Consequence_EthicsCOURSEPACK.pdf

LDRS
 320
 –
 Theories
 of
 Duties
 and
 Rights
 

Page
 1
 of
 26
 

Theories
 of
 Consequence
 Ethics:
 
Traditional
 Tools
 for
 Making
 Decisions
 in
 
Business
 when
 the
 Ends
 Justify
 the
 Means
 

 Acknowledgements
 

This
 text
 is
 a
 reprint
 of
 Chapter
 3
 from
 Brusseau
 (2011)
 The
 Business
 Ethics
 Workshop.
 It
 is
 copied
 
and
 adapted
 under
 the
 terms
 of
 the
 Creative
 Commons
 Attribution-­‐NonCommercial-­‐ShareAlike
 3.0
 
License.
 

Brusseau,
 J.
 (2011).
 The
 Business
 Ethics
 Workshop
 (1st
 ed.).
 New
 York:
 Flat
 World
 Knowledge.
 
 

Chapter
 Overview
 

Chapter
 3
 “Theories
 of
 Consequence
 Ethics:
 Traditional
 Tools
 for
 Making
 Decisions
 in
 
Business
 when
 the
 Ends
 Justify
 the
 Means”
 examines
 some
 theories
 guiding
 ethical
 
decisions
 in
 business.
 It
 considers
 ethics
 that
 focuses
 on
 the
 consequences
 of
 what
 is
 done
 
instead
 of
 prohibiting
 or
 allowing
 specific
 acts.
 

3.1
 What
 Is
 Consequentialism?
 

Learning
 Objective
 

1. Define
 consequentialism
 in
 ethics.
 

Consequentialism
 Defined
 

What’s
 more
 important
 in
 ethics—what
 you
 do
 or
 what
 happens
 afterward
 because
 of
 what
 
you
 did?
 People
 who
 believe
 ethics
 should
 be
 about
 what
 happens
 afterward
 are
 labeled
 
consequentialists.
 They
 don’t
 care
 so
 much
 about
 your
 act;
 they
 want
 to
 know
 about
 the
 
consequences.
 

If
 someone
 asks,
 “Should
 I
 lie?,”
 one
 answer
 is,
 “No,
 lying’s
 wrong.
 We
 all
 have
 a
 duty
 not
 to
 
lie
 and
 therefore
 you
 shouldn’t
 do
 it,
 no
 matter
 what.”
 That’s
 not
 the
 consequentialist
 
answer,
 though.
 Consequentialists
 will
 want
 to
 know
 about
 the
 effects.
 If
 the
 lie
 is
 about
 
Bernie
 Madoff
 assuring
 everyone
 that
 he’s
 investing
 clients’
 money
 in
 stocks
 when
 really
 he
 
plans
 to
 steal
 it,
 that’s
 wrong.
 But
 if
 a
 defrauded,
 livid,
 and
 pistol-­‐waving
 client
 tracks
 
Madoff
 down
 on
 a
 crowded
 street
 and
 demands
 to
 know
 whether
 he’s
 Bernie
 Madoff,
 the
 
ethically
 recommendable
 response
 might
 be,
 “People
 say
 I
 look
 like
 him,
 but
 really
 I’m
 Bill
 
Martin.”
 The
 question,
 finally,
 for
 a
 consequentialist
 isn’t
 whether
 or
 not
 I
 should
 lie,
 it’s
 
what
 happens
 if
 I
 do
 and
 if
 I
 don’t?
 

LDRS
 320
 –
 Theories
 of
 Duties
 and
 Rights
 

Page
 2
 of
 26
 

Since
 consequentialists
 are
 more
 worried
 about
 the
 outcome
 than
 the
 action,
 the
 central
 
ethical
 concern
 is
 what
 kind
 of
 outcome
 should
 I
 want?
 Traditionally,
 there
 are
 three
 kinds
 of
 
answers:
 the
 utilitarian,
 the
 altruist,
 and
 the
 egoist.
 Each
 one
 will
 be
 considered
 in
 this
 
chapter.
 

Key
 Takeaway
 

• Consequentialist
 ethicists
 focus
 on
 the
 results
 of
 what
 you
 do,
 not
 what
 you
 do.
 

Review
 Questions
 

1. Under
 what
 scenario
 could
 a
 consequentialist
 defend
 the
 act
 of
 stealing?
 
2. Could
 a
 consequentialist
 recommend
 that
 a
 toy
 company
 lie
 about
 the
 age
 level
 a
 toy
 

is
 designed
 for?
 What
 would
 be
 an
 example?
 

3.2
 Utilitarianism:
 The
 Greater
 Good
 

Learning
 Objectives
 

1. Define
 utilitarian
 ethics.
 
2. Show
 how
 utilitarianism
 works
 in
 business.
 
3. Distinguish
 forms
 of
 utilitarianism.
 
4. Consider
 advantages
 and
 drawbacks
 of
 utilitarianism.
 

The
 College
 Board
 and
 Karen
 Dillard
 

“Have
 you
 seen,”
 the
 blog
 post
 reads,
 “their
 parking
 lot
 on
 a
 Saturday?”
 [1]
 It’s
 packed.
 The
 
lot
 belongs
 to
 Karen
 Dillard
 College
 Prep
 (KDCP),
 a
 test-­‐preparation
 company
 in
 Dallas.
 Like
 
the
 Princeton
 Review,
 they
 offer
 high
 schoolers
 courses
 designed
 to
 boost
 performance
 on
 
the
 SAT.
 Very
 little
 real
 learning
 goes
 on
 in
 these
 classrooms;
 they’re
 more
 about
 techniques
 
and
 tricks
 for
 maximizing
 scores.
 Test
 takers
 should
 know,
 for
 example,
 whether
 a
 test
 
penalizes
 incorrect
 answers.
 If
 it
 doesn’t,
 you
 should
 take
 a
 few
 minutes
 at
 each
 section’s
 
end
 to
 go
 through
 and
 just
 fill
 in
 a
 random
 bubble
 for
 all
 the
 questions
 you
 couldn’t
 reach
 so
 
you’ll
 get
 some
 cheap
 points.
 If
 there
 is
 a
 penalty,
 though,
 then
 you
 should
 use
 your
 time
 to
 
patiently
 work
 forward
 as
 far
 as
 you
 can
 go.
 Knowing
 the
 right
 strategy
 here
 can
 
significantly
 boost
 your
 score.
 It’s
 a
 waste
 of
 brain
 space,
 though,
 for
 anything
 else
 in
 your
 
life.
 

Some
 participants
 in
 KDCP—who
 paid
 as
 much
 as
 $2,300
 for
 the
 lessons—definitely
 got
 
some
 score
 boosting
 for
 their
 money.
 It
 was
 unfair
 boosting,
 however;
 at
 least
 that’s
 the
 
charge
 of
 the
 College
 Board,
 the
 company
 that
 produces
 and
 administers
 the
 SAT.
 

Here’s
 what
 happened.
 A
 KDCP
 employee’s
 brother
 was
 a
 high
 school
 principal,
 and
 he
 was
 
there
 when
 the
 SATs
 were
 administered.
 At
 the
 end
 of
 those
 tests,
 everyone
 knows
 what
 
test
 takers
 are
 instructed
 to
 do:
 stack
 the
 bubble
 sheets
 in
 one
 pile
 and
 the
 test
 booklets
 in
 
the
 other
 and
 leave.
 The
 administrators
 then
 wrap
 everything
 up
 and
 send
 both
 the
 answer
 

LDRS
 320
 –
 Theories
 of
 Duties
 and
 Rights
 

Page
 3
 of
 26
 

sheets
 and
 the
 booklets
 back
 to
 the
 College
 Board
 for
 scoring.
 The
 principal,
 though,
 was
 
pulling
 a
 few
 test
 booklets
 out
 of
 the
 stack
 and
 sending
 them
 over
 to
 his
 brother’s
 company,
 
KDCP.
 As
 it
 turns
 out,
 some
 of
 these
 pilfered
 tests
 were
 “live”—that
 is,
 sections
 of
 them
 
were
 going
 to
 be
 used
 again
 in
 future
 tests.
 Now,
 you
 can
 see
 how
 getting
 a
 look
 at
 those
 
booklets
 would
 be
 helpful
 for
 someone
 taking
 those
 future
 tests.
 

Other
 stolen
 booklets
 had
 been
 “retired,”
 meaning
 the
 specific
 questions
 inside
 were
 on
 
their
 final
 application
 the
 day
 the
 principal
 grabbed
 them.
 So
 at
 least
 in
 these
 cases,
 
students
 taking
 the
 test-­‐prep
 course
 couldn’t
 count
 on
 seeing
 the
 very
 same
 questions
 come
 
exam
 day.
 Even
 so,
 the
 College
 Board
 didn’t
 like
 this
 theft
 much
 better
 because
 they
 sell
 
those
 retired
 tests
 to
 prep
 companies
 for
 good
 money.
 

When
 the
 College
 Board
 discovered
 the
 light-­‐fingered
 principal
 and
 the
 KDCP
 advantage,
 
they
 launched
 a
 lawsuit
 for
 infringement
 of
 copyright.
 Probably
 figuring
 they
 had
 nothing
 to
 
lose,
 KDCP
 sued
 back.
 [2]
 

College
 Board
 also
 threatened—and
 this
 is
 what
 produced
 headlines
 in
 the
 local
 
newspaper—to
 cancel
 the
 scores
 of
 the
 students
 who
 they
 determined
 had
 received
 an
 
unfair
 advantage
 from
 the
 KDCP
 course.
 As
 Denton
 Record-­‐Chronicle
 reported
 (and
 as
 you
 
can
 imagine),
 the
 students
 and
 their
 families
 freaked
 out.
 [3]
 The
 scores
 and
 full
 application
 
packages
 had
 already
 been
 delivered
 to
 colleges
 across
 the
 country,
 and
 score
 cancellation
 
would
 have
 amounted
 to
 application
 cancellation.
 And
 since
 many
 of
 the
 students
 applied
 
only
 to
 schools
 requiring
 the
 SAT,
 the
 threat
 amounted
 to
 at
 least
 temporary
 college
 
cancellation.
 “I
 hope
 the
 College
 Board
 thinks
 this
 through,”
 said
 David
 Miller,
 a
 Plano
 
attorney
 whose
 son
 was
 apparently
 on
 the
 blacklist.
 “If
 they
 have
 a
 problem
 with
 Karen
 
Dillard,
 that’s
 one
 thing.
 But
 I
 hope
 they
 don’t
 punish
 kids
 who
 wanted
 to
 work
 hard.”
 

Predictably,
 the
 episode
 crescendoed
 with
 everyone
 lawyered
 up
 and
 suits
 threatened
 in
 all
 
directions.
 In
 the
 end,
 the
 scores
 weren’t
 canceled.
 KDCP
 accepted
 a
 settlement
 calling
 for
 
them
 to
 pay
 $600,000
 directly
 to
 the
 College
 Board
 and
 provide
 $400,000
 in
 free
 classes
 for
 
high
 schoolers
 who’d
 otherwise
 be
 unable
 to
 afford
 the
 service.
 As
 for
 the
 principal
 who’d
 
been
 lifting
 the
 test
 booklets,
 he
 got
 to
 keep
 his
 job,
 which
 pays
 about
 $87,000
 a
 year.
 The
 
CEO
 of
 College
 Board,
 by
 the
 way,
 gets
 around
 $830,000.
 [4]
 KDCP
 is
 a
 private
 company,
 so
 
we
 don’t
 know
 how
 much
 Karen
 Dillard
 or
 her
 employees
 make.
 We
 do
 know
 they
 could
 
absorb
 a
 million-­‐dollar
 lawsuit
 without
 going
 into
 bankruptcy.
 Finally,
 the
 Plano
 school
 
district
 in
 Texas—a
 well-­‐to-­‐do
 suburb
 north
 of
 Dallas—continues
 to
 produce
 some
 of
 the
 
nation’s
 highest
 SAT
 score
 averages.
 

One
 Thief,
 Three
 Verdicts
 

Utilitarianism
 is
 a
 consequentialist
 ethics—the
 outcome
 matters,
 not
 the
 act.
 Among
 those
 
who
 focus
 on
 outcomes,
 the
 utilitarians’
 distinguishing
 belief
 is
 that
 we
 should
 pursue
 the
 
greatest
 good
 for
 the
 greatest
 number.
 So
 we
 can
 act
 in
 whatever
 way
 we
 choose—we
 can
 be
 
generous
 or
 miserly,
 honest
 or
 dishonest—but
 whatever
 we
 do,
 to
 get
 the
 utilitarian’s
 
approval,
 the
 result
 should
 be
 more
 people
 happier.
 If
 that
 is
 the
 result,
 then
 the
 utilitarian
 
needs
 to
 know
 nothing
 more
 to
 label
 the
 act
 ethically
 recommendable.
 (Note:
 Utility
 is
 a
 
general
 term
 for
 usefulness
 and
 benefit,
 thus
 the
 theory’s
 name.
 In
 everyday
 language,
 
however,
 we
 don’t
 talk
 about
 creating
 a
 greater
 utility
 but
 instead
 a
 greater
 good
 or
 
happiness.)
 

LDRS
 320
 –
 Theories
 of
 Duties
 and
 Rights
 

Page
 4
 of
 26
 

In
 rudimentary
 terms,
 utilitarianism
 is
 a
 happiness
 calculation.
 When
 you’re
 considering
 
doing
 something,
 you
 take
 each
 person
 who’ll
 be
 affected
 and
 ask
 whether
 they’ll
 end
 up
 
happier,
 sadder,
 or
 it
 won’t
 make
 any
 difference.
 Now,
 those
 who
 won’t
 change
 don’t
 need
 
to
 be
 counted.
 Next,
 for
 each
 person
 who’s
 happier,
 ask,
 how
 much
 happier?
 Put
 that
 
amount
 on
 one
 side.
 For
 each
 who’s
 sadder,
 ask,
 how
 much
 sadder?
 That
 amount
 goes
 on
 
the
 other
 side.
 Finally,
 add
 up
 each
 column
 and
 the
 greater
 sum
 indicates
 the
 ethically
 
recommendable
 decision.
 

Utilitarian
 ethics
 function
 especially
 well
 in
 cases
 like
 this:
 You’re
 on
 the
 way
 to
 take
 the
 
SAT,
 which
 will
 determine
 how
 the
 college
 application
 process
 goes
 (and,
 it
 feels
 like,
 more
 
or
 less
 your
 entire
 life).
 Your
 car
 breaks
 down
 and
 you
 get
 there
 very
 late
 and
 the
 monitor
 is
 
closing
 the
 door
 and
 you
 remember
 that…you
 forgot
 your
 required
 number
 2
 pencils.
 On
 a
 
desk
 in
 the
 hall
 you
 notice
 a
 pencil.
 It’s
 gnawed
 and
 abandoned
 but
 not
 yours.
 Do
 you
 steal
 
it?
 Someone
 who
 believes
 it’s
 an
 ethical
 duty
 to
 not
 steal
 will
 hesitate.
 But
 if
 you’re
 a
 
utilitarian
 you’ll
 ask:
 Does
 taking
 it
 serve
 the
 greater
 good?
 It
 definitely
 helps
 you
 a
 lot,
 so
 
there’s
 positive
 happiness
 accumulated
 on
 that
 side.
 What
 about
 the
 victim?
 Probably
 
whoever
 owns
 it
 doesn’t
 care
 too
 much.
 Might
 not
 even
 notice
 it’s
 gone.
 Regardless,
 if
 you
 
put
 your
 increased
 happiness
 on
 one
 side
 and
 weigh
 it
 against
 the
 victim’s
 hurt
 on
 the
 
other,
 the
 end
 result
 is
 almost
 certainly
 a
 net
 happiness
 gain.
 So
 with
 a
 clean
 conscience
 you
 
grab
 it
 and
 dash
 into
 the
 testing
 room.
 According
 to
 utilitarian
 reasoning,
 you’ve
 done
 the
 
right
 thing
 ethically
 (assuming
 the
 pencil’s
 true
 owner
 isn’t
 coming
 up
 behind
 you
 in
 the
 
same
 predicament).
 

Pushing
 this
 theory
 into
 the
 KDCP
 case,
 one
 tense
 ethical
 location
 is
 the
 principal
 lifting
 test
 
booklets
 and
 sending
 them
 over
 to
 his
 brother
 at
 the
 test-­‐prep
 center.
 Everything
 begins
 
with
 a
 theft.
 The
 booklets
 do
 in
 fact
 belong
 to
 the
 College
 Board;
 they’re
 sent
 around
 for
 
schools
 to
 use
 during
 testing
 and
 are
 meant
 to
 be
 returned
 afterward.
 So
 here
 there’s
 
already
 the
 possibility
 of
 stopping
 and
 concluding
 that
 the
 principal’s
 act
 is
 wrong
 simply
 
because
 stealing
 is
 wrong.
 Utilitarians,
 however,
 don’t
 want
 to
 move
 so
 quickly.
 They
 want
 
to
 see
 the
 outcome
 before
 making
 an
 ethical
 judgment.
 On
 that
 front,
 there
 are
 two
 distinct
 
outcomes:
 one
 covering
 the
 live
 tests,
 and
 the
 other
 the
 retired
 ones.
 

Live
 tests
 were
 those
 with
 sections
 that
 may
 appear
 again.
 When
 students
 at
 KDCP
 received
 
them
 for
 practice,
 they
 were
 essentially
 receiving
 cheat
 sheets.
 Now
 for
 a
 utilitarian,
 the
 
question
 is,
 does
 the
 situation
 serve
 the
 general
 good?
 When
 the
 testing’s
 done,
 the
 scores
 
are
 reported,
 and
 the
 college
 admissions
 decisions
 made,
 will
 there
 be
 more
 overall
 
happiness
 then
 there
 would’ve
 been
 had
 the
 tests
 not
 been
 stolen?
 It
 seems
 like
 the
 answer
 
has
 to
 be
 no.
 Obviously
 those
 with
 great
 scores
 will
 be
 smiling,
 but
 many,
 many
 others
 will
 
see
 their
 scores
 drop
 (since
 SATs
 are
 graded
 on
 a
 curve,
 or
 as
 a
 percentile).
 So
 there’s
 some
 
major
 happiness
 for
 a
 few
 on
 one
 side
 balanced
 by
 unhappiness
 for
 many
 on
 the
 other.
 Then
 
things
 get
 worse.
 When
 the
 cheating
 gets
 revealed,
 the
 vast
 majority
 of
 test
 takers
 who
 
didn’t
 get
 the
 edge
 are
 going
 to
 be
 irritated,
 mad,
 or
 furious.
 Their
 parents
 too.
 Remember,
 
it’s
 not
 only
 admission
 that’s
 at
 stake
 here
 but
 also
 financial
 aid,
 so
 the
 students
 who
 didn’t
 
get
 the
 KDCP
 edge
 worry
 not
 only
 that
 maybe
 they
 should’ve
 gotten
 into
 a
 better
 school
 but
 
also
 that
 they
 end
 up
 paying
 more
 too.
 Finally,
 the
 colleges
 will
 register
 a
 net
 loss:
 all
 their
 
work
 in
 trying
 to
 admit
 students
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 fair,
 equal
 evaluations
 gets
 thrown
 into
 
question.
 

LDRS
 320
 –
 Theories
 of
 Duties
 and
 Rights
 

Page
 5
 of
 26
 

Conclusion.
 The
 theft
 of
 live
 tests
 fails
 the
 utilitarian
 test.
 While
 a
 few
 students
 may
 come
 
out
 better
 off
 and
 happier,
 the
 vast
 majority
 more
 than
 balances
 the
 effect
 with
 
disappointment
 and
 anger.
 The
 greater
 good
 isn’t
 served.
 

In
 the
 case
 of
 the
 theft
 of
 “retired”
 tests
 where
 the
 principal
 forwarded
 to
 KDCP
 test
 
questions
 that
 won’t
 reappear
 on
 future
 exams,
 it
 remains
 true
 that
 the
 tests
 were
 lifted
 
from
 the
 College
 Board
 and
 it
 remains
 true
 that
 students
 who
 took
 the
 KDCP
 prep
 course
 
will
 receive
 an
 advantage
 because
 they’re
 practicing
 the
…