Business Ethics: Utilitarianism, Rights, Justice, Caring, and Virtue theories Essay

Introduction

The study of ethics focuses on human relationships and what is considered morally correct in human behaviors. Following ethical dilemmas and ethical lapses in business practices that became eminent in the 1970s, the concept of business ethics emerged to expound business ethical principles (Arnold et al., 2010).

As the need for mutual understanding between workers and companies intensifies, organizational discourse is currently revolving around ethical business principles that are paramount for organizational success in the modern day businesses.

Cases of ethical lapses are still on the rise, and thus developing an understanding of the issues in the context of decent business practices is becoming essential. The notion of ethical business practices has led to the formation of theories including the utilitarian theory, rights theory, justice theory, caring theory, and virtues theory, which have since been integral in the understanding of business ethics. This study analyzes these theories in the context of the case of deaths at the Massey Energy Company.

Case of death at the Massey Energy Company

The Massey Energy Company owned numerous mining companies across the United States. The death incidence occurred at the Upper branch of the coalmine around Mont coal in the West Virginia district. The morning shift miners were in the process of exchanging shifts with the afternoon shift miners at around 3.00 pm on the Monday of April 2010. The mining company used certain cars to ferry miners in and out of the mine entrance during the shift reshuffling.

On this day, nine of the shift miners had just managed to come out of the cars and while walking towards the exit end of the mine, they heard a loud blast of air blow past them. Seven of their fellow miners died instantly and two of them managed to come out alive, but badly injured. A deadening explosion had cleaved through the underground coalmine and unfortunately trapped an unidentified number of shift miners inside the mine.

Reports later concluded that during the massive explosion, approximately 61 miners of the Massey Energy Company working underground had perished inside the mine.

The strong hurricane could barely allow the fellow shift miners to rescue others at the juncture of the incidence, and this aspect probably might have required rescue experts. Recue teams appeared at around 6.00 pm, after some miners managed to come on top alive. Although little equipped with oxygen tanks and masks, the tanks possessed little oxygen that limited the required air supply.

The rescue teams did little to contain the situation as it forced them to enter the mine in turns. The tangled debris made it even worse for the rescue teams’ progress as it had littered the entire excavation floor. Explosive gas methane and carbon monoxide elongated the rescue time. Government reports indicated that Massey Energy Company had received several warnings, almost 50 times in the prior month alone, over violation of employee workplace safety.

Utilitarian theory and business ethics

Human approach towards anticipation for maximizing of pleasure and elimination of suffering and pain brings about the fundamentals established in the realm of moral philosophies that date back to a distant past (Robertson & Walter, 2007).

Conventionally, human beings wish to experience good moments of pleasure and contentment, but they are normally contemptuous to suffering and any form of torment. Philosophers believe that rightness or wrongness results from consequences of certain actions and this aspect has long possessed a significant contribution to the understanding of utilitarianism.

The notion of utilitarianism became a moral philosophy in the 17th century and originated from the efforts of Western politicians to develop an ethical framework that would promote political liberalism (Robertson & Walter, 2007). During the post-enlightenment period in the West, utilitarian ethics as normative ethics were to form the blueprint for the long desired social justice in the West and philosophers consider it as the background of the modern moral philosophy.

The original utilitarian notion emerged from the philosophical works of philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and his colleague John Stuart Mill in the (1748-1832) and they aimed at developing a hedonistic view of utilitarianism (Robertson & Walter, 2007).

According to Bentham, man should be capable of living a life of pleasure with minimal suffering and that which only seems impossible to avoid. Stuart Mill further comprehended the utilitarian idea by explaining that cultural, intellectual, and even spiritual pleasures are more valuable than the physical pleasures. Stuart Mill “viewed the maximization of some form of eudemonic happiness as the source of the good” (Robertson & Walter, 2007, p.1).

Utilitarianism empathizes that proper cause of action is the one responsible for maximizing utility or efficiency and philosophers like GE Moore insisted that no one could formulate a true conception of good. After Bentham, Stewart, and Moore, successive economist-driven philosophers concluded that the ultimate good of utilitarianism should entail satisfaction of preferences and people should choose their own intrinsic value.

Becoming more and more workable in terms of economist-driven formulations, further works on utilitarian as a moral philosophy led to the formation of two forms of intuitive ideas of maximizing good into ‘Act’ and ‘Rule’ utilitarianism. Basing its principles on normative ethical standards, the ethical decision making process seems quite straightforward.

According to Robertson and Walter (2007), the utilitarian moral theory can remain assessable through “clarity, coherence, comprehensiveness, simplicity, explanatory power, justificatory power, output power, and practicality” (p.2).

However, most critics on the utilitarian moral theory of the Bentham version of utilitarianism rest upon the notion that it is difficult to determine satisfaction of choice. Furthermore, evolving issues of presence of adaptive preferences that sometime deem uncontrollable as people accept such preferences due to low expectations presents a significant challenge to establish the basis of utilitarianism (Robertson & Walter, 2007).

Utilitarianism and Massey’s case

Although the story of death at Massey Energy Company may prove challenging to understand where the concept of utilitarian theory interconnects, some issues articulated in the case may prove significant. According to the utilitarianism concept, human beings should enjoy uninterrupted peace, pleasure if possible, and that maximization of happiness goes in hand with the actions of intentions.

One of the areas where utilitarianism proves imperative is where it contributes to the notion that defending an oppressed majority against the few privileged is more virtuously good.

In organizations, employees comprise the largest population and investors are normally few where the latter normally protect the interest of the company and its reputation rather than the welfare of employees. Employers and especially leaders who engage directly with workers and understand their sentiments and problems have the moral obligation of workplace duty of care to protect the welfare of employees. Ethical leadership is part of ethical business practices and it entails instilled democracy.

The case of death in Massey’s Energy Company represents considerable lapses in business ethics experienced in the company in which management was responsible. In the wide sense of moral soundness, good leadership associates with good ethics where integrity, transparency, and moral obligations related to competence, justice, duty, and the great goodness (Ciulla, 2004).

Miners died in the course of their duties not because of their individual workplace practice incompetence, lack of professionalism, or even knowledge failure, but the government concluded that the company’s blatant safety violation as the cause of the coal dust explosion.

From the government investigations concluded in 2011 under the government arm, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), persistent safety violations had plagued Massey’s Upper Big Branch for quite sometime before that tragedy. Since the leadership of Don Blankenship, the company persistently aroused considerable ethical dilemmas and fined millions of money regularly for violation of federal safety standards and environmental disasters that emerged from unethical business practices.

Rights theory and business ethics

The foremost portion of business ethics understands the theory of rights as one of the core principles in the five-item ethical positions that deem essential in the understanding of moral business practices (Gardiner, 2003).

The rights theory serves based on positions of justice and rights that consider moral leadership as that which entails just treatment and respect towards individual rights The rights theory of business ethics rests upon the notion that all individuals possess the right towards life and thus they should be treated with the highest respect and dignity required.

Ciulla (2004) assumes that since people can barely foresee the repercussions of their actions, moral judgment should entail proper application of moral principles and not upon the contingency of outcomes. Morals in individuals play a significant role and individuals should independently use their ethical behaviors in attaining their purpose without harming others (Shoemaker, 1999). Rights theory holds that any individual or business purposes should not subject other humans to any form of mistreatment.

This position goes down to ethical business practices where in the context of the rights ethical approach, employees should receive maximum respect, dignity, and protection from any form of physical, emotional, or psychological harm coming from their jobs.

Organizations and their leadership should thus uphold the required business ethical principles that consider human rights as part of their core ideology of the business foundations. Under the rights philosophy, four main rights include privileges, claims, powers, and immunities bestowed on individuals (Arnold et al., 2010).

Privileges involve individuals’ autonomy and diplomacy towards actions against themselves. Claims involve the right of individuals to enjoy protection against any form of harm or paternalism. For instance, an employee should be free from exploitation or corporeal punishment imposed on his/her payments. Powers in rights are “the ability within asset of rules to alter then normative situation of one self or another” (Arnold et al., 2010, p.572). Immunity is the right over individual normative situation.

Rights ethical approach and Massey’s case

The protection of workers as per the formal labor regulations in the US and the rights ethical principles are solely the responsibility of the employer whilst employees are in the course of duty (Noda, 2011).

Ethical leadership should consider the fundamental rights, freedom, and protection of employees as an integral issue in the company and take it as a moral responsibility not due to coercion. Employees should enjoy favorable working conditions and companies should never subject employees to any form of humiliation at the expense of corporate gain (Arnold et al., 2010).

Management in the Massey Energy Company had intentionally violated mining principles including safety violations as stipulated by the MSHA, thus putting employees susceptible to harm. Massey and its Upper Big Branch consistently remained insensitive to environmental precautions and mismanaged the coal slurry that contained toxic impurities. Despite advice, there were cracks and faults running through the mine walls that predisposed workers to workplace risks.

The rights ethical approach assumes that it is the moral and professional responsibility of the management and its company to consider the safety of workers and provide them with appropriate protection against any form of physical or psychological harm.

The storyline of the explosion indicated that the rescue team appeared at the scene some hours after the explosion, meaning that the company had no specialists to counter an explosion. Although the risk was unforeseen, there was even no enough workplace material including oxygen tanks that are essential workplace safety tools.

The welfare of the workers in the Upper Big Branch had long been a subject of confrontation with the government mines and safety body (MSHA) that indicated the presence of a series of previous safety violations and uncared for fatalities. In the conclusion of their investigations, the Federal Department of Justice Settlement and the MSHA unveiled a report that indicated that although enforceable, the disaster was just a simple avertable coal dust explosion.

Management within organizations has the responsibility of acting ethically upright in defense of the majority employees and all people should undertake their practice with moral consciousness of understanding that their actions are morally right (Gardiner, 2003). Morally virtuous leaders are competent as they act or undertake their jobs in the right way.

Massey and the Upper Big Branch had little respect and consideration over the concerns and immunity rights as per the ethical theory that enables employees to have certain powers over a normative situation. Justice and fair practice should entail a relationship between employees and employers that include permissibility of important secrets in business-related negotiations (Robertson & Walter, 2007).

Before the occurrence of the tragedy, the federal government claimed that the company had already received warning more than fifty times in the previous month alone and many of the Massey Energy’s coal companies had poor safety records. Previous records in 2006 indicated similar problems at the company.

Justice theory & business ethics

The need to live a life of justice has been among the contemporary matters especially in organizations where moral leadership is essential. Employees and even civilians are constantly seeking justice and fairness across all forms of living including in their professional lives as well as their social lives. Among the five-item ethical positions identified in ethical leadership and business practices is the justice theory, which presumes that individuals should be treated with the highest dignity and accorded what they deserve in the most desirable manner.

The justice theory is one of the business ethics theories that are critical to mistreatment and injustice treatments of persons especially in organizations. Justice as an ethical approach in the leadership and business practices is where individuals receive equal treatment in the society regardless of their creed, racial background, professional rank, or even their social classes. Also known as fairness ethical business practice, it condemns acts of prejudice, favoritism, isolation, segregation, and unfair compensation among workers.

The principles of justice ethical approach in business organizations have evolved since the Aristotle era and they assume that individuals, including workers, should receive equal treatment unless they partially differ in significantly uncontrollable manner that seem imperative to the underway situation (Arnold et al., 2010).

In organizations, this ethical approach holds that justice may be in the form of distributive justice, retributive justice, or even compensatory justice all in which social justice and equal dignity are core subjects. Distributive justice entails equal distribution of benefits and burdens among the involved society or organizational members.

Retributive or corrective justice means that organizational members receive punishment or correction in a fair and justified manner and organizations should punish members depending on the set rules and regulations, but not on biased terms. Compensatory justice entails employees or members of a certain society receive compensatory benefits in the most justifiable manner and not in any form of favoritism or preferential treatment over the workers involved in any tragedy.

Justice/Fairness theory and the Massey Company

Massey Company had not only violated the ethical business standards and the federal government legal stipulations of the MSHA, but the constant problems described entail some significant breach of justice in organizations.

Justice and fairness entail treating individuals with the desired dignity and equity, something that the Massey Company and its Upper Big Branch undermined. Although all the workers underwent similar situations as from the development of the story, exposing workers of organizations to hazardous working situations entails a considerable breach to denied justice.

Arnold et al. (2010) posit, “Justice is all about the positive obligation to prevent and rectify injustice as well as the negative duty not to commit injustice” (p. 567). Although justice theory and its principles may focus entirely on the relationship between workers and the way an organization ensures equity amongst them, looking at the direct relationship between the miners and the Massey Company is integral. Massey practiced its business in breach of the employees’ justice.

The company was faulty in failing to ensure that its business practices followed federal state regulations and ethical business standards that intended to protect the welfare of the employees.

This aspect contrasted the notion of ethical business practices that percepts that organizations should undertake their businesses morally by ensuring that they preserve justice, employee freedom, and safeguard human dignity (Ciulla, 2004). Justice and fair practice include a relationship between employees and employers, and employees and employees as well, something that is undisputable in the justice theory.

Any action against employees’ expectations and desires conducted by organizations is injustice. In the fire tragedy of January 2006, Massey Company and its Upper Big Branch failed to fix the conveyor belt that caused fire, there were accumulations of combustible materials, and there was the absence of carbon monoxide monitors. Lack of these essential safety precautions underscores a violation of safety requirements and the 2011 was a similar breach to safety principles as they undermined the employee’s justice.

Caring theory & business ethics

Carefulness in business practice is one of the business principles considered essential in the moral philosophy. As Shoemaker (1999) postulates, growth in the legal frameworks governing societies, communities, and even nations have resulted in considerable influences on how corporate business view legal issues.

Philosophers argue that ethical business practices may even not require theories of justice, utility, or even rights, but ethical practices may only require ethical leadership where passion is intrinsic (Ciulla, 2004).

Contemporary theorists, who consider caring theory as the most appropriate approach in business ethics, have noticed that since justice, rights, and utility all come from laws and regulations, which should be impartial or impersonal, they undermine the self-dependency of ethical behavior, which should be solely innate (Noda, 2011).

This perception brings understanding of the development of the care theory and its principles, which have been paramount in the context of business ethics and its real meaning to the welfare of employees and success of organizations.

Developed by the feminist ethicists, the subject of ethics of care is increasingly becoming essential with human social and professional relationships. The theory of care postulates that individuals should relate within the ethics of care where moral significant and individual ethical behavior are fundamental elements of building dependencies and relationships in human life (Noda, 2011).

From the normative perspective, care ethics maintain that mutual relationship exists when there is wellbeing of caregivers and the care receivers within the networks of social relationships (Noda, 2011). The ethics of care stipulate that individuals should be capable of, if necessary, meeting the demands of others and themselves in a mutual rapport.

It builds the intrinsic motivation of unforced and voluntary care for those in the vulnerable groups and desperately dependent on us (Noda, 2011). The principles of ethics of care appreciate that human beings, as an interdependent beings possessing the values of caring relationships, develop ethical behaviors from family backgrounds and moral values of emotions such as empathy and benevolence are essential.

Caring theory and Massey’s case

Perhaps among the most practicable theories that fit perfectly in the case of death tragedy at Massey Energy Company is the care theory that presents the realm intentions of ethical business practices.

Caring is normative and all about intrinsically willing to support individuals and their needs while understanding that mutual understanding is paramount to mutual beneficence (Robertson & Walter, 2007). Under the professional ethics of business practice, all employers have the responsibility to take care of all their employees while in their course of duty.

Care of the company should not be biased on the racial status, professional rank, and even creed differences. It was the duty of care for the employer of Massey to protect and care for the miners drilling oil. The Massey Energy Company and its Upper Big branch lacked considerable care of its miners at it breached rules and regulations and even violated workplace safety rules. Violating the business principles that protect employees’ welfare was a lack of care.

Virtue theory & business ethics

Business ethics involve following business principles that entail morality in leadership as well as in several other aspects of businesses. Similar to the ethics of care in business professional practices, virtue business ethics is a broad business theory that focuses on the character of the moral behavior of individuals rather than the rightness of the intended actions.

“In considering the relationships, emotional sensitivities, and motivations that are unique to human society, it provides a fuller ethical analysis and encourages more flexible and creative solutions” (Gardiner, 2003, p. 297).

Although less understood and more often misinterpreted by researchers while determining its relationship with the business practice following its complication in implementing it to business real, it carries significant value. Ethics of virtuous behavior in organizations assume that individuals should be honest and righteous in their actions, which should not rely on consequences of bad intentions, but virtuous acts (Gardiner, 2003). Any human actions in bad intentions are less virtuous and unethical.

Management teams should be virtuous so that their actions and regulations that they develop do not contradict the real meaning of ethical leadership. Aristotle once postulated that the foremost function of a human being as an upright creature is reasoning and moral reasoning definitely requires virtuous and sound minds.

Ciulla (2004) posits, “To be morally virtuous, you must reason well because reason tells you how to practice and when to practice a virtue” (p.325). Virtue ethics assume that morally virtuous leaders tend to reason appropriately and their actions remain governed by their critical reasoning to consequentiality of the outcomes.

Reasoning according to Aristotle is the guide towards practicing moral virtues and ethical behavior in individuals various life occupations (Robertson & Walter, 2007). With regard to the case of Massey and its Upper Big Branch, there might not be considerable connection that directly explains this relationship. Virtue ethics seem difficult to apply or implement in the business as they concentrated on intrinsic human values.

Although less connected to the events that happened in the Upper Big Branch, there was a direct involvement of the company’s management, which the federal government considered negligent over the issues pertaining to workplace safety.

Virtuous leadership is honesty and ethically right as leaders possessing these traits have the ability to protect the welfare of employees and the interests of the company in a balanced manner. Honest action never possess hidden intentions and it remains perfectly controlled by innate emotions towards doing the right to others and justice to ourselves.

Virtues form a fundamental part of moral philosophy and by failing to observe the importance of protecting employees through safety measures, the Massey Company and its management was not virtuous in their leadership. The company proved less considerate towards its workers and this aspect constitutes unethical business practices guided by self-interest as opposed to the mutual dependence between the company and workers engaged in the mines.

Conclusion

All the five business ethics theories are fundamental to understanding the notion of ethical business practices that continue to raise differing controversies in the modern business world. Non-suffering, fair treatment, and virtuous leadership are all part of ethical leadership. However, it is important to consider the logical reasoning that resulted in the formation of the care theory that most probably outdoes all other business ethics theories.

All other theories including utilitarian, justice, and rights, with some little exception of the virtue theory that seems less competent in business practices, have their inspiration of laws and regulations that contain the concept of obligatory. Ethics, as the care theory assumes, require passionate innate feelings towards others and as morality is self-driven, the theory is more practical to both the situation of the Massey Company and its businesses as well as other companies.

Reference List

Arnold, D., Audi, R., & Zwolinski, M. (2010). Recent work in ethical theory and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 559-581.

Ciulla, J. (2004). Ethics and leadership effectiveness. In J. Antonakis, A. Cianciolo & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 302 -328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gardiner, P. (2003). A virtue ethics approach to moral dilemmas in medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(1), 297-302.

Noda, K. (2011). An ethics of care from an unificationist perspective. Journal of Unification Studies, 12(1), 41-56.

Robertson, M., & Walter, G. (2007). A critical reflection on utilitarianism as the basis for psychiatric ethics. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 2(1), 1-4.

Shoemaker, D. (1999). Utilitarianism and personal identity. Journal of Value Inquiry, 33(1), 183-199.