Ethical Perspectives

While there are a myriad of ethical perspectives, discussed within thousands of

research materials on the topic, there are several basic ethical perspectives that will be
covered within this book. As with many concepts presented here, it is not possible to be
all-inclusive. Each topic could itself have a book written entirely on it, and many do.
Therefore, with that said, the categories of ethical perspectives presented here may not
coincide exactly with those found elsewhere; however, they are sufficient and general
enough to facilitate our discussion.

There are four ethical perspectives that will be covered: altruism, utili-tarianism,
categorical imperative, and ethical culture. Each of these identifies a different standard
or view of decision making, and each refers to some interest that is preferred or valued
above others. Of importance, and worth taking note of, is that most ethical decisions
benefit someone or, at the very least, satisfy some interest that the decision maker has.
As a result, because not all share the same interests or preferences, there can be a
temptation to judge others' choices as “unethical” or “wrong.” So, as one looks at the
presented ethical perspectives, it is useful to understand how individuals dis- criminate
between what is “right” and what is “wrong.”

Altruism is possessing unselfish concern for the welfare of others. It is recognized as

being the opposite of selfishness. This ethical perspective is a traditionally held virtue in
many cultures and is a core component of most traditional religious beliefs, such as
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others. As such, it is sometimes
referred to as the “love your neighbor” perspective, due to the perspective representing
the concepts behind the biblical (and others) instructions to “love thy neighbor as
thyself.”

Altruism is quite different than possessing loyalty or having a sense of duty toward
something or someone. The perspective of altruism is focused on a motivation to help
others or a want to do good without reward, while duty or loyalty is focused primarily on
a moral obligation toward a specific organization (employer, government, country), an
individual (person, deity), or even an abstract concept (such as patriotism). It is possible
that an individ- ual would feel both altruistic and duty-bound/loyal, while it is also
possible that some may not feel either. The perspective of pure altruism is grounded in
giving without regard to the receipt of reward, benefits, need, or recognition of the
giving.

The concept of altruism has a lengthy history within philosophical and ethical teaching.
The term was first used by Auguste Comte (1798–1857), a French sociologist and
philosopher of science. Since then, it has become a major topic of study for
psychologists, evolutionary biologists, and ethologists.

The website, www.ethical-perspectives.be/ is home to “Ethical Per- spectives,” an

international collaboration among ethicists and special- ists from diverse sciences.
According to the site, it “primarily intends to be an international forum for the promotion
of dialog between funda- mental and applied ethics.”

It is a worthwhile trip to venture to this online forum and peruse the varying insights into
the complex world of ethics. In ancient times, a “forum” was a marketplace, typically in
the center of town, where people would mass to exchange goods, services, and also
knowledge. “The forum has always been the place for political oratory, religious
celebrations, and jurisprudence. To witness events through the forum is to feel the
heartbeat of community life.”

Utilitarianism is the perspective that actions that produce the greatest good for the
greatest number of persons are “good” actions. It also is known as the
“consequentialist” or “teleological ethical theory.” “The basic principle is that human
beings judge morality of actions in terms of the consequences or results of those
actions. Moral acts elicit good consequences—those that create happiness and are
justifiable. Immoral acts elicit bad consequences— those that induce pain and suffering
and are unjustifiable. In this approach, actions may be moral or immoral based on the
capacity to achieve the great- est good for the greatest number of people” (Bowen,
2010, p. 4). This perspec- tive is one of the easiest to subscribe to and has the most
intuitive appeal for most people. This is because a “good” result or acquiring/maintaining
well-being is such a natural ambition of everyday human endeavor. The sticking point
with this perspective typically revolves around one’s concept of what is “good” or
“successful”? For some it may revolve around material items or pleasures, for others it
may include financial or professional success. Therefore, “the greatest common good,”
in fact, may not be so common.

Under utilitarianism, at least two conditions must be met if an individual is to pursue his
or her own well-being. First, the individual must possess a maximum degree of personal
freedom. Secondly, he or she must be capable of realizing well-being within the basic
conditions of his or her own existence, however well-being is defined. For instance, it
would not be possible for an individual to pursue his or her well-being if he or she was
sick and unable to obtain proper medical care, or if he or she was exposed to unsafe
working conditions. There may be other conditions that also would be required for a
person to realize his or her well-being, such as education and companionship.
 While the utilitarian perspective is very influential and popular, there are two major
concerns with the utilitarian perspective on ethical decisions.

1. If one is to implement the utilitarian perspective, they must possess

extensive knowledge of data and facts, and sometimes this informa-
tion is simply not available. This is especially present in instances of
cost/benefit and risk/benefit analysis. In order to balance the cost or
negative utility of a decision, it is necessary to calculate the long-term
effects of the decision on all affected members of the audience. Such
long-term positive and negative consequences of an action or policy
may not be identifiable or measureable. In these instances,
utilitarianistic decisions are reduced to a “best guess” approach, which may
not be equitable or satisfactory.

2. The second concern with utilitarianism is that utilizing this ethical

perspective may lead to injustice for individuals, while attempting
to make a decision that is “best” for the masses. This is represented
in military decisions, for example, where a decision is made based
on the benefit of many, based on the sacrifice of a few. For instance,
in Stephen Spielberg’s movie, Saving Private Ryan, the character
Captain Miller is seen discussing the application of utilitarian perspective
as relates to military missions, “When you end up killing
one of your men, you tell yourself it happened so that you could save
the lives of two or three or ten others. Maybe a hundred others.…
That’s how simple it is. That’s how you rationalize making the choice
between the mission and the man.” However, utility maximization
at the expense of the individual presents serious ethical issues, which
the utilitarian perspective is not well-suited to address.

The history of utilitarianism is traced by some as far back as Epicurus, the Greek
philosopher. However, with regards to it being viewed as a specific school of thought, it
is typically credited to Jeremy Bentham. It was Bentham who surmised that “nature has
placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure”
(Bentham, 1789). Bentham’s view of utilitarianism incorporated the principle of utility
into decision making.

Bentham felt that man and society could co-exist based on common motiva- tions he
referred to as sanctions: (1) physical sanctions, or the natural sensation of happiness
and pain; (2) political sanctions, the legal acts that can counteract immoral acts; (3)
moral sanctions, approval, or disapproval from those around a person; and (4) religious
sanctions, the blessing or condemnation by a supreme being, consistent with one’s faith
(Bentham, 1789). The weakness of his theory was that the core principle was vague
and did not account for individual rights.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

1. Recognition of the role of pain and pleasure as fundamen-
tal influences on human life, especially as concerns decision
making.

2. Approves or disapproves of an action or decision based on the

basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about by the
action or decision (otherwise known as “consequences”).

3. Equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, as to

consequentialism.

4. Pleasure and pain are capable of quantification and, thus, are

measurable.

Belief in hedonism was the basis for Bentham’s work, as it was the most famous
version of the utilitarian theory where the fundamental good is happiness. Whichever
action produces the greatest amount of happiness for the most people is considered the
most moral act. Although this seems straightforward, many problems make the concept
of happiness hard to employ. First, the greatest happiness is achieved at the expense of
the fewest people. Consider this: It is not always possible to predict consequences for
everyone involved. While we do make decisions based on consequences, this
philosophy may lead to situations with no set of rules or standards. Finally, happiness
could appear to condone some actions with which most people would not agree, such
as a person gaining happiness through child pornography, creating potential conflicts
with individual human rights.

Although the concept is typically credited as being articulated first by Bentham, it is

John Stuart Mill who, as a proponent of utilitarianism, wrote Utilitarianism in 1861, which
was an interpretation and an attempt at more effectively explaining Bentham’s earlier
theories. Although entitled Utilitarianism, his conception of it was quite different from
Bentham’s. Mill’s perspective has been known as “the greatest happiness principle,” in
that it too formulated that one must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people, but the key was that such a deci- sion must be made
within reason. Bentham treated all forms of happiness as being equal, whereas Mill
believed that intellectual and moral pleasures were superior to more physical forms of
pleasure. Mill distinguished between and establishes the importance of each of these
through a witty statement made within his work Utilitarianism, “[i]t is better to be a
human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only
know their own side of the question” (Mill, 1861).

Categorical Imperative
Immanual Kant was an eighteenth-century German philosopher who believed that
individuals have certain obligations regardless of the consequences they evoke. His
theory was based on the premise that moral actions occur out of obligation and are
judged based on the intention and motiva- tion for the action. Kant believed that those
who choose to follow the utili- tarian approach are omitting a large part of ethics by
neglecting their duty and the intention to do what is right. Kant summed up his feelings
by stat- ing, “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it,
which can be taken as good without qualification, except good will” (Kant 1964, p. 61).

Kant’s philosophy is sometimes referred to as “The Golden Rule” perspective. It may be

defined as the standard of rationality from which all moral requirements are derived.
While the concept of a golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto
you) has historically been found in one form or another within most major religious
traditions, the concept of “categorical imperative” was the central philosophical concept
developed by Immanuel Kant, introduced in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
in 1785. To many, this theory may sound religious or “theological,” but as an ethical
perspective within the deontological field of ethics, it attempts to identify a concept of
“right,” which is more universal than religion. For instance, telling the truth is a moral
obligation, not simply because it is instructed within almost all religions, but because it is
almost universally understood what it is like to be lied to.

“Moral actions are guided by duty and are based on ‘dutiful principles’ or laws. The
rules of conduct or laws to which Kant refers are maxims, such as ‘honesty is the best
policy’ or ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Maxims should be universally accepted and
commanding so people cannot make up rules as they go and so everyone will act the
same way without exception. There are two types of maxims: hypothetical and
categorical. Hypothetical maxims are conditional instructions that stress what ought to
be done, such as, ‘If I want to get a job in criminal justice, then I ought to stay out of
trouble.’ Categorical maxims are unconditional orders to state principles that need to be
done, for example, ‘Tell the truth.’ In comparison, the hypothetical maxim would state, ‘If
you want to stay out of trouble, tell the truth.’ In the study of ethics, categorical maxims
provide a foundation for ethical decision making” (Bowen, 2010, p. 8).
 “Kant developed the categorical imperative, which is a fundamental prin- ciple that
allows people to act consistently from situation to situation. The categorical imperative is
divided into two formulations. The first formulation is universalizability, which states that
a justifiable action is when another per- son faces the same circumstances and acts in
the same way. If a person makes a decision that he or she feels is morally justifiable, he
or she knows 99 of 100 people would make the same decision. The idea of
universalizability also may be described as a person treating everyone the same way as
he or she would want to be treated” (Bowen, 2010, p. 8).
There are three premises that make up the categorical imperative. The first premise is
that an individual acts ethically if their conduct would, without con- dition, be the “right”
conduct for any individual in a similar circumstance. The second premise is that an
individual’s conduct is “right” if others are treated as ends in themselves rather than as
means to an end. The final premise is that an individual acts ethically when he acts as if
his conduct was establishing a universal law governing others on how to act in a similar
circumstance.

Hypothetical imperatives instruct an individual on which means best achieves his ends.
They do not tell an individual which ends he or she should choose. The struggle in
choosing ends is typically between ends that are “right” (i.e., charity) and those that are
“good” (i.e., educating oneself). Kant taught that the “right” was superior to the “good.”
Kant believed that “good” was morally irrelevant.
While this theory of ethical perspective is often referred to as The Golden Rule
perspective, Kant stated in his work, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, that
what he was attempting to teach was not the same as the Golden Rule

MODERN ETHICAL CULTURE

While Ethical Culture has adapted and remained dynamic since its inception, there are
a number of focal points that remain important. These include:

• Human Worth and Uniqueness: Each individual is believed to

have inherent worth that is not dependent on the value of what
it is that they do. Each is deserving of dignity and respect, and
their individual gifts are to be celebrated and encouraged.

• Eliciting the Best: “Always act so as to elicit the best in others,

and thereby yourself” is as close as ethical culture comes to
having a Golden Rule.

• Interrelatedness: In his formation of the concept, Adler used

the term The Ethical Manifold to refer to how he believed “the
universe to be composed of unique and indispensible moral
agents (individual human beings), each of which has an influ-
ence on each of the others, which is unable to be measured or
estimated, but which is inherently present nonetheless. This
interrelatedness is at the heart of ethics. … Each has an effect
on the whole.”

because, under the Golden Rule, many things cannot be universal. He believed that the
Golden Rule was instead the categorical imperative with limitations.

Ethical Culture
The Ethical Culture Movement was started in 1876 by Felix Adler. Ethical culture has its
foundation on the premise that living with and honoring ethi- cal principles is at the heart
of what it takes to live a fulfilling and meaningful life, while helping to create a world that
is good and positive for all individu- als. A fundamental key to the foundation of ethical
culture was the observa- tion that oftentimes disputes regarding religious or
philosophical doctrines were distracting individuals from following through on living
ethically and doing good. This is why, consequentially, “deed before creed” has
developed into an informal motto of the movement (www.newworldencyclopedia.org).

Although those subscribing to ethical culture perspectives generally share common

beliefs as to what constitutes ethical or unethical behavior, individuals are encouraged
to recognize the complexities inherent in such matters, and, thus, remain open to
continued exploration, education, and dialog rather than remain inflexible or unable to
adapt. The movement had the original aim of attempting to uphold through example the
highest ideals of living, while attempting to support the weaker in attaining such ideals.
The original aims were the following:

• To teach the supremacy of the moral ends above all human ends and
interests.
• To teach that the moral law has an immediate authority not contingent
on the truths of religious beliefs or of philosophical theories.
• To advance the science and art of right living.

Members of the society were encouraged to adhere to whatever religious doctrine they
saw most fit, choosing to confine societal attention to moral problems within life rather
than religious ones. A central concept was the encouragement of the individual to
always act so as to elicit the best in others and, thereby, in themselves.
www.ethical-perspectives.be/page.php?LAN=E&FILE=subject&ID=119&PAGE=1

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ethical_Culture (accessed December 21, 2016).

Ciulla, J. B., ed. 2004. Ethics, the heart of leadership, 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Colson, C. W. 2000. The problem of ethics. Christian Ethics Today: Journal of Christian