Which of the following statements is always correct?

My company's code of ethic

s:
Select one:
a. Decides all my questions for me
b. Saves me having to think about ethics
c. Guarantees I am ethical in my actions
d. Guides me towards ethical decisions **

Which statement does NOT describe corporate culture:

Select one:
a. Corporate culture is about how an organisation does things:
b. A coherent corporate culture can promote a sense of unity and purpose
c. A corporate culture exists in a organisation even if it has not been formally
described and communicated
d. A corporate culture only exists in large organisations **

Which of the below is True?

Select one:
a. Company codes
b. Company codes
c. Company codes
d. COmpany codes

of
of
of
of

ethics
ethics
ethics
ethics

guarantee ethical staff behaviour

prevent ethical staff behaviour
can guide ethical staff behaviour **
are a liability

If you find yourself in a situation where there may be a conflict of interest:

Select one:
a. You should formally declare this conflict of interest **
b. Keep quiet about this conflict of interest
c. Encourage others to favour a situation where this may benefit you
d. Tell your workmates about this

Started on
Thursday, 14 May 2015, 7:59 AM
State Finished
Completed on
Thursday, 14 May 2015, 8:06 AM
Time taken
7 mins 22 secs
Marks 4.00/4.00
Grade 10.00 out of 10.00 (100%)
Question 1
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Not flaggedFlag question
Question text
Which of the following statements is always correct? My company's code of ethic
s:
Select one:
a. Decides all my questions for me

b. Saves me having to think about ethics

c. Guarantees I am ethical in my actions
d. Guides me towards ethical decisions Correct
Feedback
The correct answer is: Guides me towards ethical decisions
Question 2
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Not flaggedFlag question
Question text
Which statement does NOT describe corporate culture:
Select one:
a. Corporate culture is about how an organisation does things:
b. A coherent corporate culture can promote a sense of unity and purpose
c. A corporate culture exists in a organisation even if it has not been formally
described and communicated
d. A corporate culture only exists in large organisations Correct
Feedback
The correct answer is: A corporate culture only exists in large organisations
Question 3
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Not flaggedFlag question
Question text
Which of the below is True?
Select one:
a. Company codes of ethics guarantee ethical staff behaviour
b. Company codes of ethics prevent ethical staff behaviour
c. Company codes of ethics can guide ethical staff behaviour Correct
d. COmpany codes of ethics are a liability
Feedback
The correct answer is: Company codes of ethics can guide ethical staff behaviour
Question 4
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Not flaggedFlag question
Question text
If you find yourself in a situation where there may be a conflict of interest:
Select one:
a. You should formally declare this conflict of interest Correct
b. Keep quiet about this conflict of interest
c. Encourage others to favour a situation where this may benefit you
d. Tell your workmates about this
Feedback
The correct answer is: You should formally declare this conflict of interest

Professional Ethics
So far we have identified that in our professional lives, as well as in our priv
ate lives, it rests on us to 'do the right thing'. Remember though that the deci
sions we make as IT professionals impact on far more people than just ourselves.
There are, usually, at least three parties with an interest in what IT professi

onals do.
They are:
IT professionals,
their employer, and
the client/s.
IT professionals may, however, find themselves in a position where there is a co
nflict between the interests of one or more of these parties. It may be between
their personal interests and those of their employer or client. More commonly, t
here is a conflict between the interests of the client and the interests of the
IT professional's employer. For example, if you are subcontracting, or working f
or a subcontractor, there may be layers of employers, all with differing interes
ts.
Conflicts of Interest
conflicts of interest
A situation that arises in any field of business, but is particularly common in
the IT industry, is an individual or an organization having a conflict of intere
st because they are playing two roles. Some examples are:
A consulting company which has an agency for a particular package will have a c
onflict between their consulting and selling role. It is difficult to recommend
a package from a competitor, even if it fits the client's needs better, than the
one your company is selling.
A hardware vendor offers free IT strategic planning to its clients. Naturally th
e IT strategy they prepare is not going to suggest that the client should change
to a platform from another vendor. It will be very tempting for the hardware ve
ndor to recommend additional hardware purchases as a solution to any problem ide
ntified, rather than looking for other solutions.
An accounting firm's IT consulting arm installs all the financial systems in an
organisation which is a client of its audit practice. If these systems do not pr
oduce adequate financial statements, the auditors will find it difficult to repo
rt adversely on work done by another branch of the same company.
You work for a PC vendor and you genuinely believe that it sells an excellent pr
oduct. You are on the council of the local school which has decided to purchase
some PCs. Knowing that you are in the business, the school turns to you for expe
rt advice on the purchase. It is likely that you will recommend that they buy yo
ur firm s product, especially if you can organize a discount.
Generally, conflicts of interest should be avoided. Firms or individuals which a
re already playing one role with a client should disqualify themselves from play
ing another. View the YouTube titled Conflict of Interest from Ethics Unwrapped
to see examples of how conflicts interest can impact of your professional presen
ce and on business productivity. However, the critical thing is that you should
declare your interest. The client can then take that interest into account when
dealing with you. It is unethical, unprofessional, and may be illegal to have a
conflict of interest which is not acknowledged.
In Australia, many organizations have specific guidelines or policies on managin
g conflicts of interest. For example, in the YouTube titled Conflicts of interes
t for government programs and projects. Jane Supit
an Australian Government Soli
citor
sets out the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. This clip is pa
rticularly relevant because Supit reminds us that conflicts of interest come in
three forms:
actual conflicts of interest,
potential conflicts of interest, and
potentially perceived conflicts of interest

Read "Business Conduct and Ethics Policy" from CTI Logistics Ltd, paying particu
lar attention to both the content as well as the progression of the content's st
ructure (e.g., Your Responsibility, The Appearance of Conflict, Conflicts of Int
erest, etc).

IdeaTip!
Being attentive to structure reveals something about the processes a company has
in place to uphold its commitment to ethical standards and professional practic
e. You will notice that each section sets out both a claim, for how one should a
ct or refrain from certain actions, a well as reasons to support the claim being
made. These can offer useful models for our own professional conduct and practi
ce, whether from a logistics focused transport company, from your university, or
from our workplace.
You probably already know that the ACS is the recognised association for ICT pro
fessionals, attracting a large and active membership from all levels of the ICT
industry. But did you know that the ACS is a member of the Australian Council of
Professionals and the guardian of professional ethics and standards in the ICT
industry, with a commitment to the wider community to ensure the beneficial use
of ICT?
Its objectives are to further the study, science and application of IT; promote,
develop and monitor competence in the practice of ICT by people and organisatio
ns; maintain and promote a Code of Ethics for members of the Society; define and
promote standards of knowledge of ICT for members, promote the formulation of e
ffective policies on ICT and related matters; extend the knowledge and understan
ding of ICT in the community; promote the benefits of membership of the Society
and promote the benefits of employing members of the Society.
ACS members work in all areas of business and industry, government and academia,
and are qualified and experienced ICT professionals committed to the Society's
Code of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct. ACS membership denotes a commit
ment to professionalism.

Unethical Organistions
conflicts of interest 2There is also plenty of evidence that many organizations
do not encourage their staff to take an ethical stance and that many corporate f
ailures can be traced back to this shortcoming. For example, see this YouTube on
Unethical Moments from The Office or Ethics through Dilbert. Although these are
humorous examples, they nonetheless contain kernels of truth. On a more serious
note, what do you do when your management does not want to know about problems
with a project? Read and consider the short case "On Being the Bearer of Bad New
s" from the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Research.
In addition, there may be occasions when your employer's or client's interests a
re in conflict with your personal belief system. This is a much more difficult s
ituation to deal with but one you are likely to encounter at some stage in your
career. The CIMA Code of Ethics YouTube in the next section addresses this issue
.
IdeaTip!
It can sometimes be difficult to make an ethical decision and in some instances,
we can be placed in a difficult situation where we are unable to see the best c
ourse of action. Perhaps our ethical actions are being hampered by someone or so
me process? Ethi-call is a free, confidential and non-judgemental support line
helping individuals to reflect on and explore ethical issues and dilemmas. It is
run by the St James Ethics Centre (South Australia). The Ethics Centre encourag

es "the promotion and exploration of ethics and ethical decision-making. The Eth
ics Centre seeks to encourage people all over the world to 'think ... to create
a better world'."
An Ethical Decision-Making Model
(Source: Josephson Institute of Ethics. "Five Steps of Principled Reasoning." 19
99.)
Clarify.
Determine precisely what must be decided.
Formulate and devise the full range of alternatives.
Eliminate patently impractical, illegal and improper alternatives.
Force yourself to develop at least three ethically justifiable options.
Examine each option to determine which ethical principles and values are involve
d.
Evaluate.
If any of the options requires the sacrifice of any ethical principle, evaluate
the facts and assumptions carefully.
Distinguish solid facts from beliefs, desires, theories, suppositions, unsupport
ed conclusions, opinions, and rationalizations.
Consider the credibility of sources, especially when they are self-interested, i
deological or biased.
With regard to each alternative, carefully consider the benefits, burdens and ri
sks to each stakeholder.
Decide.
Make a judgment about what is not true and what consequences are most likely to
occur.
Evaluate the viable alternatives according to personal conscience.
Prioritize the values so that you can choose which values to advance and which t
o subordinate.
Determine who will be helped the most and harmed the least.
Consider the worst case scenario.
Consider whether ethically questionable conduct can be avoided by changing goals
or methods, or by getting consent.
Apply three "ethics guides."
Are you treating others as you would want to be treated?
Would you be comfortable if your reasoning and decision were to be publicized?
Would you be comfortable if your children were observing you?
Implement.
Develop a plan of how to implement the decision.
Maximize the benefits and minimize the costs and risks.
Monitor and modify.
Monitor the effects of decisions.
Be prepared and willing to revise a plan, or take a different course of action.
Adjust to new information.

Twelve Questions Toward Ethical Decision-Making

[These 12 questions for examining the ethics of a decision were adapted from the
steps formulated by Harvard Business School Professor Laura Nash in her Harvard
Business Review article, "Ethics without the Sermon" (1981)]
Have you defined the problem accurately?
How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?
How did this situation occur in the first place?
To whom and to what do you give your loyalty as a person and as a member of the
organization?
What is your intention in making this decision?
How does this intention compare with the probable results?
Whom could your decision injure?
Can you discuss the problem with the affected parties before you make your decis
ion
Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time
as it seems now?
Could you disclose without qualm your decision or action to your boss, the head
of your organization, your colleagues, your family, the person you most admire,
or society as a whole?
What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? If misunderstood?
Are there circumstances when you would allow exceptions to your stand? What are
they?

A Guide to Moral Decision Making

Chris MacDonald, Ph.D.
Revised September 25, 2010
This guide is intended only as an aid. It is not a formula, and it does not guar
antee good decisions.
Note that the order of the steps is not crucial, and may vary from one situation
to the next.
A printable PDF version of this document is here: Guide to Moral Decision Making
.

A. Recognizing the Moral Dimension

The first step is recognizing the decision as one that has moral importance. Imp
ortant clues include conflicts between two or more values or ideals.
B. Who Are the Interested Parties? What are their relationships?
Carefully identify who has a stake in the decision. In this regard, be imaginati
ve and sympathetic. Often there are more parties whose interests should be taken
into consideration than is immediately obvious.
Look at the relationships between the parties. Look at their relationships with
yourself and with each other, and with relevant institutions. Do those relations
hips bring special obligations or expectations?

C. What Values or Principles are Involved?

Think through the shared values that are at stake in making this decision. Is th
ere a question of trust? Is personal autonomy a consideration? Is there a questi
on of fairness? Is anyone to be harmed or helped?
D. Sketch out options -- not just actions, but courses of action
Think imaginatively about the courses of option available to you. Rarely are you
faced with a simply either/or, go-or-no-go decision. More often, you will need
to design the various alternatives. Think of those alternatives in terms of cour
ses of action extended through time.
E. Weigh the Benefits and the Burdens
Benefits -- broadly defined -- might include such things as the production of go
ods (physical, emotional, financial, social, etc.) for various parties, the sati
sfaction of preferences, and acting in accordance with various relevant values (
such as fairness).
Burdens might include causing physical or emotional pain to various parties, imp
osing financial costs, and ignoring relevant values.
F. Look for Analogous Cases
Can you think of other similar decisions? What course of action was taken? Was i
t a good decision? How is the present case like that one? How is it different?
G. Discuss with Relevant Others
The merits of discussion should not be underestimated. Time permitting, discuss
your decision with as many persons as have a stake in it. Gather opinions, and a
sk for the reasons behind those opinions. Remember that your ability to discuss
others may be limited by expectations and rules about confidentiality.
H. Does this Decision Accord with Legal and Organizational Rules?
Some decisions are appropriately made based on legal considerations. If one opti
on is illegal, we should at least think very seriously before taking that option
.
Decisions may also be affected by rules set by organizations of which we are mem
bers. For example, most professional organizations have Codes of Ethics which ar
e intended to guide individual decision making. Institutions (hospitals, banks,
corporations) may also have policies which limit the options available to us.
Sometimes there are bad laws, or bad rules, and sometimes those should be broken
. But usually it is ethically important to pay attention to laws & rules.
I. Am I Comfortable with this Decision?
Sometimes your 'gut reaction' will tell you if you've missed something.
Questions to be asked in this regard might include:
1) If I carry out this decision, would I be comfortable telling my family about
it? My clergyman? My mentors?
2) Would I want children to take my behaviour as an example?
3) Is this decision one which a wise, informed, virtuous person would make?
4) Can I live with this decision?

 by Chris MacDonald
Please feel free to use, copy, and share this Guide (for private use). If you re
print/publish it, please let me know where.
If you find this Guide helpful, please let me know. If you have comments or crit
icisms, I would value your input.
How to reach me:
Chris MacDonald
Department of Philosophy,
Saint Mary's University,
Halifax N.S.
Canada B3H 3C3
e-mail: chrismac@ethicsweb.ca
For more ethics resources, see ChrisMacDonald.ca
See also L.I.F.E. Lessons: A very short guide to ethics
For books on ethics, see the EthicsWeb Bookstore
This page is administered by Chris MacDonald (chrismac@ethicsweb.ca)

Managing Ethical Dilemmas

So far we have looked how ethics calls on us to 'do the right thing'. However, s
ometimes it isn't always clear what the right thing to be done is. Usefully there
are some tools that can help us clarify our ethical decision-making process.
Read the short guide from Chris MacDonald, A Guide to Moral Decision Making . (Note
: this is available as a printable PDF version for download).
Look at the straightforward guidelines from Thomas White (at The Center for Ethi
cs and Business at Loyola University), titled Resolving an Ethical Dilemma .
Another interesting site is the Ethics Scoreboard
reason for existence:

here's what it says about its

The Ethics Scoreboard exists because, to be blunt, national media, academia, law,
the arts, government, and the church have been timid, garbled, and worst of all
, boring in their efforts (such as they are) to apply our society's ethical stan
dards and principles to the daily events that bombard us. The results of this fa
ilure are apparent: a proliferation of ethics-related incidents, a lack of coher
ent discussion regarding them, and in too many cases, public apathy.
The Ethics Scoreboard intends to counter this environment by doing four things:
Providing some simple tools for ethical analysis.
Identifying current events and issues that raise important ethical issues
Using those tools to make a straight-forward assessment of these
Talking about them.
This site will not attempt to be exhaustive, but will focus on raising ethical i

ssues and observations that are not appearing elsewhere.

Consider the following on the Ethics Scoreboard site: "12 Questions Towards Ethi
cal Decision-making" as well as An Ethical Decision-making Model".

Tip!Tip!
Incidentally, previous students have identified the MacDonald (1) article A Guide
to Moral Decision Making" and (2) White s 3-step method of "Resolving an Ethical
Dilemma" as being particularly helpful in broadening their understanding of ethi
cal decision-making in the workplace.
You may find it helpful to go through these two documents and take note of the s
imilarities and differences in their approach to solving ethical dilemmas. Make
sure you are clear about both the motivations for, and the consequences offered
by each approach. Developing a clear understanding of key similarities and diffe
rences between the MacDonald and White methodologies - and taking the time to ar
ticulate this in your written work will enable to you engage more fully with Ass
ignment 1.

Codes of Ethics, Code of Professional Conduct, and Professional Practice

As well as these frameworks as to how we manage our personal ethical decision-ma
king, the Australian Computer Society (ACS), of which you are a member, has an A
CS Code of Ethics, which forms part of the ACS National Regulations of the Socie
ty, as well as the ACS Code of Professional Conduct which delineates professiona
l practice for membership. When you became a member of ACS, you agreed to act pr
ofessionally in accordance with these codes. How can you make use of the ACS cod
es? An excellent way to understand their possible use is to look at examples of
their application. The ACS Code of Professional Conduct provides explanations o
f each clause.
In addition to the ACS Code of Ethics and the ACS Code of Conduct, many other pr
ofessional associations have codes covering similar issues. See, for example, En
gineers Australia or the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct (governing, f
or example, the Department of Communications). Often in our professional and pri
vate lives, we are bound to more than one, and in fact may identify with a serie
s of codes or regulations by which we make ethical decisions.

Stop & Think! Stop & Consider

Make a note of any other codes of ethical conduct or practice that you abide by.
You will likely find them at your current workplace, at a client's workplace, a
nd at the educational institution where you completed your undergraduate and gra
duate studies.
Take the time now to become familiar with a range of ethical codes and practices
that you are expected to abide by. In particular, it is recommended that you be
come familiar with the ACS Code of Professional Conduct and the ACS National Reg
ulations of the Society. After reading the literature, stop to consider the ways
in which you are expected to conduct yourself professionally because of your pr
ofessional affiliation as a member of the ACS.

Also take note of the privileges, protections, and networks such codes and pract
ices (that is, your membership) afford you. Your membership to a regulated profe
ssional body such as the ACS, not only affects the ways in which you are expecte
d to regulate your professional behaviour in the workplace, but also how you are
perceived and treated by others in your profession. This reciprocity is an impo
rtant aspect of codes of professional conduct and practice. You will be required
to demonstrate your understanding of the ACS Code of Professional Conduct in or
der to complete Assignment 1.

Trusted Engineer
Trustworthy professional ->> more important
Professionalism --> what delivers cost effective

!===============================================================================
===============
Introduction
This seminar is a comprehensive guide for your professional career on managing e
thics and the issues involved with that as you prepare to start your journey as
an ICT professional practitioner. The concepts in this week's seminar are closel
y tied to other important topics you will meet later on in the PE Course
such as
Risk Management, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and sustainability issu
es and are also vitally important for your first assignment which is due at the
end of week 4. You might like to read the assignment 1 brief now before you cont
inue with this seminar.
This subject assumes that a mark of a professional is a desire to behave as ethi
cally as possible at all times. Professionals need to deal with everyday events
and problems where conflicts of interest make the ethically correct decision ver
y difficult, or where the ethical content of the problem may not be immediately
apparent. In more extreme cases the ethically correct choice of action is usuall
y clear-cut through legislation or wide community standards. The opportunity to
examine these problems in theory should help you resolve them ethically when the
y occur in practice.
Case studies can also help you work out how to make ethical decisions. You will
look at some case studies as part of your work this week. Finally, at the end of
this seminar there are a number of additional readings which you may find usefu
l if you are trying to understand specific ethical issues.

Ethics and Professional Conduct professionalism

First we need to explore ethics in a structured way, as well as what it asks of
us personally and professionally. By way of introduction, view this YouTube by A
CS past-President Phillip Argy on the topic of the Australian Computer Society a
nd Professionalism. It may be worthwhile returning to this YouTube once you have

finished the week 3 seminar, as a way to consolidate the seminar's theme: intro
ducing ethics and professionalism.

What is Ethics?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/
Ethics has its origins in philosophy (and if you re interested in exploring this,
have a look at the 13 page introduction to Ethics in The Internet Encyclopedia o
f Philosophy), but at its simplest ethics refers to the systems of principles th
at affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. More specifically, eth
ics is the study of those standards of behavior that promote human welfare and th
e good . Ethics asks us to consider what is good for individuals and society, and we
engage in ethical thinking every time we ask ourselves what we should do
what w
ould be right to do and how we should behave in particular situations. To get so
me further understanding as to what ethics is all about, watch the YouTube expla
ining ethics from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara Universi
ty called What is Ethics? What is Business Ethics?
Note that Kirk Hanson, Director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, also
introduced the idea of business ethics, reminding us that ethical thinking is no
t something we just do in our private lives but is rather integral to our profes
sional lives as well.
Before, however, we turn to consider professional and business ethics in detail,
we need to consider some of the different kinds of ethical principles we might
use to help us decide what the right or ethical course of action is. For instanc
e, some of the most common ethical principles we might use to help us decide wha
t to do would include fairness and justice, respecting human rights, working to
achieve the best outcomes for everyone caught up in a situation, working to achi
eve the best results for humanity (perhaps even the planet) as a whole, or perha
ps simply striving to be an ethical person. Watch the YouTube from the Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University called Five Ways to Think Eth
ically for further clarification of these principles.

!==================================================================
Ethics, Professionalism, Governance and Legal Requirements
pic 1
Until recently, much of what was written about ethics in the ICT world talked ab
out the problems of a new industry which lacked the hundred or more years that p
rofessions such as law and medicine have had to develop their ethical codes. Man
y implied that ICT professionals operated in some kind of ethical vacuum. Those
holding this view supported it with sensational stories of the more colourful ex
amples of computer crime and computer abuse. Most of these acts were not only ob
viously unethical, but also criminal: theft, fraud, trespass or vandalism.
The past few years have seen a growing awareness of the ethical issues that conf
ront all business professionals and it is now recognised that there are very few
areas in ICT which raise genuinely novel ethical problems. Not only ICT profess
ionals, but all professionals, need to understand their ethical obligations.
However, there are some important points about ICT ethics:

How ICT professionals are employed

ICT professionals are more like engineers than doctors or lawyers. We are genera
lly employees, consultants or contractors who work in teams on projects for orga
nisations, not individuals providing services to another individual. Most of the
types of ethical dilemmas we face in our work have parallels in the accounting
and the engineering worlds, and are covered by general business ethics.
Security and privacy
We also have particular ethical dilemmas because we deal with information. Secur
ity and privacy pose particular ethical dilemmas. Again, these are not new, nor
unique to our profession. Maintaining confidentiality of records, particularly t
hose relating to individuals, has been an issue ever since people began to keep
records in any form. We need to recognise the need to protect and respect privac
y.
Access
In the past, privacy was sometimes enhanced simply by creating a physical barrie
r to access e.g. locking paper records in cabinets. The difference is that ICT h
as provided the capacity to keep much larger amounts of information and to manip
ulate and access it much more easily. We must to take responsibility for designi
ng systems which achieve the delicate balance between ease of authorised access
and prevention of unauthorised access.
Privacy
ICT professionals, to implement their roles, often have access to information wh
ich they normally, as an employee or member of the community, would not have. Di
sclosure of this information to co-professionals, other employees or individuals
in the wider community is normally unethical. (There are rare exceptions as req
uired by Australian or international law.)
Legislation has been introduced as ethical standards and business behaviour were
inadequate to provide the level of protection the community required, partly du
e to individual ethics.
Different people behave differently
ICT professionals, have a responsibility to recognise that some people behave un
ethically and/or illegally. We must, therefore, take all reasonable steps to pro
tect systems from theft, fraud, and trespass. We must protect the information he
ld in the systems from accidental or wilful destruction.
Intellectual Property
A key issue in ICT is the protection of intellectual property. This is an area w
ith new and unique problems, many of which have resulted from the rapid adoption
of the Internet. The ICT industry uses various existing legal mechanisms for pr
otecting intellectual property, including patents, trademarks and copyright. Non
e of these was designed to protect computer software, and all have flaws when ap
plied to such 'products'.
Some contend that computer abuse and computer crime are victimless. This is rare
ly the case. There are many examples of unethical behaviour which people would l
ike to justify with excuses like It doesn't do anyone any harm , or I'm sure such-an
d-such an organisation won't miss
(some small sum or item) , or Everyone else does
it . Examples range from minor theft (e.g. not paying your fare on public transport,
not telling a shop assistant who has undercharged you or given the wrong change
), to inconveniencing others (e.g. breaking parking rules), to more flagrant une
thical behaviour like creative accounting on income tax returns. Most of us tran
sgress occasionally; some people think it is smart to be unethical whenever you
can get away with it. However, most people are not confused about ethics. What v
aries is people's sense of justice and fair play. Most people behave as they wou
ld like others to behave, but others prefer to overlook the consequences of thei
r actions on others. Theft is still theft under the law, and there is legislatio
n covering many aspects of life.
This module is not about morals. If you are the kind of person who behaves uneth
ically, dishonestly or illegally when you think you can get away with it, then t
his subject probably is not going to change your views, except perhaps to make y

ou realise that such behaviour is also unprofessional.

=======================================================
Ethics
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and
recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually d
ivide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative e
thics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles
come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involv
e more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these
questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of
reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Norma
tive ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standard
s that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good
habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the conseque
nces of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining speci
fic controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environm
ental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.
By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in
applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues. The lines of distinct
ion between metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are often blurry. F
or example, the issue of abortion is an applied ethical topic since it involves
a specific type of controversial behavior. But it also depends on more general n
ormative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which
are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure. The issue also
rests on metaethical issues such as, "where do rights come from?" and "what kin
d of beings have rights?"
Table of Contents
Metaethics
Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism
Psychological Issues in Metaethics
Egoism and Altruism
Emotion and Reason
Male and Female Morality
Normative Ethics
Virtue Theories
Duty Theories
Consequentialist Theories
Types of Utilitarianism
Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
Applied Ethics
Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
Issues in Applied Ethics
References and Further Reading
1. Metaethics
The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethi

cs involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We ma

y define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts.
When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is
the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from mor
al semantics to moral epistemology. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metap
hysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (
2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judg
ments and conduct.
a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism
Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some
things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps o
ther things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The
metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether m
oral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply huma
n conventions. There are two general directions that discussions of this topic t
ake, one other-worldly and one this-worldly.
Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are object
ive in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human
conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they nev
er change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rationa
l creatures around the world and throughout time. The most dramatic example of t
his view is Plato, who was inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at
numbers and mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless con
cepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the universe. Humans do not inv
ent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the eternal character
of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a spiri
t-like realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are a
lso abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are s
piritual objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles to
gether under the heading of "eternal law" which were also frequently seen as spi
rit-like objects. 17th century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described them
as spirit-like relationships rather than spirit-like objects. In either case, th
ough, they exist in a spirit-like realm. A different other-worldly approach to t
he metaphysical status of morality is divine commands issuing from God's will. S
ometimes called voluntarism (or divine command theory), this view was inspired b
y the notion of an all-powerful God who is in control of everything. God simply
wills things, and they become reality. He wills the physical world into existenc
e, he wills human life into existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values
into existence. Proponents of this view, such as medieval philosopher William of
Ockham, believe that God wills moral principles, such as "murder is wrong," and
these exist in God's mind as commands. God informs humans of these commands by
implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in scripture.
The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality
follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by G
reek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral valu
es. Technically, skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denie
d that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of
God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that
has since been called moral relativism. There are two distinct forms of moral re
lativism. The first is individual relativism, which holds that individual people
create their own moral standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that
the superhuman creates his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the
slave-like value system of the masses. The second is cultural relativism which
maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one's society - and not s
imply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus
, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In

addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, this-worldly approaches to the

metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute and universal nature of moral
ity and hold instead that moral values in fact change from society to society th
roughout time and throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their
position by citing examples of values that differ dramatically from one culture
to another, such as attitudes about polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice.
b. Psychological Issues in Metaethics
A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgme
nts and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral. We mi
ght explore this subject by asking the simple question, "Why be moral?" Even if
I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this do
es not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them.
Some answers to the question "Why be moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain p
raise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society.
i. Egoism and Altruism
One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of huma
ns. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes held that many, if not all, o
f our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless,
such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as e
xperiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism an
d maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions.
Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism
which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our
actions. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler agreed that instinctive
selfishness and pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler argued that
we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others.
This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of o
ur actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence.
ii. Emotion and Reason
A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of reas
on in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement "abortion
is morally wrong," am I making a rational assessment or only expressing my feeli
ngs? On the one side of the dispute, 18th century British philosopher David Hume
argued that moral assessments involve our emotions, and not our reason. We can
amass all the reasons we want, but that alone will not constitute a moral assess
ment. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronounce
ment. Reason might be of service in giving us the relevant data, but, in Hume's
words, "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions." Inspired by Hume
's anti-rationalist views, some 20th century philosophers, most notably A.J. Aye
r, similarly denied that moral assessments are factual descriptions. For example
, although the statement "it is good to donate to charity" may on the surface lo
ok as though it is a factual description about charity, it is not. Instead, a mo
ral utterance like this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I am express
ing my personal feelings of approval about charitable donations and I am in esse
nce saying "Hooray for charity!" This is called the emotive element insofar as I
am expressing my emotions about some specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker)
am trying to get you to donate to charity and am essentially giving the command
, "Donate to charity!" This is called the prescriptive element in the sense that
I am prescribing some specific behavior.
From Hume's day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have opposed these
emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics) and instead argued th
at moral assessments are indeed acts of reason. 18th century German philosopher
Immanuel Kant is a case in point. Although emotional factors often do influence

our conduct, he argued, we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Instead
, true moral action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions an
d desires. A recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was prop
osed in direct opposition to the emotivist and prescriptivist theories of Ayer a
nd others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and argumentation process
that takes place when making moral choices. All of our moral choices are, or at
least can be, backed by some reason or justification. If I claim that it is wro
ng to steal someone's car, then I should be able to justify my claim with some k
ind of argument. For example, I could argue that stealing Smith's car is wrong s
ince this would upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief at ris
k of getting caught. According to Baier, then, proper moral decision making invo
lves giving the best reasons in support of one course of action versus another.
iii. Male and Female Morality
A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female
approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between me
n and women. Discussions of this issue focus on two claims: (1) traditional mora
lity is male-centered, and (2) there is a unique female perspective of the world
which can be shaped into a value theory. According to many feminist philosopher
s, traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices tha
t have been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging i
n business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules requir
ed for trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equall
y rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties. Women, by co
ntrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseei
ng domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous
and creative action. Using the woman's experience as a model for moral theory, t
hen, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be
appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part o
f the situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast w
ith male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his
required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A
care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by femin
ist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-mo
deled moral systems.
2. Normative Ethics
Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wr
ong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behav
ior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do
to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbo
r to steal my car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want
people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Us
ing this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible acti
on is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for m
e to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an e
xample of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which w
e judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational pri
nciples, or a set of good character traits.
The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criter
ion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three
strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) c
onsequentialist theories.
a. Virtue Theories
Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined

rules of conduct, such as "don't kill," or "don't steal." Presumably, I must lea
rn these rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virt
ue ethics, however, places less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses
the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (see
moral character). Once I've acquired benevolence, for example, I will then habi
tually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is one of the old
est normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Gree
k civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later ca
lled cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important
virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In
addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we s
hould avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensi
bility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since vi
rtuous character traits are developed in one's youth. Adults, therefore, are res
ponsible for instilling virtues in the young.
Aristotle argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate ou
r emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should de
velop the virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing danger. Analy
zing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean betw
een more extreme character traits. With courage, for example, if I do not have e
nough courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I hav
e too much courage I develop the disposition of rashness which is also a vice. A
ccording to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean between e
xtreme character traits. In fact, we need assistance from our reason to do this.
After Aristotle, medieval theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with
three Christian ones, or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest
in virtue theory continued through the middle ages and declined in the 19th cen
tury with the rise of alternative moral theories below. In the mid 20th century
virtue theory received special attention from philosophers who believed that mor
e recent ethical theories were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and a
ctions, rather than on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) def
ended the central role of virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are gr
ounded in and emerge from within social traditions.
b. Duty Theories
Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such a
s to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories base moralit
y on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometim
es called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the found
ational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called noncons
equentialist since these principles are obligatory, irrespective of the conseque
nces that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care fo
r our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savin
gs. There are four central duty theories.
The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf
, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God, duties to
oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our duties towards God, he argued tha
t there are two kinds:
a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and
a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God.
Concerning our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts:
duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents, and
duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through gl
uttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself.
Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute d

uties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which ar
e the result of contracts between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts:
avoid wronging others,
treat people as equals, and
promote the good of others.
Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of whi
ch is the duty is to keep one's promises.
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a "righ
t" is a justified claim against another person's behavior - such as my right to
not be harmed by you (see also human rights). Rights and duties are related in s
uch a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. Fo
r example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty t
o pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most in
fluential early account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philoso
pher John Locke, who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not h
arm anyone's life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natu
ral rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration o
f Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights
: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theor
ists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from these, including
the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression. There are fo
ur features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natura
l insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are u
niversal insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are
equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gend
er, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot ha
nd over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery.
A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle o
f duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to onesel
f and others, such as developing one's talents, and keeping our promises to othe
rs. However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty tha
t encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of r
eason that he calls the "categorical imperative." A categorical imperative, he a
rgued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on so
me personal desire that we have, for example, "If you want to get a good job, th
en you ought to go to college." By contrast, a categorical imperative simply man
dates an action, irrespective of one's personal desires, such as "You ought to d
o X." Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative, but one i
s especially direct: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. Tha
t is, we should always treat people with dignity, and never use them as mere ins
truments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions toward someon
e reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, i
s morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. B
y contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person
as a tool to achieve something else. It is wrong, for example, to steal my neigh
bor's car since I would be treating her as a means to my own happiness. The cate
gorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that affect us individ
ually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would be treating my life as
a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that the morality of all
actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty.
A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W.D. R
oss, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counter
parts, Ross argues that our duties are "part of the fundamental nature of the un
iverse." However, Ross's list of duties is much shorter, which he believes refle
cts our actual moral convictions:

Fidelity: the duty to keep promises

Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them
Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us
Justice: the duty to recognize merit
Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others
Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence
Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others
Ross recognizes that situations will arise when we must choose between two confl
icting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor's gun and prom
ise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pou
nds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On
the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other
hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus
not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of these d
uties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In this c
ase, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not return
the gun.
c. Consequentialist Theories
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the conseq
uences of our actions. According to consequentialism, correct moral conduct is d
etermined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences:
Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action
are more favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good
and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total g
ood consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences a
re greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are great
er, then the action is morally improper. Consequentialist theories are sometimes
called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end
result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who
wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rath
er than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In
fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publ
icly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are m
ore precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular, compet
ing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups of
people are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:
Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action ar
e more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.
Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action
are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action ar
e more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different g
roups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are
rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider the follow
ing example. A woman was traveling through a developing country when she witness
ed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked
the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the driver accel
erated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road the driver explained
that in his country if someone assists an accident victim, then the police often
hold the assisting person responsible for the accident itself. If the victim di
es, then the assisting person could be held responsible for the death. The drive

r continued explaining that road accident victims are therefore usually left una
ttended and often die from exposure to the country's harsh desert conditions. On
the principle of ethical egoism, the woman in this illustration would only be c
oncerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affec
ted. Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On th
e principle of ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequenc
es of her action as others are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tally
ing only those consequences reveals that assisting the victim would be the moral
ly correct choice, irrespective of the negative consequences that result for her
. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences for bot
h herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would ne
ed to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action.
i. Types of Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitar
ianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham proposed that w
e tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a ca
se by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Ben
tham's theory is known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed tha
t we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pl
easure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our
conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham's theory is known as hedonistic utilit
arianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects.
First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time
on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent
in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohi
biting leisure activities doesn't seem reasonable. More significantly, according
to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally per
missible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the disbenefit. A rev
ised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these proble
ms. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right
if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable t
o everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each par
ticular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality o
f moral rules, such as "stealing is wrong." Adopting a rule against theft clearl
y has more favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. Th
e same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism,
then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, suc
h as stealing my neighbor's car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral rule
against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopti
ng this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill's ve
rsion of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the
only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive
since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessaril
y pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are
valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moo
re proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that w
e intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful
). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying a
ny consequence that fulfills our preferences.
ii. Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory
We have seen (in Section 1.b.i) that Hobbes was an advocate of the methaethical
theory of psychological egoism the view that all of our actions are selfishly moti
vated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as social

contract theory, which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, f

or purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral
rules than one without moral rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to t
he whims of other people's selfish interests. Our property, our families, and ev
en our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore motivate ea
ch agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized communit
y. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, steal
ing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if
the rules are enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neigh
bors' property once their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk fro
m his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enfor
cing these rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate th
ese rules.
3. Applied Ethics
Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specifi
c, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In
recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups
such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, and sexual ethic
s. Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered
an "applied ethical issue." First, the issue needs to be controversial in the se
nse that there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue a
t hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical i
ssue, since everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast,
the issue of gun control would be an applied ethical issue since there are signi
ficant groups of people both for and against gun control.
The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it mu
st be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an
array of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the milit
ary, involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic versus social
istic business practices, public versus private health care systems, or energy c
onservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an importan
t impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues of soci
al policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given society run efficien
tly by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. M
oral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as
our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequent
ly, issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both s
ocially prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often dist
inct. For example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is immoral, b
ut may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct,
or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid res
idents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neig
hbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident havi
ng a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied eth
ical issue, the issue must be more than one of mere social policy: it must be mo
rally relevant as well.
In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the
issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consul
ting our normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given a
bortion produces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilita
rianism, it would be morally acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, the
re are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many
of which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics be
tween conflicting theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure fo
r determining the morality of a specific issue. The usual solution today to this
stalemate is to consult several representative normative principles on a given

issue and see where the weight of the evidence lies.

a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics
Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a chal
lenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as
a version of act-egoism that might focus only on an action's short-term benefit.
The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on both sides of an
applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duty to God ar
e not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in
the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in a
pplied ethical discussions:
Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial
consequences for the individual in question.
Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial co
nsequences for society.
Principle of benevolence: help those in need.
Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when th
ey cannot do so themselves.
Principle of harm: do not harm others.
Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.
Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.
Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person's freedom over his/her actions or ph
ysical body.
Principle of justice: acknowledge a person's right to due process, fair compensa
tion for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.
Rights: acknowledge a person's rights to life, information, privacy, free expres
sion, and safety.
The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles an
d are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first tw
o principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since th
ey appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or socie
ty. The remaining principles are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, pate
rnalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we have toward others
. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights are based on moral
rights.
An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied e
thical discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a b
aby with severe mental and physical disabilities. Among other complications, the
infant, known as Baby Doe, had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was
thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correct
able through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely disabled child
and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local cour
ts supported the parents' decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should cor
rective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of correcti
ve surgery derive from the infant's right to life and the principle of paternali
sm which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests of others when they
are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective surgery deri
ve from the personal and social disbenefit which would result from such surgery.
If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in any case
it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent's perspective
, Baby Doe's survival would have been a significant emotional and financial burd
en. When examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the courts concluded
that the arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery
. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, g
iven the poor quality of life it would endure. Second, the status of Baby Doe's
right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant's mental impairment
. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a human body: c

ertain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here involves what is
often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many applied ethical d
iscussions.
b. Issues in Applied Ethics
As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today, some
of which will be briefly mentioned here.
Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings.
Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life
and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues ar
e more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues a
rise about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses,
the status of unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about pat
ient rights and physician's responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the
patient's records and the physician's responsibility to tell the truth to dying
patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the specific issues of the mandatory scree
ning of all patients for AIDS, and whether physicians can refuse to treat AIDS p
atients. Additional issues concern medical experimentation on humans, the morali
ty of involuntary commitment, and the rights of the mentally disabled. Finally,
end of life issues arise about the morality of suicide, the justifiability of su
icide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia.
The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social
responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporat
e entities, deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job d
iscrimination, affirmative action, drug testing, and whistle blowing.
Issues in environmental ethics often overlaps with business and medical issues.
These include the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation, pre
serving endangered species, pollution control, management of environmental resou
rces, whether eco-systems are entitled to direct moral consideration, and our ob
ligation to future generations.
Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy, sexual
relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs.
Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment, n
uclear war, gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and raci
sm.
4. References and Further Reading
Anscombe,Elizabeth "Modern Moral Philosophy," Philosophy, 1958, Vol. 33, reprint
ed in her Ethics, Religion and Politics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981).
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, in Barnes, Jonathan, ed., The Complete Works of
Aristotle (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Ayer, A. J., Language, Truth and Logic (New York: Dover Publications, 1946).
Baier, Kurt, The Moral Point of View: A Rational Basis of Ethics (Cornell Univer
sity Press, 1958).
Bentham, Jeremy, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)
, in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, edited by John Bowring (London: 1838-1843).
Hare, R.M., Moral Thinking, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).
Hare, R.M., The Language of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952).
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed., E. Curley, (Chicago, IL: Hackett Publishing Comp
any, 1994).
Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), eds. David Fate Norton, Mar
y J. Norton (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Kant, Immanuel, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, tr, James W. Ellington

(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985).

Locke, John, Two Treatises, ed., Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1963).
MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue, second edition, (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Unive
rsity Press, 1984).
Mackie, John L., Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, (New York: Penguin Books, 19
77).
Mill, John Stuart, "Utilitarianism," in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed.
, J.M. Robson (London: Routledge and Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press,
1991).
Moore, G.E., Principia Ethica, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903).
Noddings, Nel, "Ethics from the Stand Point Of Women," in Deborah L. Rhode, ed.,
Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference (New Haven, CT: Yale University P
ress, 1990).
Ockham, William of, Fourth Book of the Sentences, tr. Lucan Freppert, The Basis
of Morality According to William Ockham (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1988)
.
Plato, Republic, 6:510-511, in Cooper, John M., ed., Plato: Complete Works (Indi
anapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997).
Samuel Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1762), tr. Of the Law of Nature an
d Nations
Samuel Pufendorf, De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem (1673), tr.,
The Whole Duty of Man according to the Law of Nature (London, 1691).
Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, trs. J. Annas and J. Barnes, Outlines
of Scepticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Stevenson, Charles L., The Ethics of Language, (New Haven: Yale University Press
, 1944).
Sumner, William Graham, Folkways (Boston: Guinn, 1906).
Author Information
James Fieser
Email: jfieser@utm.edu
University of Tennessee at Martin
U. S. A.
An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.
ABOUT
EDITORS
DESIRED ARTICLES
SUBMISSIONS
VOLUNTEER
PRINT
Printer-Friendly Version
STAY CONNECTED
BROWSE BY TOPIC
RECENT ARTICLES
Upanisads
Totalitarianism
Reid, Thomas : Philosophy of Mind
Demonstratives and Indexicals

1
Resolving an Ethical Dilemma
Thomas I. White, Ph.D. / twhite@lmumail.lmu.edu
This document is in PDF format and can be found at www.ethicsandbusiness.org
For more detail on this topic, go to page 3.
So you ve got an ethical dilemma on your hands. How do you figure out what to do?
Generally
speaking, there are two major approaches that philosophers use in handling ethic
al dilemmas. One approach
focuses on the practical consequences of what we do; the other concentrates on t
he actions themselves. The
first school of thought basically argues "no harm, no foul"; the second claims t
hat some actions are simply
wrong. Thinkers have debated the relative merits of these approaches for centuri
es, but for the purpose of
getting help with handling ethical dilemmas, think of them as complementary stra
tegies for analyzing and
resolving problems. Here' s a brief, three-step strategy that shows you how to c
ombine them.
(By the way, we re going to assume that if there are any laws involved, you plan t
o obey them. This isn t to
say that it s always morally wrong to break laws. But in ethical dilemmas that ari
se in business, the laws
generally establish at least a bare minimum for how you should act. Besides, if
a business regularly breaks
laws, it becomes an anti-social force in society. And no matter how much money s i
nvolved, at that point,
there s not a huge difference between a business and organized crime.)
Step 1: Analyze The Consequences
O.k., so you re going to stay on this side of the law. What next? It s probably easi
er to start by looking at the
consequences of the actions you re considering. Assume you have a variety of optio
ns. Consider the range of
both positive and negative consequences connected with each one.
Who will be helped by what you do?
Who will be hurt?
What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? After all, some "goods" in
life (like health) are
more valuable than others (like a new VCR). A small amount of "high quality" goo
d can outweigh a
larger amount of "lower quality" good. By the same token, a small amount of "hig
h quality" harm (the
pain you produce if you betray someone s trust on a very important matter) can out
weigh a larger
amount of "lower quality" pain (the disappointment connected with waiting anothe
r few months for
a promotion).
How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run. And if you r
e tempted to give
short shrift to the long run, just remember that you re living with a lot of longterm negative
consequences (like air and water pollution and the cost of the S&L bailout) that
people before you
thought weren t important enough to worry about.
After looking at all of your options, which one produces the best mix of benefit
s over harms?
Step 2: Analyze The Actions
Now consider all of your options from a completely different perspective. Don t th
ink about the
consequences. Concentrate instead strictly on the actions. How do they measure u

p against moral principles

like honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the dignity of others, respecting p
eople' s rights, and recognizing
the vulnerability of individuals weaker or less fortunate than others? Do any of
the actions that you're
considering "cross the line," in terms of anything from simple decency to an imp
ortant ethical principle? If
there' s a conflict between principles or between the rights of different people
involved, is there a way to see
one principle as more important than the others? What you're looking for is the
option whose actions are
least problematic.
2
Step 3: Make A Decision
And now, take both parts of your analysis into account and make a decision.
This strategy should give you at least some basic steps you can follow.
Read more about Philosophical Ethics in the next section.
3
Philosophical Ethics
Adapted from Thomas White, "Ethics," Chapter 1, Business Ethics: A Philosophical
Reader (New York:
Macmillan Publishing, 1993)
twhite@lmumail.lmu.edu
This document is in PDF format and can be found at www.ethicsandbusiness.org
Outline
1. Philosophical ethics
2. Teleological (results oriented) ethics
a. Jeremy Bentham: quantifying pleasure
b. John Stuart Mill: types of pleasure
3. Deontological (act oriented) ethics
a. Immanuel Kant: a universal moral law
4. Evaluating the moral character of actions
1. Philosophical ethics
Ethics is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature of moral virtue and
evaluates human
actions. Philosophical ethics differs from legal, religious, cultural and person
al approaches to ethics by
seeking to conduct the study of morality through a rational, secular outlook tha
t is grounded in notions of
human happiness or well-being. A major advantage of a philosophical approach to
ethics is that it avoids the
authoritarian basis of law and religion as well as the subjectivity, arbitrarine
ss and irrationality that may
characterize cultural or totally personal moral views. (Although some thinkers d
ifferentiate between "ethics,"
"morals," "ethical" and "moral," this discussion will use them synonymously.)
Generally speaking, there are two traditions in modern philosophical ethics rega
rding how to
determine the ethical character of actions. One argues that actions have no intr
insic ethical character but
acquire their moral status from the consequences that flow from them. The other
tradition claims that actions
are inherently right or wrong, e.g, lying, cheating, stealing. The former is cal
led a teleological approach to
ethics, the latter, deontological.
2. Teleological (results oriented) ethics
A teleological outlook is particularly appealing because it takes a pragmatic, c
ommon-sense, even
unphilosophical approach to ethics. Simply put, teleological thinkers claim that
the moral character of

actions depends on the simple, practical matter of the extent to which actions a
ctually help or hurt people.
Actions that produce more benefits than harm are "right"; those that don't are "
wrong." This outlook is best
represented by Utilitarianism, a school of thought originated by the British thi
nker Jeremy Bentham (17481832) and refined by John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
a. Jeremy Bentham: quantifying pleasure
Strongly influenced by the empiricism of David Hume, Jeremy Bentham aimed at dev
eloping a
"moral science" that was more rational, objective and quantitative than other wa
ys of separating right from
wrong. Bentham particularly argued against the ascetic religious traditions of e
ighteenth-century England
that held up suffering and sacrifice as models of virtue.
Bentham begins with what he takes as the self-evident observations that 1) pleas
ure and pain govern
our lives, and 2) the former makes life happier, while the latter makes it worse
. These two concepts anchor
Bentham' s ethical outlook. "Nature has placed mankind," he writes in his Introd
uction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation, "under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them
alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do
. On the one hand the
standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are f
astened to their throne."
From this insight about pleasure and pain, Bentham develops as his ethical touch
stone the notion of
"utility": "that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, ad
vantage, pleasure, good or
happiness, (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes
again to the same thing) to
4
prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose
interest is considered: if
that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community: if
a particular individual, then
the happiness of that individual." Utilitarianism therefore contends that someth
ing is morally good to the
extent that it produces a greater balance of pleasure over pain for the largest
number of people involved, or,
as it is popularly described, "the greatest good of the greatest number." Pleasu
re is Bentham' s ultimate
standard of morality because "the greatest happiness of all those whose interest
is in question . . . [is] the
right and proper, and only right and proper and universally desirable, end of hu
man action."
Aiming to make ethics practical, Bentham even proposed a system for measuring th
e amount of
pleasure and pain that an action produces. Called the hedonistic calculus, Benth
am' s system identifies seven
aspects of an action' s consequence that can be used to compare the results of d
ifferent deeds: the intrinsic
strength of the pleasurable or painful feelings produced (intensity), how long t
hey last (duration), how likely
it is that these sensations will be produced by a given action (certainty or unc
ertainty), how soon they will be
felt (propinquity or remoteness), whether these feelings will lead to future ple
asures (fecundity) or pains

(purity), and the number of people affected (extent).

The great advantage of the hedonistic calculus is that it provides a method for
talking about ethics
that is open, public, objective and fair. The benefits and harms produced by act
ions can be identified and
measured. Furthermore, while everyone' s happiness counts, no one' s happiness c
ounts for more than
another' s. Utilitarianism is in many ways very democratic.
For example, Bentham' s system readily shows why it is wrong to steal money from
people at knifepoint.
The theft will surely make the robber happy. But this pleasure is short-lived, l
asting only until the
money from each robbery runs out; the thief must also live with the worry of bei
ng caught. Moreover, the
robber' s happiness is outweighed by the victims' unhappiness. The negative feel
ings of the thief' s targets
will be intense and, very possibly, long-term. Furthermore, more people experien
ce pain from the thefts than
feel any pleasure. Bentham would therefore see such theft as clearly wrong, prod
ucing a greater balance of
unhappiness over happiness among all those involved in the situation.
Notice that this discussion makes no appeal to "rights," a difficult moral theor
y, personal attitudes,
or religious teachings. One need not be a lawyer, philosopher, person of good co
nscience or religious believer
in order to uncover the moral status of actions. All that is required for determ
ining whether or not an action
is morally defensible is careful, thorough and fair examination of whom the acti
on helps or hurts and in what
ways.
Bentham' s version of utilitarianism contains major flaws, however. This is evid
ent as soon as we
change some of the details of the above scenario, because the scales of the hedo
nistic calculus would tip the
other way. Imagine that the thief is a "Robin Hood" like character who steals on
ly exotic cars of rich people
and uses his gains to feed many desperately hungry people. He neither threatens
nor physically injures
anyone, and his victims are reimbursed by insurance companies who spread the cos
t out over all
policyholders. It' s hard to see how Bentham' s system would label the robberies
"wrong." As long as the thief
is appropriately altruistic with his bounty, his actions seem to produce more pl
easure than pain.
5
b. John Stuart Mill: types of pleasure
John Stuart Mill, Bentham' s godson and intellectual heir, was sensitive to the
fact that utilitarianism
appeared to defend actions that most people felt intuitively were wrong, such as
lying and stealing.
Accordingly, Mill revised utilitarianism, adding the idea that pleasures and pai
ns could be classified
according to quality as well as by amount. He also stressed the far-reaching eff
ects of wrongdoing more
explicitly than Bentham did.
Mill' s version of utilitarianism rejects one of Bentham' s fundamental premises
--that all pleasures are
equal. Bentham is disturbingly plain about this. He writes,
Let a man' s motive be ill-will, call it even malice, envy, cruelty; it is still
a kind of

pleasure that is his motive: the pleasure he takes at the thought of the pain wh
ich
he sees, or expects to see, his adversary undergo. Now even this wretched pleasu
re,
taken by itself, is good: it may be faint; it may be short: it must at any rate
be
impure: yet while it lasts, and before any bad consequences arrive, it is good a
s any
other that is not more intense.
Mill contends in his essay Utilitarianism, however, that
It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that
some
kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be
absurd that, while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as wel
l as
quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity
alone.
Accordingly, Mill opens the door for distinguishing what we might call "high qua
lity" versus "low
quality" pleasures and pains. Pleasures which Mill regards as intrinsically supe
rior include those associated
with intelligence, education, sensitivity to others, a sense of morality and phy
sical health. Inferior pleasures
include those arising from sensual indulgence, indolence, selfishness, stupidity
and ignorance.
A small amount of high quality pleasure could, then, outweigh a larger amount of
low quality pleasure.
Similarly, a small amount of high quality pleasure that is accompanied by substa
ntial amounts of
unhappiness would count as more pleasure than a greater amount of purer, but low
er quality pleasure. When
confronted with the issue of who determines the qualities of pleasures and pains
, Mill replies: those with
experience. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion,
it is because they only know their
own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."
Mill also takes pains to examine the far-reaching consequences of actions. Conce
rned that utilitarianism
might seem to defend lying, for example, Mill argues that the wide-ranging, soci
al harm that it does far
outweighs the good experienced by its beneficiaries. "Thus it would often be exp
edient," writes Mill,
for the purpose of getting over some momentary embarrassment, or attaining some
object immediately useful to ourselves or others, to tell a lie. But inasmuch as
the
cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity is on
e of the
most useful, and the enfeeblement of that feeling one of the most hurtful, thing
s to
which our conduct can be instrumental; and inasmuch as any, even unintentional,
deviation from truth does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of
human assertion, which is not only the principal support of all present social w
ellbeing,
but the insufficiency of which does more than any one thing that can be
named to keep back civilization, virtue, everything on which human happiness on
the largest scale depends--we feel that the violation, for a present advantage,
of a
rule of such transcendent expediency is not expedient, and that he who, for the

sake of convenience to himself or to some other individual, does what depends on

him to deprive mankind of the good, and inflict upon them the evil, involved in
the
greater or less reliance which they can place in each other' s word, acts the pa
rt of
one of their worst enemies.
Mill' s revisions of utilitarianism would probably take care of the most obvious
weaknesses of
Bentham' s ideas. Mill would probably object to our "Robin Hood" scenario, then,
by positing eventual harm
to the thief and to society. The thief could become desensitized to the point th
at he might be less
discriminating about the financial status of his victims, more tolerant of a les
s altruistic brand of thievery,
more willing to resort to threats and violence, and so certain of the superiorit
y of his personal moral compass
6
that he becomes dangerously self-righteous. Word of his exploits could lead to h
is being imitated by others in
a way that impedes the broad social benefits that flow from respecting rights of
ownership.
Yet even Mill' s brand of utilitarianism cannot avoid certain difficulties. Firs
t, some questions arise
about the mechanism of distinguishing types of pleasures. Mill' s reliance on pe
rsonal experience initially
seems sensible. You would hardly ask someone who knew nothing about sound equipm
ent to help you pick
out a new audio system. In each case, you trust that these people know that the
pleasure you will get from
the stereo will outweigh the immediate pain of the high price you're paying. Why
shouldn't it be the same
with ethics? How could someone who had lived a life of cruel and selfish treatme
nt of others be expected to
understand the pleasures that come from being a good and decent person? How coul
d someone who had
always been scrupulously honest know the full range of negative consequences tha
t come from lying? Yet
recognizing only certain, "experienced" people as qualified to make moral judgme
nts could jeopardize the
fair, open, impartial and objective method of assessing consequences that a tele
ological outlook seeks. Many
groups throughout human history have used claims of special moral insight to sel
fish and unscrupulous
ends, defending the superiority of a certain class, race, religion or gender. Su
bjective decisions are not
necessarily arbitrary, but the danger remains that they could be.
The central weakness of Mill' s approach to ethics, however, is that as long as
an action or policy
produces enough high quality pleasure, any action is theoretically defensible. I
magine, for example, that
benevolent slavery of only 1% of the world' s population for the next century co
uld somehow lead to
permanent peace, the end of poverty and hunger, and the discovery of cures for a
ll major diseases. Our
slaves would be the subjects of a crash program of social, political and medical
experiments sponsored by the
United Nations and involving the brightest people from all countries. The aim is
to solve the planet' s worst
problems once and for all. Imagine, further, that once these solutions are found
, they are offered free to all

countries. It is hard to imagine that the pain and suffering of the slaves would
be greater than the centuries of
benefits that would be enjoyed by billions of humans to come.
Nonetheless, this flaw should not overshadow the genuine advantages of a teleolo
gical approach to
ethics. For the most part, it makes great common-sense to link the ethical chara
cter of actions or policies to
their practical outcome. Bentham' s attempt to scrupulously catalog the conseque
nces of actions points out
the numerous ways that pleasures and pains can differ. It also imposes an object
ivity and impartiality on
ethical analysis that protects against prejudice, stupidity or self-interest mas
querading as moral wisdom.
Mill' s revisions of Bentham' s ideas enjoy these same virtues, and Mill' s disc
ussion of types or kinds of
pleasure and pain provides us with yet another important way to identify the con
sequences of actions.
The difficulty of employing a teleological approach should not be underestimated
, however. As
Mill' s ideas imply, a full account of an action' s results means not only caref
ul analysis of the immediate
consequences to all involved and astute discernment of the quality and comparati
ve value of the sensations
experienced, but an uncovering of the subtle, indirect, far-reaching and long-te
rm results as well. An accurate
teleological analysis requires great patience, impressive powers of observation
and a keen understanding of
how people actually respond to various experiences.
3. Deontological (act oriented) ethics
The second major tradition in philosophical ethics is a deontological approach.
This outlook is based
on the idea that teleological thinkers flatly deny--that actions have intrinsic
moral value. Some actions are
considered inherently good (truth-telling, keeping promises, respecting the righ
ts of others); others are bad
(dishonesty, coercion, theft, manipulation). No matter how much good comes from
lying, argues a
deontological thinker, the action will never be right.
a. Immanuel Kant: a universal moral law
Philosophy' s most representative deontological thinker is Immanuel Kant (1724-1
804). Kant believed
that he had discovered the fundamental moral law that would determine the ethica
l character of an action
without regard to its consequences. Kant called his moral law the categorical im
perative--a command that
holds no matter what the circumstances. He believed further that the validity of
this ethical principle
stemmed from reason itself and from our nature as free, rational moral agents wi
th inherent value.
Even more so than we saw above with Aristotle, Kant assesses the moral character
of actions by focusing on
the internal, particularly the rational aspect of human conduct. Kant sees the v
alidity of his ethics as being so
steeped in reason that commentators have noted that his Foundations of the Metap
hysics of Morals could
7
have been called Ethics Based on Reason. Kant notes that the basis of moral obli
gation "must not be sought in
the nature of man or in the circumstances in which he is placed, but sought a pr
iori solely in the concepts of

pure reason."
For an action to be good, Kant believes that it must not simply conform to a mor
al law, but be done
for the sake of a moral law. Indeed, Kant claims that the only thing inherently
good is a good will, that is, one
that follows reason' s guidance and acts from a sense of duty. A good will choos
es what it does simply and
purely because it is the right thing to do, not because it is inclined to do som
e deed nor because it has
positive consequences. Moreover, Kant claims that reason dictates that the princ
iple according to which one
is willing, what Kant terms an action' s "maxim," should be able to be a univers
al law. As Kant expresses it in
his first formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that
maxim by which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law of nature."
Kant' s initial formulation of the categorical imperative reflects the belief th
at since ethics is
essentially a rational enterprise, ethical principles should have the same chara
cter as such rational activities
as logic and mathematics. For example, they should be internally consistent and
universally valid. Kant
argues that if one can will the maxim of one' s action as a universal law, the p
rinciple on which one' s deed is
based meets these requirements and thereby conforms to a sense of duty. Maxims w
hich fail this test are, by
contrast, self-defeating and contradictory. Kant illustrates this with the examp
le of a false promise. He writes,
[A] man finds himself forced by need to borrow money. He well knows that he will
not be able to repay it, but he also sees that nothing will be loaned him if he
does
not firmly promise to repay it at a certain time. He desires to make such a prom
ise,
but he has enough conscience to ask himself whether it is not improper and
opposed to duty to relieve his distress in such a way. Now, assuming he does dec
ide
to do so, the maxim of his action would be as follows: When I believe myself to
be
in need of money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know I
shall never do so. Now this principle of self-love or of his own benefit may ver
y well
be compatible with his whole future welfare, but the question is whether it is r
ight.
He changes the pretension of self-love into a universal law and then puts the
question: How would it be if my maxim became a universal law? He immediately
sees that it could never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent wit
h
itself; rather it must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of a
law which
says that anyone who believes himself to be in need could promise what he please
d
with the intention of not fulfilling it would make the promise itself and the en
d to
be accomplished by it impossible; no one would believe what was promised to him
but would only laugh at any such assertion as vain pretense.
The false promise, then, is morally wrong because the maxim on which it is based
is internally
inconsistent. Universalizing it destroys the very concept of a promise which it
aims to use. Such a principle
of volition is illogical. The behavior of anyone who follows such a principle is

morally flawed because it is

literally irrational.
Kant' s initial account of the moral law focuses on our rational nature, but lat
er in the Foundations he
defines the categorical imperative in terms of human dignity and freedom. He wri
tes: "Act in such a way that
you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, al
ways at the same time as an
end and never simply as a means." Kant believes that we have a dignity that must
be respected in our
dealings with each other. Treating people as "ends" requires seeing them as auto
nomous beings who are
entitled to control their own fate and not to be deceived or manipulated. Action
s which are consistent with
the dignity and autonomy of moral agents are intrinsically good. Treating people
simply as a "means,"
however, is to regard them as something that we use for our own purposes without
their full and free
consent. Such actions are thus inherently wrong.
Kant returns to the issue of the false promise to illustrate this idea:
[A] man in need finds himself forced to borrow money. He knows well that he
won't be able to repay it, but he sees also that he will not get any loan unless
he
firmly promises to repay it within a fixed time. He wants to make such a promise
,
but he still has conscience enough to ask himself whether it is not permissible
and
is contrary to duty to get out of difficulty in this way. . .. [He] will immedia
tely see
that he intends to make use of another man merely as a means to an end which the
latter does not likewise hold. For the man whom I want to use for my own purpose
s
8
by such a promise cannot possibly concur with my way of action toward him and
hence cannot himself hold the end of this action.
The person who was deceived by the false promise was tricked into doing somethin
g that he or she
would not have consented to had all the facts been known. Even if the debt is ul
timately paid, it does not
change the fact that one person imposed his will on another and treated him simp
ly as a means to an end.
Moral agents, for Kant, are free and autonomous. Being used against our will sim
ply as a means to someone
else' s end violates this freedom.
Kant' s discussions of the categorical imperative reveal the heart of a deontolo
gical outlook, but the details of
his philosophy are complex. A less technical way of describing a deontological a
pproach, however, might be
to say that the ultimate ethical standard is whether an action fits with, is con
sistent with or is appropriate to
the fact that it is done to or performed by a being of a special sort--one that
is rational and free. Indeed, this is
the basic premise of claims that humans have rights. To say that we have basic h
uman rights is to claim that
we are entitled to treatment of a certain sort simply because of the very fabric
of our being. That is why these
rights are sometimes spoken of as "inalienable." They reflect characteristic and
defining features of our
nature. Legal rights are created and bestowed by governments, but fundamental mo
ral rights inhere in our

nature and are simply recognized, not granted by countries. A deontological appr
oach to ethics, then, sees
rights to fairness, equality, justice, honesty, and the respect of our dignity a
s rooted in the fundamental
characteristics that define our nature.
Like a teleological approach to ethics, a deontological outlook has much to comm
end it. Analyzing
an ethical dilemma takes on a much narrower focus than when approached teleologi
cally. The only question
is: Which actions are inherently good? Instead of engaging in complex projection
s of the primary and
secondary consequences of some act, we focus simply on the deed itself. Does it
respect the basic human
rights of everyone involved? Does it avoid deception, coercion and manipulation?
Does it treat people equally
and fairly?
The primary difficulty with this approach, however, is its inflexibility. If lyi
ng is intrinsically wrong,
there is no way to justify it even when it produces more good than harm. If we l
ie or steal in order to help
someone, for example, a deontological approach still condemns it. And this total
lack of compromise makes a
deontological standard a difficult one to live by.
4. Evaluating the moral character of actions
Between teleological and deontological approaches to ethics, then, we see the ba
sic elements that can
be used in determining the ethical character of actions. One school of thought p
oints to the results, the other
to the actions themselves. So between them they reveal a wide array of internal
and external factors of
human action that have moral consequence. While these two outlooks conflict in t
heory, they complement
one another in practice. In the pragmatic challenge of identifying and resolving
ethical dilemmas, then,
neither should be ignored; each acts as a check on the limitations of the other.

DONATEMEMBERSHIPSUBSCRIBE ETHI-CALL 1800 672 303

OUR EVENTS
ON ETHICS
ETHICS HELPLINE
CORPORATE SERVICES
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
COUNSELLING SERVICE
Ethics Helpline
ETHI-CALL 1800 672 303
one that doesn t seem to have a righ
If you're facing a dilemma at home or at work
t or wrong answer there s someone you can talk to. Our trained ethi-call counsello
rs help you explore your dilemma, supporting you to reach a solution that fits w
ithin your circumstances, principles and values.
Our confidential ethi-call service is free, open Monday to Friday 9am-5pm by app

ointment
with sessions lasting up to one hour. The Ethics Centre has no religiou
s or political affiliations, so we offer a truly open and independent space for
you to explore your predicament. Benefits of the service include:
guidance to work through your dilemma from an ethical perspective
assistance in untangling the knot that is causing concern or distress
a reflective space to clarify your thoughts
identification of options and ways forward
help in building the courage to implement your chosen course of action
Freecall 1800 672 303 to make an appointment.
WHO CALLS ETHI-CALL?
ethi-call is open to anyone facing an ethical problem
work-related or personal.
Ethical issues and challenges can arise in business, government and not-for-prof
it organisations, complex relationships inherent in families and social situatio
ns or personal dilemmas of choice. No matter is too big or too small to discuss.
WHAT HAPPENS?
ethi-call can help to walk you through the ethical dimensions involved in your s
ituation. Our counsellors don t give advice or tell you what is the ethical thing to
do. Instead they provide a space for you to explore your situation so you can m
ake the best decision in line with your own values and principles.
OUR COUNSELLORS
ethi-call counsellors are a group of caring, highly-trained professionals who ge
nerously volunteer their time to the Ethics Centre. They have completed the Ethi
cs Centre's rigorous ethics training program which builds on and utilises the we
alth of life and work experience gained during their broad careers. Each counsel
lor participates in ongoing skills development.
HYPOTHETICAL CALLS
The following scenarios offer an insight into the types of callers using ethi-ca
ll and the possible dilemmas they face.
1. A TROUBLED ENGINEER - SHOULD YOU BETRAY THE CONFIDENCE OF YOUR MANAGER OR SHO
W LOYALTY TO A COLLEAGUE?
You are employed in an engineering firm and are part of a team working on a tend
er for a major infrastructure project. The firm has been experiencing some finan
cial vulnerability and securing this project is vital to the firm s future success
. The tender deadline is three weeks away and your team is working long hours to
get the work completed.
Your boss has called you in to let you know that, even if the tender is successf
ul, a restructure of the firm will be necessary. To avoid disruption until after
your team s job is completed, this information is given to you in strict confiden
ce. You suspect, from this conversation, that one of your colleagues will lose h
is job in the restructure. You and this colleague
a good friend
have been with t
he firm for ten years. Your friend has told you that he has just been offered an
excellent position in a rival company. Having thought long and hard about accep
ting the offer, he has decided against it because he doesn t want to let down the
team and the firm at this important time.
This friend is a crucial member of the team preparing the tender there is no one
else in the firm with the knowledge and skills to complete the job within the t
ight timeframe. He will never know that you had the information about the restru
cture, and you don t know with absolute certainty that his position is in danger.
What ought you do in this difficult situation? You certainly don t want to see you
r friend pass up this opportunity only to lose his current job in a month s time.
Your loyalty to your friend urges you to alert him to the possibility that his c
urrent job is in danger.
But you know how important he is to the team in the next few weeks, and how impo

rtant it is that the firm wins this tender. You received this information in str
ictest confidence, and your loyalty to your employer seems to demand that you re
spect this confidence.
2. A NIGHT OUT - WHERE DO YOUR LOYALTIES LIE?
You are out at a night club when you see the wife of a close friend dancing with
a man you don t recognise. As the evening progresses you realise that the wife se
ems very keen on the man and this concerns you. The wife sees you across the roo
m and is alarmed.
The next day she calls and asks you not to say anything to her husband. She expl
ains that things have been very difficult at home lately as her husband is not h
appy in his job, but can t change jobs because they need his salary for the mortga
ge. He also seems quite depressed. She says that her husband knows she goes out
dancing and she promises that she won t see the man again and that nothing has hap
pened. You are not so sure.
You are due to go sailing with the husband next weekend and wonder whether you n
eed to say anything. You have known your friend for over 20 years and known them
as a couple for 15. You like them both and you socialise with them quite regula
rly. However you are not sure whether you believe what the wife has told you.
Where do your loyalties lie? The friendship with the husband is important to you
does your loyalty to this friendship require you to tell him what you saw? You
don t want to cause him further distress. You also think about how you would feel
if you were in the husband s position
would you want to know?
3. TEAM REWARDS AND BEER O'CLOCK - CAN YOU REWARD THE TEAM WHILST CONSIDERING TH
E SPECIAL NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS?
You manage a small team of eight in a large company and your team has just won a
n award for the best performing team for the past 6 months. The team also won th
is award twice last year. The prize is lunch at a nice bistro followed by the tra
dition of kicking on to some nearby bars.
You are aware that Meg, one of the team members, has faced a problem with alcoho
l earlier in the year, which had been affecting her work and personal life. Meg
has told you that she is getting treatment and things seem to be progressing wel
l, but you have noticed that she has not been coming for a drink after work late
ly. As far as you know, none of her colleagues are aware of Meg s situation.
Other staff have told you how much they are looking forward to the get-together,
but you are concerned that Meg may not wish to come. Meg is a key member of the
team and her work has contributed largely to the team s success. Should you consi
der some other form of reward outing one that Meg will feel more comfortable abo
ut? But what about the other team members feel? What ought you to do?
4. A LOYAL PLAYER - SHOULD YOU REMAIN LOYAL TO YOUR FELLOW PLAYERS OR MAKE A STA
ND FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR SPORT?
You are a member of an NRL team. You have loved rugby league all your life. As a
boy you looked up to the heroes of the game
especially those you saw as fine ex
amples of sportsmanship and fair play, as well as supreme sporting ability. You
are confident these players competed not just according to the rules but in the
right spirit of the game. This, as much as their courage and skill, has made the
m role models.
For a while you have been aware of breaches of the Anti-doping Code at your club
. This knowledge has made you very uncomfortable.
When you have raised your concerns with team management, the response has been t
hat the line between what is allowed and what is prohibited is completely arbitr

ary and that other clubs are doing the same. If your club was to stick to the le
tter of the Code then the players may as well pack up and go home . Everyone associ
ated with the club players, support staff, fans and sponsors
want a team that wi
ns matches.
Now an ASADA investigation is underway, and you are dismayed, but not surprised,
that the overwhelming response of the team is defensive to close ranks in the c
ause of loyalty to the team. No one wants to cooperate with the investigation.
You look on at what is happening in your team with a heavy heart. You love the e
xperience of being part of the team, the closeness you feel to the other players
, the experience of shared striving, achievement and celebration in success. But
because of your love for the game, you see the ASADA investigation as an opport
unity to return the game to the rugby league you have always loved
a clean compe
tition where the way the game is played is just as important as winning.
What does loyalty demand of you now? Should you be loyal to your teammates and joi
n them in thwarting the investigation? Or does true loyalty demand that you tell
the truth in the long term interests of the sport you love, in the hope that th
e competition can be cleaned up for the future?
5. FAMILY MATTERS: ETHICS AND ESTATE PLANNING - SHOULD YOU AMEND YOUR WILL TO BE
TTER ACCOMMODATE THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF YOUR CHILDREN OR MAINTAIN AN EQUAL DISTR
IBUTION?
You and your partner are enjoying your retirement and are both fit and healthy.
However you are also aware of the importance of having your affairs in order and a
re in the process of reviewing your will. You have a daughter and a son, both in
their late thirties. Your daughter was always a good student and studied hard.
She went to university, got a good professional job and is married with two youn
g children of her own. Her husband has a reasonably senior executive position an
d they are in a relatively comfortable financial position.
Your son, however, was not a natural student at school. Whilst his teachers alwa
ys commented that he was quite bright, he found it difficult to apply himself an
d his marks never seemed to reflect his true capability. When he left school he
spent a number of years backpacking and travelled around the world on a working
holiday. He worked for extended periods in a couple of countries, including Cana
da and the USA. During that period he even had some promising career opportuniti
es but they didn t work out because he couldn t get the required employer sponsorshi
ps or working visas. When he returned to Australia he was still unsure of what h
e wanted to do in the longer term. In the meantime, he was offered a job with a
school friend doing gardening and landscaping work. More than ten years later, h
e is still working in this area. Your son works very hard and is good at what he
does but it is not very financially rewarding and his income can be unreliable.
He is also married and has two children, but his relationship broke down and he
is now divorced. While his ex-wife is still involved in the children s care, you
know that she also has a relatively low paid job and that money is a real issue
for them.
You play an active role as grandparents and love all your grandchildren dearly.
It does concern you that your son s children may be missing out on educational and
other opportunities due to a lack of money. As you consider what to do with you
r will, as parents, do you stick strictly to an even 50 per cent split of your a
ssets, or do you allocate a larger share to your son?
Ethi-call is accessible by appointment on Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm via f
reecall 1800 672 303
GET INVOLVED
DONATE
BECOME A MEMBER
TACKLE A DILEMMA

USED ETHI-CALL? PLEASE TAKE OUR USER SURVEY.

HOME / ETHICS HELPLINE
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

GET INVOLVED
DONATE BECOME
A MEMBER TACKLE
A DILEMMA
FOLLOW US ON
COPYRIGHT 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDLEGAL AND PRIVACY POLICY | SITE MAP | MADE WI
TH DEVOTION | CONTACT US
Responsibility for Your Career
One final aspect we need to consider about an ICT professional's behaviour is to
take responsibility for managing your own career. You have commenced this by st
arting to learn how to evaluate your general business and your ICT skills in Wee
ks 1 and 2. In the last four weeks of the course you will explore these further.
There are a number of points you should consider with regard to developing resp
onsibility for your career
being an active member of a professional body such as
the ACS is one, here are some others:

Professional Presentation
IT Crowd1
How you present yourself to, and are perceived by others is vital to the topic o
f ethics, professionalism and governance. The following YouTube on What Defines
Professionalism briefly sets out the importance of how others perceive you in th
e workplace
whether by deign or default
and it reminds us that presenting oursel
ves as ethical and responsible professionals is largely our responsibility. That
is to say, it should not just be assumed or taken for granted that we are profe
ssional but rather this is an aspect of our professional career that should be c
ontinuously worked at and refined.
Just as we should be conscious of our professional presence, this YouTube Profes
sional Presence in the Workplace focuses on demonstrating your professionalism i
n small but effective ways, using the example of professional presence and activ
ity in a workplace meeting.

Mobile Technology and Ethics

mobile tech and ethics
As technology enables people to work anytime, anywhere, how should companies man
age employees working at home, and what ethical and professional issues does wor
king at home raise? For example, how do companies manage or track the workloads
of people working at home?
Another point mobile technologies raise for people working away from traditional
offices is whether people are keeping in touch with their co-workers (in terms
of productivity, team-building, and shared practices). Perhaps more importantly
in terms of conflicts of interest: will people working away from traditional off
ices (at home, commuting, etc) understand the ethical values and the ethical pol
icies of the organisation? Hence, it is worth considering how you comport yourse
lf when engaging with your workload and your profession outside of traditional w

ork-spaces.

Codes that Regulate Conduct and Professionalism

It is worth returning to the topic of codes that regulate professional conduct,
given that these codes offer guidance in a range of professional practices, incl
uding ethics, sustainable business practices and professionalism for our industr
y. This YouTube by the Direct Sellers Association (DSA, US) titled The DSA Code
of Ethics succinctly demonstrates the importance of returning to the codes of co
nduct that regulate professionalism for the professional, the company and import
antly for clients. Please take note of the way the speakers in this YouTube addr
ess the formation, the upholding of, and the continual renewal of professional p
ractice by returning to their code of practice
the language is of a living docume
nt .

You are now conversant with the ACS Code of Professional Conduct and are aware o
f the many benefits and obligations of belonging to Australia's peak professiona
l ICT organisation. This YouTube from the Chartered Institute of Management Acco
unts (CIMA, UK) demonstrates the importance of actively maintaining your profess
ional standing and affiliation in your professional career: CIMA Ethics in Three
Minutes. The CIMA Ethics in Three Minutes reminds us of the importance of actin
g ethically as professionals, of conflicts of interest that might arise in our w
ork-lives, and introduces the importance of governance and the law
important top
ics which we will turn to look at more closely in Week 4.

_________________________________________________________________________
Acknowledgements
This seminar is a revision by Marnie Nolton of material originally written by Br
enda Aynsley for the Australian Computer Society.
References
Anon (2014). ACS Code of Ethics , Australian Computer Society. Accessed 13 October
2014, http://acs.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/7835/Code-of-Ethics.pdf
Anon (2014). "ACS Code of Professional Conduct", Australian Computer Society. Ac
cessed 30th June 2014, http://www.acs.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/4901/Co
de-of-Professional-Conduct_v2.1.pdf
Anon (2011). ACS National Regulations , Australian Computer Society. Accessed 29 Se
ptember 2013, https://www.acs.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/4902/ACS-Nation
al-Regulations.pdf.
Anon (2011). Five Ways to Think Ethically . Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at S
anta Clara University, accessed 29 September 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=OTpwUUNepZc.
Anon (2010). Our Code of Ethics , Engineers Australia. Accessed 29 September 2013,
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/About%20Us/Overvi
ew/Governance/codeofethics2010.pdf.
Anon (2010). What is Ethics? What is Business Ethics? . Markkula Center for Applied
Ethics, Santa Clara University, accessed 29 September 2013, http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=vmVu66Fpd9U.

Australian Department of Communications (2013). Australian Department of Communi

cations. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://www.communications.gov.au/.
Australian Council of Professionals (2013). Professions Australia. Accessed 29 S
eptember 2013, http://www.professions.com.au/Homepage.html.
Australian Public Service Commission (2013). Codes of Conduct , The Public Service
Act 1999. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://www.apsc.gov.au/aps-employment-poli
cy-and-advice/aps-values-and-code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct.
BRR Media Law (2013). Conflicts of Interest for Government Programs and Projects ,
BRR Media Law. Accessed 29 September 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAAmC_
NyuLI.
CTI Logisitcs Ltd (2011). Corporate Governance
Business Conduct and Ethics Policy .
CTI Logistics Limited. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://www.ctilogistics.com/
PEthics.html.
Fieser, J (2009). Ethics , The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, accessed 29 Se
ptember 2013, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/.
Koopman, P (2006). On Being the Bearer of Bad News", Online Ethics Center for Eng
ineering National Academy of Engineering. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://www
.onlineethics.org/CMS/workplace/17080/badnews.aspx.
Leppla, E. (2011). Unethical Moments from The Office , YouTube. Accessed 29 Septemb
er 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vstg5c3c3g8.
MacDonald, C. (2010). "A Guide to Moral Decision Making". Accessed 29 September
2013, http://www.ethicsweb.ca/guide.
Marshall, J. and ProEthics Ltd (2007). An Ethical Decision-making Model , Ethics Sc
oreboard. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_5step.html.
Marshall, J. and ProEthics Ltd (2007). 12 Questions towards ethical Decision-maki
ng", Ethics Scoreboard. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://ethicsscoreboard.com/
rb_nash12.html.
McCombs School of Business (2012). Conflict of Interest , Ethics Unwrapped Series,
University of Texas. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
xnRpMQvW_ow.
Professional Standards Board (2012). Australian Computer Society Code of Profess
ional Conduct, Australian Computer Society. Accessed 29 September 2013, http://w
ww.acs.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/4901/Code-of-Professional-Conduct.pdf.
St James Ethics Centre (2013). Ethi-call , St James Ethics Centre. Accessed 17th Ma
rch 2015, http://www.ethics.org.au/counselling.
Uschefiron (2012). Ethics through Media
Dilbert , YouTube. Accessed 29 September 20
13, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sSWusph3ig.
White, T (Unknown). "Resolving an Ethical Dilemma", African Sisters Education Co
llaborative. Accessed 29 September 2013. http://www.asec-sldi.org/dotAsset/29283
0.pdf.