Chapter 7

The Difference between Reason and Will

The students should:
be able to differentiate knowing and actually executing a good moral decision; and
judge their own moral behavior in terms of planning and execution in important moral
experiences.

Two ways of considering human acts

Actually, we can exhaust the possible views of man’s activity by looking at
human actions from two angles:
From the angle of science, looking for the answer to the question “how”?
From the angle of philosophy, looking for the answer to the question “why”?

FROM THE ANGLE OF SCIENCE, science examine human actions. And this is quite
proper. Man is a living organism, he is an animal, all of his actions create some little
ripple on the pool of physical nature. Physiology can quite properly examine and
correlate the results of its examination of the blood, the nerves, the muscles, the brain
of man in his different activities. Experimental psychology can properly compare the
common elements in human and animal activity it can search out the physical basis of
neuroses, the springs of hate and fear, anger, despair and all the rest.
Scientist can measure the weigh, make up averages, statistics, ratios, quotas, and be
entirely within their scope. All this is invaluable contribution to human knowledge.
FROM THE ANGLE OF PHILOSOPHY
The investigation of the empirical or scientific angle is something we can safely
leave to someone else whom we consult from time to time as the occasion demands-or
perhaps not at all.
For the key to successful living lies precisely in the humanity of these actions of
ours, in their subjection to our control that angle we cannot leave to anyone but
ourselves; that element must permeate every action in every instant of its existence and
is our business every moment of our lives. Whether we like it or not we must be
philosophers.
Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a
desire among the various desires present; it itself does not refer to any particular desire,
but rather to the mechanism responsible for choosing from among one's desires. Within
philosophy, will is important as one of the parts of the mind, along with reason and
understanding. It is considered central to the field of ethics because of its role in
enabling deliberate action.
Reason is the capacity of consciously making sense of things, establishing and
verifying facts, applying logic, and adapting or justifying practices, institutions, and
beliefs based on new or existing information.
It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy,
science, language, mathematics and art, and is normally considered to be a
distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason, or an aspect of it, is sometimes
referred to as rationality.
Reasoning is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. The philosophical
field of logic studies ways in which humans reason formally through argument.
Reasoning may be subdivided into forms of logical reasoning (forms associated with the
strict sense):
 1. deductive reasoning
 2. inductive reasoning
 3. abductive reasoning;
 4. and other modes of reasoning considered more informal, such as intuitive
reasoning and verbal reasoning
Deductive reasoning- or deductive logic is the process of deduction from one or
more statements to reach a logically certain conclusion. It goes in the same direction as
that of the conditionals and links premises with conclusions.
Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed
true or found true most of the time are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. It is
often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting or behaviour.
Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation
or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the
observations.
 Abductive Reasoning
 Incomplete observations ____ best prediction (may be true)
 Deductive reasoning
 General rule ____ specific conclusion (always true)
 Inductive reasoning
 Specific observation____ general conclusion (maybe true)

Benefits of reasons
 Justify decisions
 Support explanations of natural phenomena
 Can be given to explain the actions (conduct) of individuals.

Using reason, or reasoning, can also be described more plainly as providing good,
or the best, reasons. For example, when evaluating a moral decision, "morality is, at the
very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason—that is, doing what there are the
best reasons for doing—while giving equal [and impartial] weight to the interests of all
those affected by what one does.
Story behind the controls of human action
As we look into the control-room of human activity, we can see two great dynamos-
the intellect and the will of man. The work of the first is to know; that of the second is to
desire, to move, to enjoy. The will of itself is blind; like every other appetite in every
other creature, it trails long following and limited by knowledge. The intellect, of itself, is
powerless to move itself or anything else.
Yet from the combination of these two, we have that distinctive human product.
-movement with knowledge, controlled or deliberate movement, that is the means by
which happiness is obtained. Not movement alone, not knowledge alone, but controlled
movement makes a success of life.
Intellect + will = movement with knowledge and controlled or deliberate
movement
It is impossible to expect a movement from the will until some object of desire is
letdown, yet there be no movement to knowledge, or to anything else, without having
resource to the source of all movement in man, his will.
General principle- reason is the form of human activity
• It is necessary to remember that reason is the form, as it were the soul, of human
acts; as the soul of man gives life to his body, so the reason of man gives
humanity to his acts.
• it is because he can know the universal that man can choose between
particulars; because he knows the relation of the tools to the job in hand,
because he knows why he is placing this particular action, man is in control of his
activity- and only man.
• From the very beginning, then reason must lead the way; until reason has placed
its stamp upon he coin of human activity.

Keep in mind that when we speak of the beginning of human activity, we are talking of its end
or goal. For it is because of the end goal that human activity starts at all.

With reference to the goal or end:

Apprehension
Volition
Conation
enjoyment
 Counsel
Judgement
Command The machinery of
human activity is not unlike a gasoline engine. We have an
With reference
infallible automatic starter in nature; once started, the
to the means
on the part of interaction of intellect and will is like the steady interaction of
the intellect: the different cylinders of the gas engine. When our human
engine is running smoothly, it is difficult to separate the action of
intellect from that of will, so quickly and intimately do they run
into one another.

On the part of the will:

 Consent
 Election
 Execution

If we follow the mental processes of a little girl investing the coin which has just
been advanced from the family treasury, we shall have an accurate account of the
process of controlled use of means to an end. This little girl knows that money exist to
be spent, the end is clear, desirable and desired, indeed intended.

ACTS OF INTELLECT AND ACTS OF WILL

Dealing with an end

1. Simple apprehension 2. Simple volition

3. Judgement proposing the end 4. intention

Fruition or enjoyment of end

Dealing with means

A. In Intentional Order

5. counsel 6. Consent

7. judgment 8. election

B. In order of execution. it

9. Command or precept 10. Active use

Passive use in the executing faculties







Chapter 8
Moral theories and mental frames and why they are important:
 Aristotle and St. Thomas
 Kant and Rights

Aristotle and St. Thomas

The highest aims of humans:
Eudaimonia
—Defined as happiness, living well, flourishing
—It is that thing which we desire for itself and not for any other end.
—It requires a proper balance or sufficient quantity of four things: Honor (having friends),
Fortune, Pleasure and Virtue.
Eudamonia: Honor; Fortune; Pleasure
Health, wealth, and other such resources—are sought because they promote well-being,
not because they are what well-being consists in.
—“Luck loves virtue” (Aristotle quoting someone else - could be Hessiod or Euripedes) These
elements may be due in a good part to luck but are also closely tied to proper outcomes of
consistently virtuous action.
These elements are necessary only because “someone who is friendless, childless,
powerless, weak, and ugly will simply not be able to find many opportunities for virtuous activity
over a long period of time, and what little he can accomplish will not be of great merit.”
Eudaimonia: Virtue and Reason
Aristotle argues that the highest end of humans consists in “activity of the rational part of
the soul in accordance with perfect virtue.”
—“…what sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live a better life, is our
capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason well, we live well as human
beings.”
Virtue
• Acting with excellence
• An activity of the rational part of the soul
• Reason excellently applied
• The means between the extremes
Two kinds of virtues:
• Practical or Moral – “the result of habit or custom”
• Intellectual – which “owes its birth and growth mainly to instruction and so requires time
and experience.”
Virtue: Reason Excellency Applied
Sophia (σoφíα)
• —Wisdom -a combination of nous (the intellect) and episteme (knowledge). Allows one
to know what qualities of the character are best
 Phronēsis (φρόνησις)
• —Practical Judgment
• —Required for judging things according to the aim of living well overall . Allows one to
apply a given quality of activity in any given context.
VIRTUE: The means between the Extremes
The Golden Mean – not an arithmetic mean but a relative mean – the proper application of a
quality in a given context
—Virtue is defined as the mean between the vice of excess and the vice of deficiency – too
much of a characteristic is as bad as too little
—Each of us must assess our abilities and have a good understanding of the situation or
context of our moral decisions.

VIRTUE: the means between the extremes

Vice of Excess Virtue Vice of Deficiency
—Foolhardiness Courage Cowardice
—Unrestrained giving Liberality Stinginess
—Drunkenness Temperance Abstinence
—Bragging Truthfulness Mock modesty
—Vanity Pride Humility

Virtue: the Means between the extremes

Is Aristotle’s doctrine of means the same as, “everything in moderation?” Can one be too
virtuous?
NO!
—It is impossible to be too just – we can’t be too lawful or fair
—It is impossible to be too courageous; as courage is just the right balance between rashness
and cowardice – courage is hitting the mark just right
Some Objections to Aristotle’s Virtue Theory
What if what we’re good at is not something that is a good thing – problem is that the answer
becomes circular – it is bad because it is not good.
—Suppose that the purpose of all things is a myth – suppose there is no higher purpose &
everything is random and accidental? Then the only sense of purpose is that which individuals
assign to things.
—Aristotle asks too much of his moral agent; few if any people can act rationally all the time.
—Why must one assume there is just one purpose for each thing or person – why can’t there be
many purposes & a multitudes of functions?

Immanuel Kant’s Ethical Theory

The Ideas of Reason and Ethics
The three “ideas of reason,” self, world and God play a vital role in the ethical theory
developed by Kant. In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant had shown that theoretical reason itself
cannot prove their reality. According to him they are not constitutive, but are regulative, as they
add systematic unity and coherence to our experience. Since they are related to morals in
significant ways, they have immense practical importance.
The idea of good will:
Kant claims that, everything else is good only in relation to the Good Will, which is the
ultimate criterion that determines the moral worth of an action. All other things that are usually
considered as good like health, wealth, gifts of fortune, talents, intellect etc., are good only
insofar as they are used well or used by a good will. Kant here seems to be focusing on the
agent's will and his motives and intentions. He affirms that the good will is always
unconditionally good, irrespective of the consequences of the action it prompts the agent to
perform.
Kant announces that the moral law is categorical and he asserts its absolute authority. He
claims that, what makes willing right is that it must be based on a rational principle. According to
him the moral law is a law of reason. He treats man as fundamentally a rational being and
therefore, to obey the dictates of reason is not only desirable, but is categorical. Moreover, the
universe where man finds himself is also constructed on rational principles. Hence the ultimate
criterion that makes an action right must be its performance in reverence to the law of reason. In
other words, it must be performed for the sake of duty. This is the function of practical reason
according to Kant.
Universal Law formulation
• Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law

Humanity as End in Itself formulation

• Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

St. Thomas Aquinas' Ethical theory

Within Aquinas’ frame, ethical philosophy is about deciding the best way to live one’s life.
This is continuous with wider ancient and Medieval approaches. Modern theorists tend to
assume that people have a vast field of options which morality pares down. In contrast, Aquinas
believes people need to identify meaningful goals before they can act. As such, moral theory is
a way to facilitate action, rather than to limit it.
Aquinas’s moral psychology
Aquinas sees these ethical principles as effects of natural moral knowledge. Everyone has
an innate knowledge of the natural law, known as synderesis. This is actualised in particular
situations as conscience. Although innate, this natural law appears only in reason, and not
inclinations. Inclinations obey the natural law only if they are ruled by reason. Any natural good
can be pursued in inappropriate ways if it is not ruled by reason.
Conscience is a kind of operative practical intelligence which reminds people of their
principles when they are relevant to real choices. Aquinas believes that we should always follow
our conscience, even when it is wrong or causes great harm. Since we have no way of knowing
whether our consciences are wrong, they are the best guide we have as to what is the moral
thing to do.
To go against one’s conscience is to go against the values of truth and reason. This position
differs from modern theories, which usually prioritize social norms of laws over conscience. I
feel Aquinas’s view makes more sense, because conscience is a better guide to the right thing
to do than external social norms (which most often reflect dominant social power-relations).
The first principle of Aquinas’s moral thought is that good should be done or pursued, and
evil (or badness) avoided. Without this principle, other moral rules would have no force. The
maxim “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is also quite fundamental, and
sometimes interpreted as a rephrasing of the first principle. Others have interpreted it as an
orientation to the fulfilment of everyone, now and in the future.
There are four main virtues according to Aquinas:
1. Prudentia – the act of bringing moral reasoning into all decisions, and putting it before
irrational desires and ego-promotion. Reason, rather than passion, is at the heart of moral
decisions.
2. Justice – a disposition to give others what they are entitled to, or have a right to.
3.Courage (fortitude) – a disposition to restrain fears so as to act rightly.
4. Temperantia – the moderation of desires, especially sexual desire, in line with their “proper
role”. This does not require a lack of passion, but something more like a golden mean.
The Moral Animal
By: Robert Wright
In The Moral Animal, author Robert Wright surveys some pre-Darwinian theories of evolution
and their reception by the public.
The “new synthesis” that combines Darwinian natural selection with genetics and the social
sciences goes by many names. Wright prefers “evolutionary psychology” or simply “the new
Darwinism.” He makes some pretty striking claims for this new field.
, “The new Darwinian synthesis is, like quantum mechanics or molecular biology, a body of
scientific theory and fact; but, unlike them, it is also a way of seeing everyday life. Once truly
grasped (and it is much easier to grasp than either of them) it can entirely alter one’s perAs an
example of the explanatory power of the new Darwinism, consider a problem that caused
Darwin himself no end of grief. Why do some individuals sacrifice themselves for the good of
others? ception of social reality.”
“We like to think of ourselves as selfless. And on occasion we are. But we are pigs compared to
the social insects. Bees die for their fellow bees, disemboweling themselves upon stinging an
intruder. Some ants, also in defense of the colony, detonate themselves. Other ants spend their
lives as doors, keeping out insects that lack security clearance, or as food sacks, hanging
bloated from the ceiling in case of scarcity.”
“We like to think of ourselves as selfless. And on occasion we are. But we are pigs compared to
the social insects. Bees die for their fellow bees, disemboweling themselves upon stinging an
intruder. Some ants, also in defense of the colony, detonate themselves. Other ants spend their
lives as doors, keeping out insects that lack security clearance, or as food sacks, hanging
bloated from the ceiling in case of scarcity.”
Thanks to the science of genetics, we understand the nuts and bolts of evolution better than
Darwin did. We know that natural selection isn’t the survival of the fittest individual but the
survival of the fittest genes. According to the new Darwinians, insects, and human beings,
sacrifice themselves because they carry a “self-sacrifice gene” (in real life a set of genes). It’s
not difficult to imagine how natural selection might have favored self-sacrifice. In the harsh
environment where much of evolution occurred, a group whose members helped each other
might have had a greater chance of survival than a group of selfish louts. The survivors got to
propagate their genes, including the ones for self-sacrifice.
From the gene’s viewpoint, self-sacrificial behavior may make perfect sense. Say a man dives
into a lake to save his brother from drowning. The hero may die, but the “self-sacrifice gene” is
likely to survive, since the brother carries 50% of the hero’s genetic material. In the case of a
hero saving his family, the chance of the gene’s survival becomes even greater.

Chapter 9
The most important classical utilitarians are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart
Mill (1806-1873). Bentham and Mill were both important theorists and social reformers. Their
theory has had a major impact both on philosophical work in moral theory and on approaches to
economic, political, and social policy. Although utilitarianism has always had many critics, there
are many 21st century thinkers that support it.
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of
consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on
their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad
results that they produce. Act utilitarians focus on the effects of individual actions (such as John
Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham Lincoln) while rule utilitarians focus on the effects of
types of actions (such as killing or stealing)
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of
good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad
things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of
commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or
supernatural beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is
its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle:
Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex because we
cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things:
a.) what things are good and bad;
b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize; and
c. ) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences (the
results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences (the results that
we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have).
a. What is Good?
Jeremy Bentham answered this question by adopting the view called hedonism. According to
hedonism, the only thing that is good in itself is pleasure (or happiness). Hedonists do not deny
that many different kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many
other things, but hedonists see these as “instrumental” goods that are valuable only because
they play a causal role in producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure and happiness, however,
are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that they are good in themselves and not because they produce
some further valuable thing.
Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food, friends, or freedom is instrumentally bad because
it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering and unhappiness are
intrinsically bad, i.e. bad in themselves and not because they produce some further bad thing.
b. Whose Well-being?
Utilitarian reasoning can be used for many different purposes. It can be used both for moral
reasoning and for any type of rational decision-making. In addition to applying in different
contexts, it can also be used for deliberations about the interests of different persons and
groups.
Individual Self-interest
• Group- “ the greatest happiness for the greatest number”
• Everyone Affected- Peter Singer calls the “equal consideration of interests.”
How Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Differ
Both act utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall aim in evaluating actions should
be to create the best results possible, but they differ about how to do that.
Act utilitarians believe that whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the action
that will create the greatest net utility. In their view, the principle of utility—do whatever will
produce the best overall results—should be applied on a case by case basis. The right action in
any situation is the one that yields more utility (i.e. creates more well-being) than other available
actions.
Rule utilitarians adopt a two part view that stresses the importance of moral rules. According to
rule utilitarians, a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and
b) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other
possible rules (or no rule at all). According to this perspective, we should judge the morality of
individual actions by reference to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral
rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being
than other possible rules.
The key difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarians apply the utilitarian
principle directly to the evaluation of individual actions while rule utilitarians apply the utilitarian
principle directly to the evaluation of rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if they
obey or disobey those rules whose acceptance will produce the most utility.
Arguments against Act Utilitarianism
The “Wrong Answers” Objection
• The following cases are among the commonly cited examples:
* If a judge can prevent riots that will cause many deaths only by convicting an innocent person
of a crime and imposing a severe punishment on that person, act utilitarianism implies that the
judge should convict and punish the innocent person. (See Rawls and also Punishment.)

 If a doctor can save five people from death by killing one healthy person and using that
person’s organs for life-saving transplants, then act utilitarianism implies that the doctor
should kill the one person to save five.

 If a person makes a promise but breaking the promise will allow that person to perform
an action that creates just slightly more well-being than keeping the promise will, then
act utilitarianism implies that the promise should be broken. (See Ross)
Possible Responses to Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
First, they can argue that critics misinterpret act utilitarianism and mistakenly claim that it is
committed to supporting the wrong answer to various moral questions. This reply agrees that
the “wrong answers” are genuinely wrong, but it denies that the “wrong answers” maximize
utility. Because they do not maximize utility, these wrong answers would not be supported by
act utilitarians and therefore, do nothing to weaken their theory.
Second, act utilitarians can take a different approach by agreeing with the critics that act
utilitarianism supports the views that critics label “wrong answers.” Act utilitarians may reply
that all this shows is that the views supported by act utilitarianism conflict with common sense
morality. Unless critics can prove that common sense moral beliefs are correct the criticisms
have no force. Act utilitarians claim that their theory provides good reasons to reject many
ordinary moral claims and to replace them with moral views that are based on the effects of
actions.
Why Rule Utilitarianism Maximizes Utility
 The rule utilitarian approach to morality can be illustrated by considering the rules of the road.
If we are devising a code for drivers, we can adopt either open-ended rules like “drive safely” or
specific rules like “stop at red lights,” "do not travel more than 30 miles per hour in residential
areas,” “do not drive when drunk," etc. The rule “drive safely”, like the act utilitarian principle, is
a very general rule that leaves it up to individuals to determine what the best way to drive in
each circumstance is. More specific rules that require stopping at lights, forbid going faster than
30 miles per hour, or prohibit driving while drunk do not give drivers the discretion to judge what
is best to do. They simply tell drivers what to do or not do while driving.
Rule Utilitarianism Avoids the Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
1. Judges, Doctors, and Promise-makers
• Critics of act utilitarianism claim that it allows judges to sentence innocent people to
severe punishments when doing so will maximize utility, allows doctors to kill healthy
patients if by doing so, they can use the organs of one person to save more lives, and
allows people to break promises if that will create slightly more benefits than keeping the
promise.
• Rule utilitarians say that they can avoid all these charges because they do not evaluate
individual actions separately but instead support rules whose acceptance maximizes
utility. To see the difference that their focus on rules makes, consider which rule would
maximize utility: a) a rule that allows medical doctors to kill healthy patients so that they
can use their organs for transplants that will save a larger number of patients who would
die without these organs; or b) a rule that forbids doctors to remove the organs of
healthy patients in order to benefit other patients.
Conclusions:
• The debate between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism highlights many important
issues about how we should make moral judgments. Act utilitarianism stresses the
specific context and the many individual features of the situations that pose moral
problems, and it presents a single method for dealing with these individual cases. Rule
utilitarianism stresses the recurrent features of human life and the ways in which similar
needs and problems arise over and over again
From this perspective, we need rules that deal with types or classes of actions: killing,
stealing, lying, cheating, taking care of our friends or family, punishing people for crimes,
aiding people in need, etc. Both of these perspectives, however, agree that the main
determinant of what is right or wrong is the relationship between what we do or what form
our moral code takes and what is the impact of our moral perspective on the level of
people’s well-being.

Chapter 10
Justice and Fairness: Mandated Topic Taxation

What is Justice?
 One of the first places we can look to see how fairness influences morality is in; When
something is just, it, is, by definition, fair.
Have you ever seen a statue of Lady Justice, the allegorical representation of the idea of
justice?
She’s blindfolded- why? Because justice should be applied equally to everyone,
regardless of their history, wealth, social status, or any other factor.
Lady Justice is blind, meaning that the only factor in determining how the law is applied is
what is fair.
 Justice is an action that is morally right and fair.
It is an outcome that is fair, ethical and moral in which reason and the commonly accepted
law, both natural and civil, was applied wisely.
Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms,
giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are
often today used interchangeably.
Justice usually has been used with reference to a standard or rightness, ability to make
judgements that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular
case.
Principles of Fairness and Justice
Today’s economist have different theories on what constitutes taxation. Most believe that a
tax system should follow the idea of fairness.
British economist, Adam Smith laid out this idea in his landmark treatise The Wealth of
Nations (1776).
The chief justification of taxation rests on the principle of justice, particularly distributive
justice. According to this principle, there should be a fair distribution of society’s benefits
and burdens
The distribution of burdens in taxation requires proportionate equality and proportionate
equality is not necessarily an equal share but a fair share of carrying the burden of taxes.
Established on the principle of ability to pay, a fair share means those earners of the lower-
income bracket should not be taxed as much as those of the high-income bracket.
A combination of fairness and justice theory is the ability-to-pay principle which determines
whether the burden of a tax is distributed fairly. The ability-to-pay principle holds that
people’s taxes should be based upon their ability to pay usually as measured by income or
wealth.
One implication of this principle is horizontal equity which among others, states that people
n equal positions should pay the same amount of tax.
If two people both have incomes of $50,000 then horizontal equity requires that they pay the
same amount of tax. Suppose, however that two individuals both have incomes of $ 50,000
but one has a lot of medical bills and the other is healthy. Are they in equal positions? If not,
 then perhaps the tax burden of the person with medical bills should be reduced. But by how
much? And how does a person document to tax authorities that he or she is truly paying
medical costs, and not just pretending that in order to lower the tax bill? This example
illustrates a fundamental dilemma in tax design that is fairness appears to be the enemy of
simplicity.
A second requirement of the ability-to-pay principle is vertical equity, the idea that a tax
system should distribute the burden fairly across people with different abilities to pay. This
idea implies that a person with higher income should pay more in taxes than one with less
income. But how much more? Should families with different incomes be taxed at the same
or at different rates? Accordingly, taxes may be proportional, progressive or regressive.
“There are two things that are certain, death and taxes”
• A proportional tax takes the same percentage on income from all people.
• A progressive tax takes a higher percentage of income as income rises- rich people not
pay a larger amount of money than poor people, but a larger fraction of their incomes.
• A regressive tax takes a smaller percentage of income as income rise- poor people pay
a larger fraction of their incomes in taxes than rich people.
Which is fairest- a proportional, progressive, or regressive system?
There is no specific way to resolve this question. The answer depends on ethical and
philosophical judgements such as whether a society has the right to take income from one
group of people and give it to another. A progressive, proportional or even slightly
regressive system can achieve vertical equity’s requirement that a richer person should pay
more in taxes than a poorer person. Most industrialized nations have progressive income
tax systems, which impose a heavier tax burden as one’s income increases.
Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice – one that has been widely accepted since it was first
defined widely accepted by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago – is the principle that:
“equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.”
In contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows:
Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the
situation in which they are involved.”
There different kind of justice.
• Distributive justice
• Retributive and Corrective Justice
• Compensatory Justice
• Distributive justice – refers to the extent to which society’s institutions ensure that
benefits and burdens are distributed among society’s members in ways that are fair and
just.
• Retributive (Corrective Justice) – it refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and
just. In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account
relevant criteria such as seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and
discount irrelevant criteria such as race.
• 3. Compensatory Justice – refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated
for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the
loss inflicted on a person.
• Justice is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral
lives.
• Defining Fairness
• Fairness
• It can also be thought of as a modern catch-all word that implies that something is moral,
just, ethical, and utilitarian. It doesn’t mean it is perfect; it means that it is ethical, just
and moral enough to be “equitable” and “fair.”
• Fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to
one’s feelings or interests; it has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments
that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case.
• Justice, like rights is an important moral concept with a wide range of applications. We
use it to evaluate not only the actions of individuals but also social, legal, political and
economic practises and institutions.
• Although the word “just” is sometimes used interchangeably with “right” and “good” it
generally has a more restricted meaning that is closer to fair. Questions of justice often
arise when there is something to distribute. If there is a shortage of organ donors, for
example, we ask, what is just.
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• The principle of justice when taken to heart, simply means that each corporation should
carry its fair share in taxation for each fiscal year. The firm may not even attempt to
evade paying correct taxes to the government, considered one of the most important
stakeholders of business.
• Tax evasion- is a failure to pay legally due taxes. As they affect individual behaviour,
high tax rates affect corporate behaviour. It is the intentional negligence of obligations
and duties towards the government. Tax evasion is intentional because it is a form of
economic abandonment of duties mandated of a corporate citizen.
• Tax avoidance happens when taxpayers exploit some legally permissible alternative
methods of assessing taxable property or income in order to avoid or reduce tax liability.
Organizations change their behaviour to reduce the amount of taxes they legally owe.
• Corporate social responsibility requires that the inclinations of business leaders and the
other members of the organization are well founded in business ethics even before they
can do corporate citizenship.
Chapter 11
Globalization & Ethical Challenges
Ethics is an everyday occurrence in one’s personal life as well as in
corporate world. Business ethics examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that
arise in a business world. Due to globalization of markets and production processes, an ever-
increasing number of marketers and business organizations have to deal with ethical issues in
cross cultural setting.
The corporate leaders and senior managers working with every
global organization are facing various dilemmas and concerns spamming various disciples like
marketing, finance, human resource production, etc.
Phenomenon called Globalization
Globalization is a phenomenon that has led to the integration of
regional economies, societies and cultures through communication, transport and trade. It is
closely linked with economic globalization that stands for the integration of national economies
into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration,
the spread of technology and military presence.

Business Ethics and Need of Business Ethics

Business ethics (also corporate ethics) is a form of applied ethics or

professional ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a
business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the
conduct of individuals and entire organizations. It aims at inculcating a sense of value
orientation within company’s employee as to how to conduct business responsibly.
Some organizations choose to recast the concept of business ethics
through other terms like integrity, social responsibility, customer welfare, employee welfare,
social value added, transparency and disclosure in accounting and environmental protection.
Ethics is needed to business for several reasons:
 It is a human trait that man desires to be ethical, not only in his private life but
also in his business affairs
 Most people want to be part of an organization which they can respect and be
publicly proud because they perceive its purpose and it to be honest and
beneficial to the society.
 Most top managers would like to respond to this need of their employees and
they themselves feel an equal need to be genuinely proud of the company, they
are directing.
Ethics create credibility with the public:
 A company perceived by the public to be ethically and socially responsive will be
honored and respected even by those who have no intimate knowledge of its
actual working. There will be an instinctive prejudice in favour of its products,
since people believe that the company offers value for money. Its public issue will
 attract an immediate response. Ethics give management credibility with
employees.
Law cannot protect society, ethics can:
 Ethics is important because the government aw and lawyers cannot do
everything to protect society. Technology develops faster than the government
can regulate. People in an industry often know the dangers in a particular
technology better than the regulatory agencies. Further, government cannot
always regulate all activities which are harmful to society. Where law fails, ethics
can succeed. An ethically-oriented management takes measures to prevent
pollution and protection of worker’s health even before being mandated by law.

Ethical Focus of
criteria Ethical
Concern

Individual Company Society

person

Egoism Self- Company Economy efficiency

interest interest
 Benevolence Friendship Team Social responsibility
interest

Principle Morality Company Laws and professiona

rules and
procedure
s

Shareholders- A shareholder’s perspective of business ethics focuses on making decisions for

the best interest of the company’s investors. Ethical shareholders tend to take greater
responsibility for the profitability of the company.
Employees- Globalization provides better opportunities to the employees. Ethical conduct
enables them to integrate their personal goals with goals of organizations
Government- Globalization enables collaborations among governments across the globe. The
government can provide better services to citizens, check corruption and enable transparency in
processes
Customers- Globalization enables greater product variety to customers. They get cheaper
products but learn to use them responsibly.
Suppliers- Globalization enables supplier’s better connectivity with their customers. Ethical
suppliers supply higher quality products and seek long term profitability.
Competitors- All the competing companies get wider market. They can also engage in
collaborations in mutually beneficial areas.
Society- Due to increasing connectivity caused by globalization, civil society is better aware of
the problems of the populace and can rapidly take up issues with the pertinent authorities.

International Human Resource Management

Globalization has presented complex challenge for international HRM. Due to cultural
differences, the commitment between employer and employees has become fuzzier. A
significant challenge for management is to maintain objectivity in hiring, promotion and
compensation. Child labor has emerged as a complicated issue. Other important issues
include discrimination, fraud, and sexual harassment.
International Financial Management
The primary goal of management is wealth maximization for the shareholders. There is little
direct support that ethical behavior leads to shareholder’s wealth maximization. Indirect studies
have also not found any substantial relationship between corporate financial performance and
social responsibility. But for long term sustainability, organizations should engage in ethical
practices. Fairness in trading practices, trading conditions financial contracting, tax payments
and financial practices need to be followed.
International Marketing
In international marketing, the needs and wants of various groups vary, which leads to ethical
conflicts. Most ethical issues are related to marketing polices, communications, pricing
approaches and distribution practices. The specific ethical issues are prudence of targeting
vulnerable sections for consumption of redundant or dangerous products/services, transparency
about source labor, fair treatment and fair pay to employees, product or service transparency,
appropriate product labelling, truthful and honest advertising, fair pricing and distribution
forthrightness in selling
Production
This area of business ethics deals with the duties of a company to ensure that products and
production processes do not cause harm. Defective, addictive and inherently dangerous
products and services (e.. Tobacco, alcohol, weapons, motor vehicles, chemical manufacturing,
bungee jumping) are not ethical practices in production. The company should also maintain a
harmonious relationship with the environment. It is important to deal with ethical issues caused
by new technologies like genetically modified food, mobile phone radiation, health etc. Certain
other ethical issues are used to animals and disadvantaged groups as test objects.
ICT
The internet, private exchanges, global satellite linkages, RFID and other forms of new
technology hold great promise in terms of allowing global supply chains to operate more
efficiently and provide faster response to demand. However, these new technologies also
present some cultural and ethical challenges to firms operating in the global environment.
There may be varying views among countries on goals, decision-making approaches,
information sharing and trust and many other cultural differences.

Ethical Practices in Global Corporations

A global corporation must not only understand the values, laws,

culture and ethical standards of its own country but should also be very sensitive to other
countries where its subsidiaries are operating.
Ethical Practices in Global Corporation

CORPORATIO AREA ETHICAL INITIATIVE

N
 Walmart Environment Adopted energy conservation measures.
Launched lighting efficiency program.
Started program for recycling of materials.

Coca cola Philanthropy Launched program calles “education on wheels”.

Started American Indian College Education Fund

Health HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns in Africa

Nike Marketing Relationship marketing with stakeholders

Social responsibility Adopted ethical code of conduct

Marketing Adopted ethical code of conduct

 Human resources Created ethics office headed by ethics director

Texas instruments Environment Launched program for zero wastage of

resource. Adopted recycling of materials

Infosys Technologies Corporate Social Strictly compliance with the laws of all countries.
Responsibility
High degree of disclosure and transparency.
Management trustee for shareholders not for owners.
Sony Corporation Corporate Created commitees for compensation and audit.
governance
Created office of independent directors. Launched equity
compensation plans.

Code of ethics Based on respect for human rights. Stresses integrity and fairness
in business. Focuses on ethical personal conduct.

Communication Launched internal hotline system. Education of employees about code of ethics.
 Crisis Adopted a 3 tier crisis handling mechanism
Management
system

Anti-social Adopted mechanism for anti-money laundering

elements
exclusion

What makes the ethics and values in business special relevant and topical in the
present-day context in the world is the fact that we are on the threshold of environmental
changes of far reaching consequences. Business ethics present pertinent solutions to
the concerns and dilemmas faced by global organizations. Ethical leadership is
essential for the long-term survival and success of any organization. In the era of
globalization, business ethics considerably influence shareholders, employees,
customers, suppliers, competitors, government and civil society.

Organizations should focus on the ethical issues faced by them in various functional
areas like marketing, finance, human resources, production, ICT etc. The commendable
work done by global corporations in inculcating an practicing business ethics
underscores the importance of value based leadership in international business
scenario.

Chapter 12
 Millennial and Filinnials: Ethical challenges and Responses

All organizations, public and private, must take steps o safeguard

assets, produce reliable financial reports, promote effective and efficient operations and
ensure compliance with laws, rules and regulations.

That environment should incorporate a comprehensive system of

internal controls that includes a code of conduct communicating the organizations
standards for ethical behaviour. The challenge facing today’s leadership is how best to
develop the appropriate control environment given the diversity that exists in today’s
workforce.

Millennials (millennial generation, Generation Y) is the phrase used to generally describe

a person who reached adulthood in the early 21st century and covers the generation of
people born between 1980 and 2000.

In the Philippines, there are an estimated 26 million 'Fillenials', or Filipino millenials.

They roughly make up 25% of the population. They are called as the “selfie generation”,
being generally characterized as social media dependent.

GENERATIONAL GROUPS

Traditionalist 1925-1945 Hardworking, respectful of authority

Value loyalty

Baby boomers 1946-1964 Hardworking

Idealistic

Committed to harmony

Generation X worker 1965-1980 Entrepreneurial

(Gen Xers) Flexible

Self-reliant
 Comfortable with technology

Millenials (Generation Y, Gen 1981-2000 Savvy

Yers)
Appreciative in diversity

Skilled in multi-tasking

According to an analysis of the report, these differences in attitudes

and traits have resulted in a great deal of variability in many of the measures of
workplace ethics. The study found that the youngest workers are significantly more likely
than their older colleagues to feel pressure from others to break ethical rules because
the pressure "eases as workers spend more time in the workforce and learn ways of
coping with their work environment."

The analysis seems to indicate that as a possible solution,

companies should concentrate more on issues of ethical culture during the orientation of
new employees, which should mitigate their feeling of not knowing much about how to
act within the culture of their new workplace.

Some of the negative traits and workplace attributes widely assigned to each cohort
include:

Traditionalists – Conformers who resist change, are disciplined and pragmatic, work and
family live never coincide, dress formally.

Boomers – Self-centered with sense of entitlement, workaholics, self-motivated, don't

appreciate feedback.

Gen Xers – Lazy, skeptical and cynical, question authority figures, desire for a work-life
balance and flexible schedule, work dress is at low end of business casual.

Millennials – Lack basic literacy fundamentals, very short attention spans, not loyal to
organization, demand immediate feedback and recognition, integrate technology into the
workplace, expect to have many employers and multiple careers, work dress is whatever
feels comfortable.

Verschoor describes millennials as having shorter attention spans

and needing immediate feedback and recognition for their efforts. Millennials are
technology savvy and like using their computers, cell phones, tablets and other gadgets
for accomplishing their work. They prefer working in a relaxed and informal office
environment where dress codes are come as you rather than formal or even business
casual.

Both articles note that millennials are not as enamored with

authority as previous generations. They are more likely to question what they are told to
do. This behavior is believed to explain why in the survey results they seem more likely
to identify and observe misconduct in the organization.

Millennials want…

Instant gratification and recognition

Millenials need to feel like what they are doing is important and that
they are one the right track.

Work-life balance and flexibility

Millenials aren’t was willing as former generations to sacrifice their personal life in order
to advance their careers. They like to “work hard, play hard” and to be at a company
that appreciates this desire for balance

Collaboration

Millennials are extremely team-oriented and enjoy collaborating and

building friendships with colleagues. During the recruiting process, let the know that
there will be plenty of opportunities for collaboration and team projects. You can also
design your office space to allow for teamwork and easy idea sharing.

Authenticity

Millennials gravitate toward companies that adopt a relatable,

straightforward communication style. They’ve been exposed to so much advertising
throughout their lives that they’re sick of corporate jargon and meaningless buzzwords.
They just want you to keep it real.

Transparency

Millennials want to feel like they have an open and honest

relationship with their manager and co-workers and that there won’t be any nasty
surprises when they join a company. Once they’ve signed on, they want assurance that
their opinion is valued and both give and receive a good deal of feedback.

Career advancement

Millennials want to know that they will have the opportunity to

advance and develop their careers within the company they choose to join.

Diversity

Millennials (and Gen Z, for that matter) care deeply about diversity-
and they’re suspicious of companies that only seem to pay lip service to the issue
without really doing anything about it.

Curious

Millennials are proven to be the most curious generation in the

workforce today. And since research shows this soft skill plays a vital role in a
company’s success-leading to fewer bad decisions, more innovation, and stronger team
performance-it’s worth paying attention to during the hiring process.
.