BUSINESS ETHICCONVENTIONAL MORALITY AND ETHICS THEORYGroup 1Tia Nurul Afifah Ni Wayan WidyaningsihMellyndah

BRIEF OF CONTENTS Introduction The Moral Norms and Its

Development Ethical Relativism Moral Reasoning Ethical Theory Case

THE MORAL NORMS AND ITS DEVELOPMENTHumans have developed the norms to regulate their lives

Fundamental issues about ethics is how one form in itself

To know the norm or standard morals of a person, group or community

The stages of moral development is a measure of a person's moral low high

Kohlberg categorize and classify the response initiated into six different stages.

The sixth stage is divided into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional.

Stages in Kohlberg’s Theory

Preconventional Level

Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation

Stage 2: Instrumental and Exchange Orientation

Conventional Level

Stage 3: Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Interpersonal Conformity

Stage 4: Social System and Conscience Orientation

Postconventional Level

Stage 5: Social Contract or Individual Right Orientation

Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles

At this level a child knows about right or wrong, good or bad.

Come from external environment, and motivation.

Stage 1 Punishment and Obedience Orientation

The reason of children obedient a rule is to avoid punishment

Stage 2 Instrument and Relativity Orientation

A child is aware that a right behaviour due to obtain rewards or praise

LEVEL 1 PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

This level ever seen on the step of teenage being adult.

Individu in this level trying to follow their grup or community claim and show loyalty.Stage 3 Interpersonal Concordance Orientation

They behave well to meet the expectations of the group that became loyalty, trust, and attention

Stage 4 Law and Order Orientation

Right or wrong at this stage is determined by one's loyalty to the wider environment, which country or group of people.

LEVEL 2 CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice (10–15% of adults, not before mid-30s).

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g. human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

LEVEL 3 POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Post-ConventionalShared standards, right and duties

ConventionalPerforming right roles

Stage 6 : Self-selection of universal principlesStage 5 : Sense of democracy and relativity of rules

Pre-ConventionalValues in external

events

Stage 4 : Fulfilling duties and upholding lawsStage 3 : Meeting expectations of others

Stage 2 : “Getting what you want” by trade-offStage 1 : Punishment avoidance

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

DO YOU UNDERSTAND KOHLBERG’S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT?

Test your knowledge with the following activity

1. SHAKING HER HEAD AND FROWNING DISAPPROVINGLY AT THE TEENAGER WHO WAS SLIPPING A CANDY BAR FROM THE SHELF INTO THE POCKET OF HIS JACKET, A SHOPPER LECTURED, “YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO THAT SHOPLIFTING IS AGAINST THE LAW. WHAT IF EVERYONE JUST DID WHAT THEY WANTED?”

What level of moral reasoning is demonstrated by the shopper?

THE SHOPPER IS IN STAGE 4 - FULFILLING DUTIES AND UPHOLDING THE LAW TO MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER.

They are motivated to keep the social system going and to avoid a breakdown in its functioning.

2. AMY’S MOTHER HAS INSISTED THAT AMY NOT EAT SNACKS BETWEEN MEALS. NOW, IF AMY SHOULD EAT THIS TWINKIE BEFORE DINNER, SHE SHOULD BE UNHAPPY WHEN THINKING ABOUT HOW SHE WOULD BE DISAPPOINTING HER MOTHER.

What level of moral reasoning does this demonstrate?

AMY IS IN STAGE 3…SHE HAS TO BE A “GOOD GIRL.” HER GOOD BEHAVIOR IS DOING WHAT IS EXPECTED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSE TO THE PERSON OR WHAT PEOPLE GENERALLY EXPECT OF SOMEONE IN A GIVEN ROLE.

3. WELL, AMY ATE THE TWINKIE. WHEN TALKING WITH A FRIEND ABOUT IT THE NEXT DAY, AMY’S FRIEND TOLD HER THAT SHE (AMY) WAS BAD BECAUSE HER MOTHER CAUGHT HER EATING SNACKS BETWEEN MEALS AND PUNISHED HER FOR IT.

Amy’s friend is using what level of moral reasoning?

AMY’S FRIEND IS IN STAGE 1…SHE IS BEING OBEDIENT. THE CONSCIENCE IS MADE UP OF FEAR OF PUNISHMENT AND THE MORAL ACTION IS MOTIVATED BY THE AVOIDANCE OF PUNISHMENT.

The child does not consider the interests of others or see how someone else’s interests are different from their own.

4. CONVERSATION OVERHEARD IN A CAFETERIA LINE: “WHY SHOULD I WANT TO REPORT THE GUY FOR FAILING TO SUBMIT ALL THE MONEY WE COLLECTED FOR THE CHARITY FUND? SURE HE KEPT SOME OF IT, BUT HE SHARED IT WITH ME.”

What level of moral reasoning does this demonstrate?

THIS PERSON IS IN STAGE 2 - WHAT IS RIGHT IS BASED ON THE “TIT-FOR-TAT” PRINCIPLE. IT INVOLVES AN EQUAL EXCHANGE BETWEEN PEOPLE. PEOPLE LOOK OUT FOR THEIR OWN NEEDS.

They are nice to others because they expect the favor to be returned.

ETHICAL RELATIVISMDESCRIPTIVE MORAL RELATIVISM

▪ Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts hold true and the same consequences seem likely to arise.It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards.

▪ Descriptive relativists do not necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement; that is to say, they are not necessarily normative relativists.

EXAMPLE :

Descriptive ethical relativism describes the fact that in different cultures one of the variants is the sense of morality: the mores, customs and ethical principles may all vary from one culture to another. What is thought to be moral in one country may be thought to be immoral and even made illegal in another country.Moral in USA Immoral in Eating Beef India Drinking alcohol, Gambling Middle Eastern Islamic Countries Women in school or business Afghanistan Women wearing shorts, face uncoverd Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan

Immoral in USA Moral or Acceptable Killing newborn females China, India Female genital mutilation Many African nations (It is female

circumcision)Family kills a woman family member who is raped

Somalia, Sudan

NORMATIVE ETHICAL RELATIVISM

▪ A relativism that a two parties couldn’t be said to be right or wrong, because moral is not about isn’t right or isn’t wrong, but it just statment, opinion or feelings.

▪ Right or wrong is determined in a culture, and a cross culture of morality is meaningless.

▪ De George (1999) rejected the first argument that said morality couldn’t be said right or wrong just because feelings or emotion factor.

▪ Emotion and feelings are different with morality action.

PLURALISM OF SOCIETY

▪ Most people in the world is a heterogeneous society, a combination of various cultures or traditions, racial and ethnic groups.

▪ It is a dynamic and changing society so that a plural society not only in culture but also moral.

▪ Type of moral pluralism community groups (DeGeorge 1999) such as radical moral pluralism, pluralism of moral principles, pluralism of moral practice, and pluralism of self-realization.

MORAL REASONING ▪ Moral reasoning can be defined as being the process in which an individual

tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic. This is an important and often daily process that people use in an attempt to do the right thing. Every day for instance, people are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to lie in a given situation. People make this decision by reasoning the morality of the action and weighing that against its consequences.

▪ Although all moral choice can be seen as personal choice, some choices can be seen as an economic choice, or an ethical choice described by some ethical code or regulated by ethical relationships with others.

ETHICAL THEORY▪ Ethical theory developed trying to find the feasibility of moral and

ethical standards that are believed.

▪ Ethical theory to explain why the action is right or wrong action, provide a procedure for decision-making to solve a controversial case or cases that can perform analysis, moral discussion, according to the theory of moral reasoning rationally.

▪ Methods of moral reasoning.

▪ Argumentation based approach that stands out is teleological approach, the version of consequentialism (whether an action is right or wrong depends on the consequences of such action). common form of consequentialism is utilitarianism.

CASES

Heinz, had a wife who was dying of cancer. A drug that might save her had

been discovered by a local pharmacist, but he was charging $2000, ten times what

the drug cost to make. It was far more money than Heinz had. Heinz went to

everyone he knew to borrow the money but he could only get together about half of

what the drug cost. He told the druggist his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it

cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m

going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store

to steal the drug for his wife.

Which response is more advanced in terms of moral reasoning?

a. He shouldn’t steal the drug because he’ll probably get caught and put in jail.

b. He should steal the drug because he wants his wife to feel better and to live.

WAS THIS MORAL?

STAGE 1PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE ORIENTATION

▪ Pro-stealing: If you let your wife die, you will get in trouble. You’ll be blamed for not spending the money to help her and there’ll be an investigation of you and the druggist for your wife’s death

▪ Anti-stealing: You shouldn’t steal the drug because you’ll be caught and sent to jail if you do. If you do get away, you’d be scared that the police would catch up with you any minute.

Consequently, a person should do what adults say is right to avoid being punished

STAGE 2INDIVIDUALISM AND EXCHANGE

▪ Pro-stealing: The druggist can do what he wants and Heinz can do what he wants to do But if Heinz decides to risk jail to save his wife, it’s his life he’s risking; he can do what he wants with it. And the same goes for the druggist; it’s up to him to decide what he wants to do.

▪ Antistealing: [Heinz] is running more risk than it’s worth to save a wife who is near death.

people look out for their own needs. They often are nice to others because they expect the favor to be returned in the future. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”

STAGE 3INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

▪ Prostealing: No one will think you’re bad if you steal the drug, but your family will think you’re an inhuman husband if you don’t. If you let your wife die, you’ll never be able to look anyone in the face again.

▪ Antistealing: It isn’t just the druggist who will think you’re a criminal, everyone else will too. After you steal it, you’ll feel bad thinking how you’ve brought dishonor on your family and yourself.

Adolescents and adults believe they should act according to others’ expectations. The aim is to win the approval of others by behaving like “good boys” and “good girls.”

STAGE 4SOCIAL-ORDER MAINTAINING MORALITY▪ Prostealing: He should steal it. Heinz has a duty to protect his wife’s life;

it’s a vow he took in marriage. But it’s wrong to steal, so he would have to take the drug with the idea of paying the druggist for it and accepting the penalty for breaking the law later.

▪ Antistealing: It’s a natural thing for Heinz to want to save his wife. but, even if his wife is dying, it’s still his duty as a citizen to obey the law. No one else is allowed to steal, why should he be? If everyone starts breaking the law in a jam, there’d be no civilization, just crime and violence.

What is right is what conforms to the rules of legal authority –the reason for conforming is not fear of punishment but a belief that rules and laws maintaining a social order that is worth preserving.

STAGE 5SOCIAL CONTRACT AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

▪ Prostealing: Although there is a law against stealing, the law wasn’t meant to violate a person’s right to life. Taking the drug does violate the law, but Heinz is justified in stealing in this instance. If Heinz is prosecuted for stealing, the law needs to be reinterpreted to take into account situations in which it goes against people’s natural right to keep on living.

The greatest good for the greatest number… Some values and rights are universal and must be upheld regardless of the majority such as life and liberty

STAGE 6 UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES

▪ Pro-stealing: If Heinz does not do everything he can do to save his wife, then he is putting some value higher than the value of life. It doesn’t make sense to put respect for property above respect for life itself. [People] could live together without private property at all. Respect for human life and personality is absolute and accordingly [people] have a mutual duty to save one another from dying.

Right and wrong are determined on the basis of self-chosen ethical principles. Principles are not concrete rules – they are abstract moral guidelines of universal justice and respect for the rights of all human beings.

HOW IS STEALING MORAL?

▪ The second would be a display of higher levels of moral reasoning.

▪ In the early stages, moral reasoning is based on external forces, such as the promise of reward or the threat of punishment.

▪ The most advanced stages, moral reasoning is based on a personal, internal moral code and is unaffected by others’ views or society’s expectations.

CASES

An electronic daily newspaper in Indonesia in mid last month raised the topic of ethics programs, especially the impression broadcast by

television stations during the month of Ramadan. A daily newspaper said that the tradition of private television stations are compete to broadcast a special impression during Ramadan. The

question is then revealed by the daily special impressions is whether these (mainly in the form of a comedy show) right "specials"

Ramadan or not, and whether those impressions presents impressions of educating and unscrupulous to the audience, or even

damage the morals of society in the holy month?

SOLUTION

In our opinion this television broadcast program is not good because is not about only for entertaing but in this situation a program broadcasting is specially for Ramadan where is we should act a good thing, and just for information this program is spending much time for entertaining (insult, or mocking to make an audience laugh or happy) but in this, they are showing a little spritual that this program should be showing more a spritual session in Ramadan. And actually most people just remember about their entertain not a spritual because they spend much time for entertaining not for spritual, and if we look the title of broadcast it should concern about a spritual not for just entertain.

THANK YOU