Non Consequential Structured Kantianism And Justice Ethics School of thought Essay


As an organisation advances and becomes more significant, the greater impact it is wearing people, environment and public. In this particular competitive environment, business ethics plays an important role in an organisation to determine its reputation and sustainability as it acts as helpful information to impact and strengthen an organisational behaviour. Managing an company is not exclusively about self-interest of making profits any further, decisions and activities have to be exercised with thought to align with its principles and specifications. Although there could be issues in what is the right ethical decision to make, however there is no standard definition as it differs from every individual point of view within and around the organisation.

This essay would evaluate the ethical theories with different point of view and evaluate the positive and negative impact among the list of ideas. Then determine an honest theory that is known as most readily useful in guiding an company decision.

Normative Ideas on Ethics

In business ethics, normative ideas established some fundamental principles to distinguish the right decisions from the incorrect decisions. Kagan (1998) stated that the normative ideas emphasis on how people should act, not how people do action; it's the moral beliefs of your society that reflect how people should react. As business ethics are fostered through different decisions and social aspects, the normative ideas are characterised into two main point of view: consequence based mostly and non-consequential centered.

Consequence Based: Moral Egoism, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics

Consequence based methodology is to look for the rightness of any decision based exclusively based on the effect. When the outcome is positive, your choice is right, while when consequence is negative, the decision is incorrect. Thus, an company with consequence structured approach decide on the weighing the percentage of the good and bad effects. However, what would be the concern and determinant for the results? The three consequence based approaches: ethical egoism, utilitarianism and virtue ethics differentiate its views in the following.

Ethical Egoism

Egoism views personal interest as its moral guiding rule. Where decision rightness is defined in conditions of its self-interest. Thus, in times when faced with a business issue, an egoist would be willing to consider that is thought to provide own interest. Towards honest egoism, Wong (2006) stated that every individual has the right to follow their own interest and positioning their desire over others. Where regarded that if every specific go after own self-interest in a competitive modern culture, it would gain the society as a whole eventually. However, many philosophers have constantly refuted egoism and won't admit it as an ethical theory. Relating to Quinn (1974), who stated against the typical of moral egoism, since self-interest is probably not equivalent to the rational morality, egoism might face conflicts of interest leading to potentially unethical conduct. Moreover, if honest egoism was to be employed by all specific, it would places oneself in a higher importance than the others and would cause inequity and imbalance of tranquility in the society. Ethical egoism is probably not a well-accepted software in business, but it can are present in small companies where in fact the lack of sociable obligation is unlikely to threaten the livelihood of business.


Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism is concerned with making decision that cause the maximum of good outcome for maximum individuals. Once the consequence causes happiness, it is moral; when the consequence causes unhappiness, it is immoral. To derive to a decision, utilitarianism would perform a benefit/cost research by figuring out the plan of action that may be executed and weight the possible benefits for each and every course. Then, your choice would be chosen predicated on the action that produce the maximum advantage over the best number of people. Regarding to Allhoff and Vaidya (2005), utilitarianism may appear like an collateral method of fulfil the eye of most individuals as it considers the interest of all relevant individual. Andre and Velasquez (1989) mentioned that even though utilitarianism is a favorite ethical theory among organisations, it is challenging to rely on it solely for moral decision-making. Also, Preuss (2000) argued that utilitarianism is not useful as it is complex to determine what is considered contentment to different individual, in particular when it requires different parties with different interest, it could not be possible to fulfill every needs. Furthermore, utilitarianism may have the tendency to add biasness to elevate bulk interest over the expense of the minority interest. However, among the theories, utilitarianism is known as to be the widespread form of consequentialism among organisations.

Virtue ethics

In comparison to honest egoism and utilitarianism, virtue ethics focus on the person and virtue in the morality as opposed to the consequence associated with an action. The decision would be regarded as moral if the person making the decision is virtue with the aspect in sense of justice, fidelity, self-care and prudence. Relating to Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell (2012), virtue ethics would be considered as an operating theory since it assesses the character of the person who is making the decision instead. Virtue ethics focus on developing good virtue, where in fact the virtue subsequently would lead the person to help make the right decision. It is believed that it is very important to an company to focus on building virtues in every individuals, thus to nurture the individuals' personality and morality in making the correct decision (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2012). It's quite common that organisation applies virtue ethics through its assertion of value, or code of carry out to enforce certain rules that is believed to be moral. For example, Google's belief in 'Don't do wicked' shows that all the individual within the organisation to comply. However, Nelson and Trevino (2010) countered on the reliance on virtue ethics by itself does not guide how you need to act when a situation arises. In the same way, the typical of virtue that you need to possess might differ in different organisation and culture as well.

Non-Consequential Centered: Kantianism and Justice Ethics

While non-consequential centered methodology views decision made whether if its right or incorrect as an independent factor of the consequences. What matters for non-consequential centered approach is the type of intention, not the consequences. For the non-consequential based approach, there are the Kantianism and Justice Ethics.


Kantianism expresses that morality is dependant on the objective behind your choice instead of the consequences. It is based on the abstract of common key points where an action is moral only when it is determined by moral obligation. Kantianism stimulates the give attention to doing the right like being righteous, honest and upholding integrity. Since kantianism views an company as a moral community where folks are related to accomplish common goals, it is immoral for organisation to exploit employees or customers for income to fulfill the stakeholders. Rendtorff (2009) believes that Kantianism promotes democracy and equity available environment and would help to create tranquility and tranquility. In contrary, Smith and Dubbink (2011) feel that given the type of Kantianism, it is impractical to apply to the business framework as the fact that Kantianism stimulates organisation to be motivated by its moral obligation instead of earnings, which is apparently unrealistic.

Justice ethics

On the other side, justice ethics established moral on the fairness of action. Justice ethics is tightly from the fair treatment of people and reward predicated on the merit to comply with the ethical standards. Hartman and Desjardins (2008) matched justice ethics and utilitarianism in the similarity that both follows benefit/cost analysis. However, unlike utilitarianism, justice ethics abide to fairness and equity in the syndication of good. Mandal (2010) feels that justices ethics pays to in an company to eliminate any form of inequity and discrimination, thus protect the eye of individual who lacks in impact. On the other hand, Mandal (2010) also agrees that it is quite difficult to realize a fair distribution as every specific judges fairness with different conditions.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)