Much of this note is attributable to Kenneth E. Goodpaster’s, Ethical Frameworks for Management (Harvard Business School Case 9-384-105, 1983).
Descriptive v. Normative Ethics
Descriptive ethics simply understand the facts of a situation. They describe or explain what occurred, without making any judgment. For example, when we played the Ultimatum Game in class on the first day, the recording scores on the board would be in the descriptive ethics category; that is, we ascertained that 40% of the students were concerned with outcomes while 60% cared about processes such as fairness.
Normative ethics, on the other hand, are about what should be (or not) done. We judge things to be right and wrong, good and bad. Normative ethics are not descriptive—it could be that nobody in the class cared about their own personal outcome (egoism) in the Ultimatum Game, but they should have!!! The Rachels book, by and large, presents different theories of normative ethics.
Normative Ethics: Outcomes (Teleological) v. Processes (Deontological) v. Others
Goodpaster developed “triangles” that we’ll do together in class. The dimensions have to do with (1) regards for SELF or for OTHERS; (2) focus on OUTCOMES, PROCESSES/MEANS; or OTHER STUFF.
I Outcomes (Teleological perspectives): focus on the outcomes of an action.
a. Self. EGOISM: maximizing the expected gains for one’s self. Also called self-interest or selfishness. That is, an action is deemed to be “good” if it results in the best outcome for oneself; it is “bad” if it does not. Rachels distinguishes between psychological egoism (the behavior that is “natural”; see also the Dawkins chapter) and ethical egoism (which is normative; again, what one should do).
b.
Others. UTILITARIANISM: maximizing the expected gains for the
greatest number of persons. Sometimes heard to be “seek the greatest good for
the greatest number.” That is an action is deemed to be “good” if it is expected
to maximize the benefits (or utility) to the greatest number of persons and
“bad” if it does not.
II Processes or Means (Deontological Perspectives): focus on the means, not on outcomes.
a. Self. EXISTENTIALISM: personal virtue is sought through authenticity to oneself. Sometimes stated as “to thine own self be true.” That is, I do what I feel like (Nike’s Just Do It!). It is based upon the free will of an individual to determine her best course of action for her alone. An action is deemed to be “right” if follows from this self-calculation (purity of motives) and “wrong” if it does not.
b. Others. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY: this is an appeal to fairness. Actions are deemed to be “right” if they are fair, and “wrong” if they are not. But what is the standard of “fairness”? It is a set of rules to which all individuals of a society are bound. But what would go into these rules? From the “original position” (in class, the cave!), we figure out what kind of actions make us better off (we like those) and worse off (we don’t like those) and make rules accordingly.
c. Others/Self. KANT’S ETHICS. Right and wrong are determined according to the “supreme principle”: (a) act only according to the maximum by which you can a the same time will that it should become a universal law (this is sometimes called the universalization of free will); (b) act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. Kant calls both of these things absolute—sometimes called the “categorical imperative.” Self enters because the individual has free will (she is a rational thinker) to do her actions.
III Other Frameworks
Goodpaster lists three other frameworks. Rachels presents another, virtue ethics.
For a, b, and c, right and wrong are found through these appeals:
a. Self. INTUITIONISM. This is a reflective, rational way to develop a set of rules of which adherence to is “right” and violations of are “wrong.” We have a duty to follow such rules or laws that are logically determined. Intuition is the guide for choosing such rules and ordering them (If it is wrong to tell a lie and wrong to knowingly kill someone, what happens if I need to tell a lie not to get someone killed?).
b. Others. LOVE. The set of rules are derived not by appeals to logic but by more humanistic and emotionally-derived appeals. Sometimes called “agapism.” The rules are created more from an affective state than an intellectual/logical one.
c. DUTY AS GOD’S WILL. From most theological work, the rules are derived from God, expressed either through nature or revelation. It is one’s duty to obey such rules: it is right to do so and wrong not to do so.
d. VIRTUE ETHICS. Virtue ethics is fundamentally different from the above frameworks that look at duties, obligations, and rights. Instead, virtue ethics focuses upon the characteristics of the individual actor. Derived from classical works of Plato and Aristotle, morality is seen to be the cultivation of virtuous traits. Virtue is not a feeling or innate but is a disposition that can be learned, trained and exercised. Virtue ethics emphasizes the motivations of the actors; that is, a moral person not only takes the fair action but has a motivation to do so. Some common virtues proffered as desirable would be generosity, care, compassion, fairness, empathy, among others.
Copyright 2002, Doug Schuler
Please report any technical errors on this page to:
Webmaster Brett Solberg.