders, or cost-effective services delivery, in the case of public services) with the needs and feelings of people (staff, customers, suppliers, local communities, stakeholders, etc) with proper consideration for the planet - the world we live in (in terms of sustainability, environment, wildlife, natural resources, our heritage, 'fair trade', other cultures and societies, etc) and at all times acting with probity encompassing love, integrity, compassion, honesty, and truth. Probity enables the other

potentially conflicting aims to be harmonised so that the mix is sustainable, ethical and successful. Traditional inward-looking management and leadership skills (which historically considered only the purpose - typically profit - and the methods for achieving it) are no longer sufficient for sustainable organisational success. Organisations have a far wider agenda today. Moreover, performance, behaviour and standards are transparent globally the whole world can see and judge how leaders and organisations behave - and the modern leader must now lead with this global accountability. Spiritual core of leadership. Does leadership have a spiritual core? According to a new research study of developing ethical leaders, the answer is yes. If fact this evolutionary spiritual core may have everything to do with leadership. While modern perspectives have sought to divorce spirituality from the earthly realms, we see that, as we develop our consciousness, the wisdom and compassion of our spiritual life come right to the center and influence everything we do. In her remarkable study, Marie Legault examined the experiences of leaders operating at post-conventional levels of development, ranging from Individualist to Unitive on the Leadership Development Framework, as described by Susanne Cook-Greuter. These are leaders who have developed beyond typical levels, expanding the breadth and complexity of perspective with which they see and work in the world. (Ms. Legaults research will be posted on her web site later this spring and we will let you know as it becomes available.) What she discovered were seven key themes of post-conventional ethical leadership, four of which particularly suggest that, as we develop, a spiritual, developmental core influences everything we do. Legault found that late-stage ethically-oriented leaders operate from a spiritual center, which is experienced as a heartfelt embodiment of love and service. An orientation to spiritual practice is central. Furthermore, these leaders have come to operate from this

realization of compassion and wisdom as a central theme of their leadership. These leaders integrate heart and mind and see their work as an inquiry and a meditation. It appears, however, that these leaders also grapple deeply with the gap between the insights that this spiritual core reveals and current reality, both in themselves and in the world. Leaults study found that these leaders have an innate desire for and commitment to continuous development and seek to align their working conditions with their values. These themes point to some of the core conclusions of our experience: that stepping into the heart of conscious leadership means discovering and learning to live a life of the evolving self and world, informed by our deepest spiritual understandings and expressed as service in the world. In the Heart of Conscious Leadership, we initiate ourselves into a deep experience of this understanding and learn core practices that help us to embody it in our life. In GTC, we engage in a committed journey to embodying this spiritual core and expressing it in all aspects of our life and leadership. Regardless of where we are and from whom we seek support, we are heading towards a deeper expression of our leadership and an expression of a more beautiful, whole, and thriving world, even if the path takes its twist and turns along the way.