Doing What is Right is not Always Popular: Philosophy of Ethics

Introduction

Ethics can be defined as regulations of behaviour which are known for a specific class of human activity or a particular group/society. It defines how things are according to the rules. According to BBC (2014), the word 'ethics' is derived from the Greek word ethnos, which can signify tradition, practice, behaviour or temperament. Ethics deals with dilemmas such as how to live a good life with our rights, responsibilities, the language of right and wrong moral decisions, and also what is good and what is bad. In the realm of ethics, doing the right thing is not always popular, as it may challenge established norms or conveniences.

Morality, on the other hand, basically means values or behaviours about right or wrong conduct. It determines how things work according to the ideas or values of a person. Based on a report published by the University of Texas (2020), morality is the prevailing norm of conduct which allows individuals to live in groups together. Morality applies to the correct and appropriate cultures to sanction. Many people tend to act morally and follow the guidelines of society. Morality also calls for people to sacrifice their desires for society in the short term. Individually and indifferently to right or wrong, people or entities are considered amoral, while those who do wrong are considered immoral.

Based on the above scenario, ethics is critical not only towards Mr Gunawan but also our lives. Many business owners believe that ethics is not very important in a purely financial and business standpoint. There is a few importance of ethics mainly in business where Mr Gunawan can reflect towards his mistakes. One of them is ethics in leadership. The management team sets the tone for the daily operation of the whole company. When the existing culture of management is focused around ethical practices and behaviour, leaders within a company can provide guidance and direct employees to make choices that are not only about them but also for the institution as a whole. Building on an ethical basis leads towards generating long-standings positive effects for an organization, including the capacity to recruit, maintain and build a reputation for highly talented individuals. The ethical management of business from above establishes a stronger relationship with executives in the management team, which provides more cohesion within the organization (Horton,2019). Mr Gunawan, who is the owner and also a leader of a company, has failed to guide his company to become a company with high integrity and strong ethical values.

The second importance of ethics within a company/organization is reputation. According to Keka.com, reputation is one of a company's most valuable assets and is also one of the toughest things to restore when it gets lost. With explicit ethical behaviour, a company would be able to build credibility. The potential investors and shareholders will likely attract companies that comply with their moral guidelines and commitments, which keeps the share prices of the company high. Mr Gunawan, who agreed with the kickback from the media owners could potentially face a massive backlash from the stakeholders of his company as his actions are deemed unethical and also illegal.

The Philosophy of Consequentialism

Mr Gunawan's action of giving a kickback goes far beyond on whether his actions are right or wrong. Consequentialism is a theory created by a person named John Stuart Mill, and it means the doctrine that actions based on their consequences should be judged correct or wrong (Britannica,2020). This theory is best related to the situation of Mr Gunawan and his company. Consequentialism can be broken down into two particular parts which are Utilitarianism and also Ethical Egoism. The belief that moral right is the behaviour that generates the most good is generally considered utilitarianism. This general claim can be described in many ways. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consistency; the correct action is fully understood as the results. The scope of the relevant consequences is What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism. In the utilitarian context, the more significant benefit should be maximized; that is, both the good of others and the good of oneself (Stanford.edu, 2014). Ethical egoism is the opinion that individuals should follow their self-interest, and nobody else's interests should be promoted. It is, therefore, a theory that is normative or prescriptive: how people should comply (Westacott,2019)

There are many pros and cons in regards to utilitarianism and ethical egoism. The pros of utilitarianism are that it is a universal concept we can all comprehend. At some point in life, a person's purpose is to reduce personal damage while increasing satisfaction. All of the way, even if pessimism is the focus of every thinking we have, we do not want to live in misery. By creating a society that places more emphasis to happiness-producing behaviour, we will create a typical climate. Secondly, to profit from this method, we do not have to practice a religion. Utilitarianism is a philosophical method that can add religious elements if we are happy. This action is not about seeking the soul's redemption. It will not enforce other views about God in order to guarantee inclusion. If we are focused on what makes us happy before anything else, then we can always channel our spirituality directly. Thirdly, the choice to do the correct or the wrong requires an impartial procedure. If we make a choice, our acts are always influenced. The results may be positive, negative, or a mixture of the two. Utilitarianism attempts to describe justice by these steps. Once we know the outcomes which bring happiness, we all can work towards an unbiased and impartial way to identify on a personal level what is right and wrong (Connectusfund.org, 2019)

Philosophy of Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism

The cons of utilitarianism, on the other hand, are society does not focus solely on satisfaction/happiness when making decisions. Utilitarianism implies that satisfaction is the only intrinsic value, but other resources worth considering are also there. Existence is something that brings us meaning. It has a value which should not be ignored to be free to choose for ourself. If love is in the photo, there are also the connections that trigger the emotional reaction. Secondly, when it comes to the future, the outcomes are uncertain. Utilitarianism wants people to look into the future and then foresee what will make them happy to the highest level. Because nothing is assured beyond the current moment, the principles of this instruction can not be applied. We just function on the assumption. Thirdly, happiness is a subjective thing. The amount of satisfaction that something offers us is not feasible to allocate an exceptional value at any moment. Whenever we choose to do an operation, our first encounter will always offer us a high degree of happiness. The sum of satisfaction we have can be less any time you continue this task.

There are also a few pros and cons of ethical egoism. The pros of ethical egoism are it would lead to a greater sense of personal belonging within society. Through reflecting on ethical egoism as a spiritual concept, a person will be able to understand his or her personality more profoundly. In fact, he or she will be able to concentrate on discrepancies in other people as a way to further his or her self-interest. Secondly, ethical egoism fosters a healthy household. This sort of theory is also applicable to a household where it is performed because a home is a manifestation of a person's self-identity. It also ensures that the desires of the family will also be addressed quickly before other requirements arise outside the globe. Thirdly, ethical egoism ensures that our basic requirements are always met. An individual who embraces ethical egoism by using his moral structure always meets his basic needs contrasted with those of others. This, however, does not guarantee comfortable living, but it ensures that accommodation, clothing, food and water will be the main emphasis (Lombardo, 2016).

The cons of ethical egoism are that it is an approach that would establish a self-centred culture. One of the central tenets of ethical egoism is that no one else will take care of your personal needs except yourself. That means that everyone, including family members, is pursuing a reflection of their self-interest. Marriages would not be comfortable or loving environments–they would become a means to an end. Relationships with children would be the same thing. Secondly, in the world of ethical egoism, there would be a lack of empathy. Implementing an ethically egoistic society will cause us to lose sight of our current culture of empathy. There are numerous benefits of understanding how others think or feel, and its lack is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy. We need this trait to build friendships, to have satisfaction in our intimate relationships and to see reductions in society's aggression. If people pursue their self-interest more than they support each other, then that would make society violent. The lack of understanding would lead to more mistakes, poor health outcomes and people would be less happy with each effort. Thirdly, ethical egoism can It would result in a breach of ties in the workforce. Ethical egoism suggests that in a society with this structure, employee relationships would become problematic, as the business would only serve its purpose as a means to an end. The partnerships established throughout a career rely on what others can do for you, instead of being a mutually beneficial position where a rising tide raises all vessels. Everyone would forgo what others might do as their privileges in this system are always the top priority.

In Mr Gunawan's case, he clearly practices ethical egoism in his workplace. His actions show that he is only concern about the future of his company in the short term and not bothered about the consequences that he might have to go through in the long term. The Star recently reported about a case similar towards Mr Gunawan's case whereby a person by the name of Riza Aziz faces corruption charges in Malaysia for suspected embezzlement of US$ 248 thousand (RM1bil) from the state-run 1-Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).In the aftermath of the suspected theft of some U.S.$4.5bil (RM18.3bil), his stepfather, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, was removed from the Fund as Premier. Belfort believes that the money from Red Granite, including high-profit individuals, Goldman Sachs came from legitimate sources, according to Riza Aziz.'After the fact, the source of funding for Red Granite and the film was utterly blind to Belfort, based on the story of the defendant who disguised these criminal acts and sources of funding,' says the suit.

The Philosophy of Non-Consequentialism

To philosophy, deontological ethics places particular emphasis on the relationship between obligation and justice in human actions. The word deontology is taken from the Greek deon, 'job,' and logos, 'truth.' An action is considered morally right in deontological ethics because of some aspect of the action itself, not because the result of the action is good. Deontological ethics claims that at least specific actions are morally necessary irrespective of their effects on human welfare. Immanuel Kant, the German founder of analytical philosophy in the 18th Century, was the first great philosopher to describe deontological concepts (Britannica.com)

According to Immanuel Kant, there is 3 Formulation of Imperative. The first formulation is 'Act only according to the maxim that at the same time, you will be able to make it a universal law without inconsistency.' Kant argues that a true moral proposition must not be bound to any specific conditions, including the identification of the decision-maker. A moral maxim must be isolated, and accessible to any human being, from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition. According to Kant, we have a perfect obligation, first of all, not to act by maxims which lead to logical contradictions (Shakil,2013).

Furthermore, we have flawed roles that are still based on pure justification which require an understanding of how they are carried out. Because these duties are largely based on humanity's desires, they are not as powerful as ideal duties but are legally binding as ever. Unlike perfect duties, if they do not fulfil an imperfect duty, people do not attract blame. However, if they do, they receive praise because they have gone beyond essential duty and assumed responsibility. Imperfect duties are circumstantial, which means one can not reasonably live in a constant state of execution of this obligation. Perfect and imperfect duties are characterized by the fact that imperfect duties are never entirely performed (Shakil,2013).

The second formulation is 'Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.' This imperative says that each moral action must be treated not only as a concept but also as an end. Most ends are contextual because they only need to be followed if they are in accordance with a conceptual imperative. To achieve a certain goal, it must be categorically pursued. The free will is the foundation of all rational action. Since a free will is the only source of moral action, it opposes the categorical imperative's first formulation by stating that an individual is merely a means to some other purpose, rather than an end in him or herself (Shakil,2013).

The third formulation is 'Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.' A genuinely autonomous will is not subject to any interest; it is subject to the laws it makes for itself, but the will must also accept specific laws as if the laws bind others. If the laws are not universal, they are in no way laws of conduct Kant suggests people often view themselves and others as ends, and never merely as means. People should only act by maxims that are in harmony with a possible kingdom of ends (Shakil,2013).

Immanuel Kant also came up with an Alternative Categorical Imperative Formulation. Kant expressed the categorical imperative in a few different ways. The most important of these is the formula of humanity: 'Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.' This is a personal perspective on the same principle of morale. Failure to do this would be treating others in a way that goes against the moral law (Shakil,2013).

Sir William David Ross, a well-known Scottish philosopher, had a different perspective on consequentialism and was an excellent critique of Immanuel Kant. Upon analyzing Kant's definition of goodwill, Ross brings up his argument that a morally good action must not necessarily adhere to the moral law, but must be carried out in order to comply with the moral law; that is, the act must be done in appreciation of and out of respect for the moral law. Ross practically supports the point and acknowledges that just doing the right thing is not enough. For an act to be morally right, we must perform it because it is the right thing. The main objection of Ross to Kant's scheme is his super-abstract, even practically seraphic, and absolutist character. He argues that the absolutism of Kant makes his philosophy unrealistic and contradict to logical thought and common-sense morality and explains how the universalizability test works differently if it is used in very specific cases rather than abstract ones in general (Simpson, 2020)

The ethical system of Ross is deontological and anti-consequential because it is based on compliance with the rules or duties instead of the results. In the way that Ross considers a number of different concepts or basic laws, that he describes first prima facie, unlike the Kantian ethics and utilitarianism (monistic structures based on a single pre-eminent all universal law or concept, namely the categorical imperative and the utility principle, respectively). He also acknowledges-and this is a central aspect and essential attribute of his philosophy-that these roles can and do clash almost fight (Simpson, 2020).

The term prima facie is sometimes inaccurate and deceptive because it has the connotation of a pure initial appearance or first impression. In fact, Ross uses it somewhat apologetically. Nevertheless, he is quick to clarify that a prima facie duty is not necessarily a tangible responsibility or obligation that may at first glance seem to be in place, but which may well be invalidated by further thought or analysis Instead, he argues that a prima facie obligation, while always contingent and never absolute is entirely real and clear.

Initially, Ross identified seven separate prima facie duties:

• Fidelity- We should strive to keep commitments, and we should be honest and sincere.
• Reparation- When we have mistreated someone else, we should make amends.
• Gratitude- We should be thankful to others for doing things that benefit us and try to return the favour.
• Non-injury (or non-maleficence)- We should refrain from doing any physical or psychological harm towards others.
• Beneficence- We should be kind to other people and try to improve their health, wisdom, safety, happiness and well-being.
• Self-improvement- We should endeavour to improve our health, wisdom, safety, happiness, and wellness.
• Justice- We should try to be fair and strive to equitably and fairly distribute rewards and burdens.

Works Cited

1. BBC. (2014). Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/intro_1.shtml

2. University of Texas. (2020). Morality. Retrieved from https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/morality

3. Horton, M. (2019). The Importance of Ethical Leadership. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikehorton/2019/03/17/the-importance-of-ethical-leadership/

4. Connectusfund.org. (2019). 10 Significant Pros and Cons of Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://connectusfund.org/10-significant-pros-and-cons-of-utilitarianism

5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2014). Ethical Egoism. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/egoism/#ClaEgo

6. Lombardo, C. (2016). The Pros and Cons of Ethical Egoism. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-ethical-egoism-4152076

7. Britannica. (2020). Consequentialism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/consequentialism

8. Shakil, R. (2013). Immanuel Kant’s Deontological Ethics. Academia.edu. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/5569680/Immanuel_Kants_Deontological_Ethics

   Keep in mind:
   This is only a sample.

   Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

   Get custom essay

9. Simpson, D. (2020). Sir William David Ross. Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/David-Ross