Living with the Consequences of Your Actions

Another set of ethical judgments is made based on the consequences of actions. According to this naturalistic approach to ethical decision-making, if the consequences of an act are good, the act is ethical; if they are bad, the act is unethical. The key questions are these: Should we consider only the consequences to self? Psychological egoism assumes that humans are only capable of selfish acts and asserts, therefore, that right actions are those that support an individual’s best long-term interests.ⁱ Or, should we consider the impact our actions have on others when determine what is right and what is wrong? Utilitarianism asserts that only those actions that take into consideration the best interest of everyone are ethical. Act utilitarians contend that the right act is the one that produces the greatest ratio of good to evil for all concerned. Rule utilitarians state that if everyone’s following a certain rule produces more total good than not using it, then that rule is ethical.16

The consequential theories of ethics, psychological egoism and utilitarianism have two obvious weaknesses. One, they often lead to the notion that the ends justify the means. They justify committing an act—such as lying—if, as a result, good—such as saving someone from an injustice—is accomplished. Two, most often there are conflicting duties; so, which duty is more important? For example, the duty of producing the most good for the most people may be in conflict with another duty, such as the duty of beneficence. Members of the dominant coalition of an organization might argue against making significant philanthropic contributions. They might observe that the money could be spent better producing an improved product that would yield a greater good not only for society, but also for the organization.

A major weakness of psychological egoism is that it assumes a person's concept of self cannot include the concept of the other--the notion of I-thou that Martin Buber and others argue is the preferred "third alternative" to being either totally selfish or totally focused on others.ⁱⁱ Furthermore, psychological egoism simply does not address unethical actions taken by pairs, small groups, organizations or large groups of individuals.

A number of philosophers have combined elements of intuitive and naturalistic ethics. For example, Rawls has suggested that what he calls a “difference principle” can be used in conjunction with a “justice principle” to account for inequalities in society.17 His argument is that a just society is not necessarily a society without inequalities; rather, it is one in which inequalities are justifiable. The difference principle would spell out conditions for justifiable inequalities. Garrett has suggested that all ethical decisions are composed of motives, means, and consequences, and that combinations of intuitive principles and consequential theories are used in making judgments.18

Ethical Relativism: a Critique

Ethical relativism combines intuitive and naturalistic ethics by emphasizing the importance of values and the way in which those values are determined. The assumption of ethical relativism is that different social groups have different values and, consequently, different ethics. Another assumption of ethical relativism is that intuitive rules are based not on absolutes, but on social values, which may vary from society to society.19

Conventionalistic relativism argues that concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, are based upon the accepted ways, habits, and traditions—the conventions—of society. This form of relativism appears, at first glance, to be a tolerant ethic because it acknowledges that each culture is different. But it also assumes, within one society, the dominance of mainstream social values. Minority and individual values that differ from those of the majority are not considered, and the acts of dissidents often are called unethical or immoral. On the other hand, conventionalistic relativism assumes any act within a social system that incorporates the values of the system is an ethical act. Consequently, a social system dedicated to what outsiders might consider evil, immoral activities would not judge these actions unethical unless the insiders violated their own conventions; in other words, there is honor among thieves. Conventionalistic relativism assumes the moral infallibility of the larger social system.20

Individualistic relativism assumes the moral infallibility of the individual. It says that if a person genuinely thinks an act is moral, it is. This egoistic view of ethics invites moral anarchy because it subordinates the views of others while, at the same time, asserting that all sincere individuals are right.

Taken to its logical extremes, ethical relativism becomes a useless guide for public relations managers because it seems to say that each ethical decision is unique. However, if a more moderate approach is taken—that situational factors should be analyzed and considered when making an ethical decision—then, ethical relativism offers useful insights.

Some people like to use ethical relativism because they don’t like what they consider to be the intolerant, absolutist positions of nonrelativism. They choose ethical relativism because it is the lesser of two evils. According to communication scholars James Jaksa and Michael Pritchard, this is unfortunate, because nonrelativism—the intuitive approach to ethics—does not necessarily mean making black/white, inflexible decisions. They identified three major misconceptions about nonrelativism:21

1. Nonrelativists are often suspected of intolerance toward those whose moral beliefs and values differ from their own. No doubt some are intolerant in this way. However, not all nonrelativists think that they have all (or even many of) the answers to moral questions. They can be open to persuasion. What they are committed to is the belief that some moral views are more acceptable than other views, even if they, or others, currently do not subscribe to the most acceptable views.

2. Nonrelativists are often accused of being absolutists who believe that exceptionless moral principles exist, such as “Never lie,” “Never kill,” or “Never be cruel.” But nonrelativists don’t necessarily believe in absolutes in this sense. They do believe that some general principles, criteria, or values are universally relevant in making determinations of what is right and wrong. For example, a nonrelativist could insist that the fact of something being a lie counts against it, even if other factors might be more decisive in a particular situation.

3. Nonrelativists are sometimes thought to have no respect for moral traditions, conventions, or practices. However, there is no reason that nonrelativists cannot admit the relevance, and even the great importance, of moral traditions, conventions, and practices to questions of right and wrong. They simply refuse to accept the conventionalist view that these matters are necessarily decisive. Furthermore, even if nonrelativists think that some traditions, conventions, or practices are in some respect morally objectionable, it does not follow that they think it would be appropriate to intervene. Nonrelativists need not be any more interventionist than anyone else. In fact, they may often find it very difficult to justify imposing their values on other cultures. Respect for the integrity and ways of life of other cultures is itself a principle for which nonrelativist support can be given. Relativists cannot provide similar assurances.