AHMR & EHMR ethics introduction introduction Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 2 / 58 introduction general ethical approaches (Ondracek 2014) Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 3 / 58 introduction general ethical approaches deontological What rule to follow? What is my duty? consequentialist What should be the result of my actions? What should I consider? virtue How should I be? How should I act with regard to that? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 4 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 5 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach of deontology deontological ethics ethics of duty non-consequentialist ethics What is my duty? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 6 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 7 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach of deontology deontological ethics ethics of duty non-consequentialist ethics What is my duty? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 8 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: idea of agent – acting subject moral is intensely personal intentionality – causality – agency Locke: voluntary prisoner Rachels: the baby in the bathtub Knobe: chairman of the board Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 9 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: Immanuel Kant Imperatives hypothetical If you want to reach ..., then ... categorical Always act ... Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 10 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: Immanuel Kant Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1781) Act according to that maxim which you can ask to become a general law for yourself and others. Act as if the maxim of your action should become a general law of nature by virtue of your will. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 11 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: person/rights-oriented of right rather than duty the right to help and not be abused Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 12 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: person/rights-oriented Immanuel Kant Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1781) Act so as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, always simultaneously as an end and never merely as a means. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 13 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: contractualism Morally wrong are those acts that would be prohibited by an appropriate social/societal agreement. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 14 / 58 introduction deontological approach deontological approach: contractualism Immanuel Kant Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1781) Maxims are universal laws held by rational agents. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 15 / 58 introduction deontological approach Kant: the problem of the lie (Ondracek 2014) Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 16 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 17 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach consequentialism utilitarianism What would I like to achieve? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 18 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill Henry Sidgwick consequentialism of acts An action is morally right only if it enhances the good. hedonism Actions are morally right if they increase pleasure and reduce pain. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 19 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach: division ACCORDING TO THE OCCURRENCE OF CONSEQUENCES consequences circumstances only actual intended, ... direct indirect value all Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 20 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach: division ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THE CONSEQUENCES value all maximizing enhancing aggregate holistic total average Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 21 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach: division ACCORDING TO THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CONSEQUENCES universal partial equal unequal neutral biased Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 22 / 58 introduction consequentialist approach consequentialist approach: problems killing, murder, ... rating moral scope ... Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 23 / 58 introduction virtue ethics virtue ethics Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 24 / 58 introduction virtue ethics virtue ethics virtue ethics What should I be? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 25 / 58 introduction virtue ethics virtue ethics: representatives Aristotle’s item Elisabeth Anscombe Bernard Williams Alasdair Macintyre Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 26 / 58 introduction virtue ethics virtue ethics: Aristotle (Ondracek 2014) Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 27 / 58 introduction virtue ethics virtue ethics: approaches EUDAIMONISM action – goal – greater goal knife – to cut – to cut well AGENT-FOCUSED THEORY Man is good because of (inner) virtue. AGENT-FOCUSED THEORY Action is good because of the good inner life of the agent. The ethics of caring caring, patience, self-sacrifice, ... Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 28 / 58 introduction virtue ethics virtue ethics: problems self-centeredness Feinberg: selfish hatefulness, uselessness Parfit: reformed Nobelist moral happiness Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 29 / 58 Who? Who? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 30 / 58 Who? Who? person agent Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 31 / 58 Who? Who: person Moral persons Moral persons can be anyone who has the moral right to be treated in a certain way. Moral persons thus have moral rights. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 32 / 58 Who? Who: agent moral agent Moral agents can be considered anyone or anything whose actions can be subject to moral judgment, i.e., can be evaluated as morally good or bad (Arnold, 2006; Moore, 1999). Any moral agent thus has certain moral obligations concerning their actions (or inactions). Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 33 / 58 Who? Who: agent & person moral agent A moral person can be a moral agent and vice versa. Equally, however, there can be only moral persons who are not moral agents and vice versa, although there is a debate on this point (Magnell, 2011). Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 34 / 58 Who? Who: collective person/agent moral agent A collective person/agent can be anything that has moral rights or duties, and it is composed of individual moral agents and persons. However, these rights or duties cannot be transferred, changed, or convert into individual rights or duties. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 35 / 58 Who? Who: rights moral rights Moral rights give its holder the entitlement to be threaded in a certain way by others (who might be held responsible). Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 36 / 58 Who? Who: duties moral duties Moral duties require someone (something) to behave in a certain way or otherwise be held in moral contempt or otherwise sanctioned. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 37 / 58 Where?/When? Where?/When? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 38 / 58 Where?/When? Where?/When? Employee Life Cycle attraction recruitment onboarding retention development separation Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 39 / 58 Where?/When? Where?/When? principles Professional Responsibility Professional Development Ethical Leadership Fairness and Justice Conflicts of Interest Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 40 / 58 What? What? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 41 / 58 What? What? nepotism and preferential treatment discrimination harassment bossing lying privacy safety and health ... Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 42 / 58 What? What? (Management Study Guide, n.d.) Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 43 / 58 How? How? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 44 / 58 How? strategies: formal structure laws and codes (internal) code of ethics ethics training ethics as part of the performance review strategic planning internal communication system and review whistleblower protection ethics audit clear rules, sentencing, and penalties Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 45 / 58 How? strategies: informal structure civil service rules COI enabling ethical reviews protection of employees responding to ethical concerns Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 46 / 58 How? strategies: organizational climate transparency discussions values ethos empowerment Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 47 / 58 How? strategies: organizational context partnership and involment commitments models review ethical context realism Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 48 / 58 How? How: principles (Schumann 2001) 1 Utilitarian Principle: What action will do the most good and the least harm for everyone who is affected? 1. Who are the stakeholders? 2. What are the alternative courses of action? 3. For each alternative, what are the benefits and costs (good and harm) for each stakeholder now and in the future? 4. Which alternative creates the most benefits and the least costs for all stakeholders considered together? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 49 / 58 How? How: principles (Schumann 2001) 2 Rights Principle: What action do you have the moral right to take, that protects the rights of others, and that furthers the rights of others? 1. Do you have a moral right to take the action in question? 1.1 Reversibility: Are you willing to have the action in question done to yourself if the roles were reversed? 1.2 Universalizability: Are you willing to live in a world, can you even conceive of a world, in which everyone did the action in question? 1.3 Respect and free consent: Are you treating people with respect? Are you treating people in ways that they have freely consented to be treated? 2. What moral rights do other stakeholders have? 3. Are there conflicts among the moral rights that you and the other stakeholders have? If so, which moral right should take precedence? 3.1 What interests are being protected by each competing right? 3.2 Which competing interest is more important? 3.3 Give precedence to the right that protects the more important interest. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 50 / 58 How? How: principles (Schumann 2001) 3 Distributive Justice Principle: What action produces a fair distribution of benefits and costs for all of the stakeholders? 1. Egalitarianism: What action produces an equal distribution of benefits and costs? 2. Capitalism: What action produces a distribution of benefits and costs based on the contributions of each stakeholder? 3. Socialism: What action distributes benefits based on need and costs based on abilities? 4. Libertarianism: What action has been freely chosen by the stakeholders? 5. Rawls’ Principles: What action provides all stakeholders with equal liberties and equal opportunities (but allows for differences in results based on differences in contributions) while helping those in need to the greatest extent possible? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 51 / 58 How? How: principles (Schumann 2001) 4 Caring Principle: What action cares for those people with whom you have special relationships? 1. What action cares for your own needs? 2. What action cares for the needs of those people with whom you have special relationships (e.g., family, friends, coworkers, employees, customers, stockholders)? 2.1 What action helps those who are vulnerable and dependent on you? 2.2 What action nurtures the ability of those with whom you have special relationships to make their own choices and live their own lives? 2.3 What action avoids basing relationships on domination, oppression, hatred, violence, disrespect, injustice, or exploitation? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 52 / 58 How? How: principles (Schumann 2001) 5 Virtue Principle: What action displays virtuous character traits? 1. Does the action display virtues such as benevolence, civility, compassion, conscientiousness, cooperativeness, courage, fairness, generosity, honesty, industriousness, loyalty, moderation, self-control, self-reliance, or tolerance? 2. Or does the action display vices such as cowardice, deceit, dishonesty, laziness, neglect, or selfishness? 3. Take the action that displays virtues, not vices. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 53 / 58 How? How: principles (Schumann, 2001) 6 Resolve Conflict Among the Five Moral Principles: Do all five moral principles reach the same conclusion, or do they reach conflicting conclusions? 1. If they reach what appear to be conflicting conclusions, then examine the nature of the apparent conflict to determine if the conflict can be resolved by choosing a previously unconsidered course of action. 2. If the apparent conflict among the principles cannot be resolved with a different course of action, then decide which principles should take precedence by examining your values. For example, if you believe that the ends can never justify the means, then give precedence to the rights principle. Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 54 / 58 How? How: further concepts normal misbehavior common misbehaviors greater good ... Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 55 / 58 OVERVIEW OVERVIEW Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 56 / 58 OVERVIEW overview Who? person, agent, . . . Where?/When? Employee Life Cycle What? any violations of ethics or moral standards within the reason How? strategies and principles Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 57 / 58 OVERVIEW basic principles sense, detect moral issues understand reasons, impacts, ... act do what is right evaluate Was it right? Ondráček ·AHMR, EHRM: ethics ·2022JS 58 / 58 zdroje I Arnold, D. G. (2006). Corporate moral agency. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 30, 279–291. Magnell, T. (2011). The correlativity of rights and duties. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 45(1), 1–12. Management Study Guide. (n.d.). Msg management study guide. Retrieved from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/ethical-issues-in-hr.htm Moore, G. (1999). Corporate moral agency: Review and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(4), 329–343. Schumann, P. L. (2001). A moral principles framework for human resource management ethics. Human Resource Management Review, 11(1-2), 93–111.