Hyperventilating About Intrinsic, Essay Example

What is an ethical or moral dilemma?  How does a moral argument differ from a non-moral one?  Discuss the implications of the “naturalistic fallacy.” (Hint:  think “is-ought fallacy”).

An ethical or moral dilemma is a situation often involving mental conflict among moral necessities, where one is to obey one moral stand would result in violating another. This can also be referred to as ethical paradox since paradox is at the centre of ethical debates in moral philosophy. This ethical or moral dilemma often attempt to critic or refute an existing ethical system and moral code or the perception it creates or comes with. (Prior, N. 1949). A case in which one cannot or does not know what the right thing to do is not a genuine moral dilemma. This leaves one at risk of the doing the wrong rightfully knowing it might be wrong. In a situation where one must choose among options that involve contravening other obligations for example saving lives, the outcome should be supported with relevant reasoning for the cause of the action taken. A non-moral statement is one which simply describes without ascribing any value one way or the other. In the vast majority of moral arguments, at least one of the premises is a non-moral statement. The conclusion is always a moral statement. We can’t infer a moral statement for non-moral statements. We can’t go from ‘ought to is’. For example in the following statement; “Spanking inflicts unnecessary pain on a child. Therefore, spanking is wrong” This is invalid. There is need for a premise which is a moral statement to connect the two.

According to philosopher G. E. Moore (1903) naturalistic fallacy is committed by philosophers when they define “good” using natural attributes like “desirable” or “pleasant.” The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words ‘good’ and, say, ‘pleasant’ necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them. (Prior, Arthur N. (1949)

When determining the missing premise, the rule is that you want to find the premise that: will make the argument valid and is as reasonable and plausible as possible. Moral disagreement happen when there is a difference in principals, different understanding of key terms, difference in opinion about relative weight of conflicting principles and disagreement over whether the non-moral statements are accurate, People disagree about the range or scope of various moral principles.

Criticisms of naturalistic fallacy

According to Fred Feldman (1998) to say something is good as it only adds confusions and silences the critics who may want to question what is termed ‘good’. For fred demanding clarity of something is the important aspect when defining something in moral philosophy. As Moore insisted on saying that good was indefinable, he was trying hard to guard against this mistake.

According to some naturalists, words like good in ethical terms can be defined in non ethical natural terms. For them naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy and it is possible to argue from a fact to a value. Like what human nature is, ethical judgments follow directly from facts.

For Ralph, McInerny (1982) “ought” and “is”, are already bound up, as long as the very type of things have objectives or targets within them. E.g. a clock keeps time. When one knows its function, there is no doubt in the very description he or she gives. If a person is to choose a good clock from two presented and he or she cannot do so then he doesn’t know. In similar way, if a person cannot establish good human deeds from bad, then one cannot really comprehend the human deeds.

In concluding the natural fallacy discussion, at the practical level we need to think a lot more carefully about many of the arguments we make about what is good or right. If we base such arguments on the idea that good is some property such as naturalness then many of the arguments people make are simply false and we need to look for others to replace them.

How does Harris et al define professional ethics?  What are some problems with Harris et als view that personal ethics should ordinarily be given up in favor of professional ethics.

According to Harris et al. (2000, p. 35) professional ethics begin with a minimal set of moral values and reciprocity that includes “positive and negative duties.” Moral values include; the norms for determine just procedures in issues of justice. Positive duties call for loyalty and mutual support while negative duties are to refrain from harming others. This set leaves room for personal and cultural differences yet provides a basis for framing codes of professional ethics. This gives room to individual and cultural differences as at the same time provides a basis of   professional ethics. This is because of the generality approach to ethics according to Harris et al.

Harris et al. developed five key objectives for ethics instruction;

1. Ethics were to develop analytical skills e.g. critical thinking and identifying areas of agreement and controversies.
2. Ethics should trigger moral imagination and generate creative solutions
3. It should be recognized that ethical issues and dimensions are not always as seeming to be.
4. There is need for active moral obligation in even making minor decisions to elicit a sense of responsibility.
5. Engineers and scientists mostly work on defined challenges there is likelihood of disagreements and ambiguity. This calls for tolerance in the case of applying ethics.

Shortcomings 

1. It is difficult to determine the priority assigned to various duties or own values.
2. Disagreements are likely to arise on how cultural and personal values are interpreted and applied in real scenarios.
3. Group dialog processes do not end with areas of agreement as doing so produce a “feel good” atmosphere where “all parties have been heard,” but overshadows the important differences of opinion and leaves outcomes too general to be of practical application.

What is Lozano’s integrity approach?  How successful is he in writing a code that instantiates this approach?

According to Lozano (2000) integrity approach, it is a theoretical perspective aiming at integrating the ethical elements and corporate elements. For him, corporate values are only possible with linking these values with organizational practices. There are several structuring components depending on the kind of model of individual and society in which the organizational project is to take place. The components are more universal and likely to be encountered in most organizations. They are;

A negative component; this is aimed at avoiding actions that might be criticized. The approach is seeks to avoid penalties and avoid unnecessary risks. It encourages reactive attitudes as it prescribes what should not be done instead of what should be done.

A normative component (of legal nature); involves organization’s consistency in dealing with legal frameworks in areas they operate. Laws give regulations and guidelines on operations of organizations and it’s the duty of organizations to adhere to them.

A normative component (of a fundamental nature); involves both active and passive commitment to human rights through its corporate actions and policies. This gives or portrays the link between legitimacy and legality of the organization.

A propositional component; refers to all components that propose a frame of reference of any action taken by the organization. It acts as a watchdog on the rights and freedoms of human resource.

A personal component; according to (Sennett 1998) it examines the challenges of increasing quality of human resource in the organizational context. There is need for professional development, acknowledgement and a system of giving rewards logical with corporate values.

A time frame; there is need to have deadlines set on all corporate projects.

Procedural approach; is the way in which tension and decision making processes are managed in an organization.

Institutional component; involves integration of new ideas, values and practices to existing ones without causing friction between the new and the former ideas.

Relational component; there’s need for partnership and dialogue between the stakeholders for positive development in the organization.

Accountability components; there is need to establish procedures that evaluate and identify the correlation between cooperate practices and values. This initiates responsibility of everyone involved

In conclusion, Lozano’s integrity approach is extensive and covers all basic necessities of integrating ethical and corporate values in any given organization to achieve its set objectives and mandates.

Work Cited

Feldman, Fred: Hyperventilating about Intrinsic, The Journal of Ethics 2, p. 34 1998

Lozano, Josep M. Ethics and organizations. Understanding business ethics as a Learning process. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000

McInerny, Ralph. Ethica Thomistica. Cua Press. Chp. 3. 1982

Moore, G. E.: Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.

Prior, Arthur N., Logic and the Basis of Ethics, Oxford University Press 1949

Sennett, Richard. , The Corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1998