Search

This paper explores the question of whether the identification of many wrongdoings in an organisation requires knowledge of the technical and operating mechanisms of that organisation. If such is the case, many ethical problems cannot be resolved by a generalist. They must be left to people with knowledge of that industry. In attempting to answer the question, the paper examines 11 different types of organisations. It then asks how the ethical issues in those organisations might be resolved. The organisations are veterinarians, pharmacies, media companies, engineering firms, doctors, general businesses, including two sub disciplines, marketing and accounting organisations, nursing institutions, political parties, scientific research organisations, legal firms and information technology companies. Each can be a small professional company, locally based, or a large organisation, possibly international. Each exhibits one or more ethical problems that are not easily resolved by accepted ethical theory. Accepted theory, as further defined in the text, is the mainline ethical theories that would be core components of most ethics texts or courses. The question arises then on how would ethics be taught if the ethical issues require specialised knowledge of that industry sector. After examining the 11 industries, the paper puts forth two views. One is that a number of wrongs can be identified in industries and organisations where the ethical problems are complex and difficult to resolve, and where the standard ethical theories are of little or no help. Resolving these issues requires action from the organisation, or from the industry association encompassing all companies within that sector. A further complication has developed in the near explosive growth in whistleblower protection systems. These systems, now introduced in close to 30 countries around the world, have their own lists of wrongdoings for which the whistleblower will receive administrative and legal support. These lists of wrongs are distinct from any moral theory One conclusion to be drawn is that new methods possibly need to be found for teaching the identification and resolution of ethical issues. A second is a consequence of the first – that the teacher of ethics in these courses has to be drawn from within the industry. Further questions then arise: One is whether this demand then requires that this industry specialist learn moral theory? A second is then how would generalist applied ethics causes be taught (in humanities departments for instance)? Alternate viewpoints on joint teaching by a moral specialist and an industry specialist have been put forward. The paper puts forward one possible approach for the industry courses – that the industry specialist has to present the course, with new methods and content, but that a theoretical content is taught by someone knowledgeable in ethical theory. For generalist courses, the moral theorist has to include a sufficiently wide sample of industry and organisational ethical issues to ensure that students are aware of the wide range of ethical concerns that can arise, as well as approaches to resolving them.

This chapter explores the question of harm to others, either inflicting it or alleviating it, and whether it is the overriding determinant of ethical conduct. The purpose behind this exploration lies in the benefits that a dominant measure, or perhaps even a single measure, could bring to ethical behaviour in our companies and government agencies. A single measure bypasses the multiplicity of competing and conflicting ethical theories on what constitutes ethical or unethical behaviour. The chapter points out the problems arising from the conflicting moral theories, and the benefits that would arise for ordinary people if we could simplify the process. It then documents those moral philosophers who assign a high ethical priority to avoiding the harming of others, or redressing harm already incurred. One problem is that harm can be defined widely. The possibilities of harm in the future, of offending others, or failing to respect others are examples. We also frequently face a choice between two harms. Numerous examples include business or government decisions which will be of advantage to one party, but of disadvantage to another. Analytical techniques to help make these choices are of limited applicability. Helping others is part of the harm scenario, for we almost invariably help them overcome some possible or actual harm they are facing. But such thinking is normally considered as an altruistic act, not avoiding harm. A more universal approach is a three-part guideline ‘do-no-harm/correct for or prevent harm/do good’.