1. 8 - 1 Principles of Ethical Conduct  There are dozens, if not hundreds, of ethical principles in the philosophical and religious traditions of East and West.  The following 14 principles* are fundamental guides or rules for behavior.  These principles distill basic wisdom that spans 2,000 years of ethical thought.  *This slide and those related to the 14 principles are from: Steiner, J.F. & Steiner, G.A. Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective, 12 th ed. NY: McGraw Hill Publishers.

2. 8 - 2 The Categorical Imperative  Origination: Immanuel Kant  Basic premise: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.  Criticism: Theory is dogmatic and inflexible.

3. 8 - 3 The Conventionalist Ethic  Origination: Albert Z. Carr  Basic premise: Business is like a game with permissive ethics and any action that does not violate the law is permitted.  Criticism: Commerce defines the life changes of millions and is not a game to be taken lightly.

4. 8 - 4 The Disclosure Rule  Origination: Baxter International’s Global Business Practice Standards  Basic premise: Test an ethical decision by asking how you would feel explaining it to a wider audience such as newspaper readers, television viewers, or your family.  Criticism:  Does not always give clear guidance for ethical dilemmas in which strong arguments exist for several alternatives.  An action that sounds acceptable if disclosed may not, upon reflection, be the most ethical.

5. 8 - 5 The Doctrine of the Mean  Origination: Aristotle  Basic premise: Virtue is achieved through moderation. Avoid behavior that is excessive or deficient of a virtue.  Criticism: The doctrine itself is inexact.

6. 8 - 6 The Ends-Mean Ethic  Origination: Ancient Roman proverb, but often associated with Niccolò Machiavelli.  Basic premise: The end justifies the means.  Criticism:  In solving ethical problems, means may be as important, or more so, that ends.  The process of ethical character development can never be furthered by the use of expedient means.

7. 8 - 7 The Golden Rule  Origination: Found in the great religions and in works of philosophy.  Basic premise: Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.  Criticism:  People’s ethical values differ, and they may mistakenly assume that their preferences are universal.  It is primarily a perfectionist rule for interpersonal relations.

8. 8 - 8 The Intuition Ethic  Origination: Defined by G.E. Moore in Principia Ethica.  Basic premise: What is good or right is understood by an inner moral sense based on character development and felt as intuition.  Criticism:  The approach is subjective.  Self-interest may be confused with ethical insight.  No standard of validation outside the individual is used.  Intuition may fail to give clear answers.

9. 8 - 9 The Might-Equals-Right Ethic  Origination: Thracymachus  Basic premise: Justice is the interest of the stronger.  Criticism:  Confusion of ethics with force.  Invites retaliation and censure, and is not conducive to long-term advantage.

10. 8 - 10 The Organization Ethic  Origination: Not credited.  Basic premise: Be loyal to the organization.  Criticism: Many employees have such deep loyalty to an organization that it transcends self-interest.

11. 8 - 11 The Principle of Equal Freedom  Origination: Herbert Spencer  Basic premise: A person has the right to freedom of action unless such action deprives another person of a proper freedom.  Criticism: Lacks a tie breaker for situations in which two rights conflict.

12. 8 - 12 The Proportionality Ethic  Origination: Medieval Catholic theology  Basic premise: A set of rules for making decisions having both good and evil consequences.  Criticism: These are intricate principles, requiring consideration of many factors.

13. 8 - 13 The Rights Ethic  Origination: Western Europe during the Enlightenment  Basic premise: Each person has protections and entitlements that others have a duty to respect.  Criticism:  Rights are sometimes stretched into selfish demands or entitlements.  Rights are not absolute and their limits may be hard to define.

14. 8 - 14 The Theory of Justice  Originator: Contemporary, John Rawls.  Basic premise: Each person should act fairly toward others in order to maintain the bonds of community.  Criticism: Rawl’s principles are resplendent in theory and may even inspire some business decisions, but they are best applied to an analysis of broad societal issues.

15. 8 - 15 The Utilitarian Ethic  Origination: Line of English philosophers, including Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  Basic premise: The greatest good for the greatest number.  Criticism:  In practice it has led to self-interested reasoning.  Because decisions are to be made for the greatest good of all, utilitarian thinking has led to decisions that permit the abridgement of individual or minority group rights.

16. 8 - 16 Practical Suggestions for Making Ethical Decisions  Learn to think about ethics in rational terms using ideas such as universalizability, reversibility, utility, proportionality, or others.  Consider some simple decision-making tactics to illuminate alternatives.  Sort out ethical priorities early.  Be publicly committed on ethical issues.  Set an example.  Thoughts may be translated into action, and ethical deeds often require courage.  Cultivate sympathy and charity toward others.  From: Steiner, J.F. & Steiner, G.A. Business, Government, and Society: A Managerial Perspective, 12 th ed. NY: McGraw Hill Publishers.

17. 8 - 17 Ethical Decision Making  Gather facts  Assess based on four ethical norms:  Utility: satisfaction of all  Rights: respectful of rights of others  Justice: consistent with accepted norms  Caring: shows concern for others  From: Adapted by Cavanaugh, G.F. in American Business Values: A Global Perspective. 5 th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

18. 8 - 18 Ethical Decision Making  If no on all criteria  not ethical  If yes on all criteria  ethical  If no on one or more criteria:  Consider overriding factors  Importance of criteria  Incapacitating factors (e.g., lack of info)  Double effect test (when criteria conflict)  From: Adapted by Cavanaugh, G.F. in American Business Values: A Global Perspective. 5 th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

19. 8 - 19 Giving Voice to Values by Mary C. Gentile  Frameworks and norms provide tools to understand if something may be ethical or not  Frameworks and norms fall short in helping us voice our values when we feel something is unethical

20. 8 - 20 Assumptions  I want to voice my values  I have voiced my values  I can voice my values more often  Some contexts allow for more voice  Practice will help me voice my values  My example is powerful  I don’t know who I will impact  Self-awareness is key  I am not alone  Voicing my values is worthwhile regardless of success  Voicing my values leads to better decisions  The more I believe it’s possible, the more likely I will act on my values

21. 8 - 21 Values  Values are broad and conceptual. They represent ideas that we hold important for our own behavior and the behavior of others. They often answer the question, who are you and who do you want to be?  What are your 5 top values?

22. 8 - 22 Self-Awareness  A thorough and continual understanding of self often leading to acceptance of self and others and an awareness of strengths.  Seeking feedback, honest reflection, and self analysis can increase self- awareness.

23. 8 - 23 Exercise 1- Part 1  Reflect on some experiences you have had and answer the following question:  Think about a time when your values conflicted with what you were expected to do and you spoke out about it.

24. 8 - 24 Exercise 1 – Part 1  What happened?  What motivated you to speak out?  How did you feel about the outcome at the time and how do you feel about the outcome now?  What would have made it easier for you to speak out?

25. 8 - 25 Exercise 1 – Part 2  Now think about a time when your values conflicted with what you were expected to do and you did not speak out about it.

26. 8 - 26 Exercise 1 – Part 2  What happened?  What kept you from speaking out?  How did you feel about the outcome at the time and how do you feel about the outcome now?  What would have made it easier for you to speak out?

27. 8 - 27 The GVV Approach  Things within your control:  Enlisting allies  Sequencing audiences  Question before making assertions  Meet one-on-one with dissenters  Reframe problem as opportunity  Find win-win solutions (collaboration)  Question assumptions and rationalizations  Appeal to shared values  Remember that these behaviors are a part of your job  Play to your strengths (speaking, writing, etc.)

28. 8 - 28 The GVV Approach  Organizational Context:  Organizational policies and values  Sanctioned discussions (town meetings, intra-corporate discussion board, etc.)  Systematic feedback systems (hotline, ombudsman, etc.)