2
Business Ethics in Internti!n" Scenri!. • I# $e e%ine the re"ti!nshi' (et$een M!r"it) n* Re"i+i!n, $e sh"" see tht *i##erent
Re"i+i!ns +enerte *i##erent M!r" C!*es. A S!ciet) in $hich there is *!innt Re"i+i!n !# I*e!"!+) cn (e e%'ecte* t! 'r!*uce res!n(") uni#!r set !# V"ues.
• In !*ern Eur!'e, C'it"is #"!urishes $ith its e'hsis !n 'rite !$nershi', c!'etiti!n n* the 'r!#it !tie. A c!untr)s success is esure* in ters !# its GNP n* c!nsu'ti!n is enc!ur+e* () A*ertisin+ tht tte'ts t! stiu"te $nts n* (!!st u' *en*s.
• The ens !# 'r!*ucti!n resu"ts #r! s)ste in $hich inestent !# !ne) is re$r*e* () interest. The interest is n!t erne* () the inest!r thr!u+h his ie*ite "(!ur.
• T!*)s 'rei"in+ N!r intins tht $!r/ is +!!*, (iti!n sh!u"* enc!ur+e* n* une'"!)ent is un*esir("e.
• At the "ee" !# Pers!n" Ethics, certin Ethic" Stn*r*s re intine* n* res!n("e stn*r*s !# Inte+rit) re e%'ecte*. Se%u" Hrssent, Rci" 0iscriinti!n, Bri(er), In*ustri" Es'i!n+e, E(e11"eent, Breches !# Trust re "" cti!ns tht #"" sh!rt !# I*e"s tht re e%'ecte* in the Business 2!r"*.
 
  3
Business Ethics in Internti!n" Scenri! . • Incresin+"), Business is c!n*ucte* cr!ss Nti!n" B!un*ries. Lr+e Mu"tinti!n"
C!r'!rti!ns 4MNCs5 tht he "!n+ !'erte* in !ther c!untries re (ein+ 6!ine* () s""er *!estic #irs +!in+ (r!* #!r the #irst tie.
• Intense c!'etiti!n is #!rcin+ c!'nies $!r"*$i*e t! enter the G"!(" Mr/et P"ce, $hether the) re re*) !r n!t. This *ee"!'ent 'resents h!st !# Ethic" Pr!("es tht Mn+ers re !#ten un're're* t! **ress.
• S!e !# these 'r!("es rise #r! the *iersit) !# Business Stn*r*s r!un* the $!r"* n* es'eci"") , #r! the "!$er stn*r*s tht +ener"") 'rei" in Less 0ee"!'e* C!untries 4L0Cs5.
• C!'nies "i/e NI8E9 re ("e t! ') 2+es n* I'!se 2!r/in+ C!n*iti!ns tht re sh!c/in+") L!$ s 'er US stn*r*s, n* )et the) usu"") !'erte $e"" (!e the stn*r*s !# L!c" 3irs. Enir!nent" Stn*r*s in L0Cs re "s! "!$er thn th!se !# !re *ee"!'e* c!untries.
• An* in C!untries $ith 'ersie C!rru'ti!n, it ) (e *i##icu"t t! c!n*uct Business $ith!ut ')in+ Bri(es. MNCs !#ten e%'"!it the Che' L(!ur n* Ntur" Res!urces !# L0Cs $ith!ut /in+ Inestents tht $!u"* *nce Ec!n!ic 0ee"!'ent.
 
  4
  WHAT TO DO IN ROME. •  THE MAIN CHARGE AGAINST MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES IS THEY ADOPT A DOUBLE
STANDARD, DOING IN LESS DEVELOPED, THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, WHAT WOULD BE REGARDED AS WRONG IF DONE IN DEVELOPED FIRST WORLD.
• HOWEVER, MANY CRITICIZED PRACTICES ARE LEGAL IN COUNTRIES IN QUESTION AND  ARE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED UNETHICAL BY LOCAL STANDARDS.
• SHOULD MNCS BE BOUND BY THE PREVAILING MORALITY OF THE HOME COUNTRY  AND, IN CASE OF AMERICAN FIRMS ACT EVERYWHERE AS THEY DO IN THE UNITED STAES?
• SHOULD THEY FOLLOW THE PRACTICES OF THE HOST COUNTRY AND ADOPT THE
 ADAGE“WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMNS DO”? • OR ARE THERE SPECIAL ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT APPLY WHEN BUSINESS IS
CONDUCTED ACROSS NATIONAL BORDERS?
• IF SO, WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS? • UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. • IN SOME CASES, THE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN AMERICAN LAW AND MORALITY
OUGHT TO BE OBSERVED BEYOND THEIR BORDERS; AND IN OTHER CASES, THERE IS NO MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO DO SO.
• SIMILARLY, IT IS MORALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR MANAGERS OF MNCS TO FOLLOW LOCAL
PRACTICE AND“DO AS THE ROMANS DO”, IN SOME SITUATIONS BUT NOT OTHERS.
 
  5
  ABSOLUTISM VERSUS RELATIVISM. • IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION “WHEN IN ROME, DO WHAT?” •  THERE ARE TWO EXTREMES. •  THE ABSOLUTIST POSITION IS THAT BUSINESS OUGHT TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE SAME  WAY, WORLD OVER, WITH NO DOUBLE STANDARDS.
•  THIS VIEW MIGHT BE EXPRESSED AS“WHEN IN ROME OR ANYWHERE ELSE, DO  YOU AS YOU WOULD AT HOME”.
•  THE OPPOSITE EXTREME IS RELATIVISM, WHICH MAY BE EXPRESSED IN FAMILIAR
 ADAGE, “WHEN IN ROME, DO AS ROMANS DO”. THAT IS, THE ONLY GUIDE FOR BUSINESS CONDUCT ABROAD IS WHAT LEGALLY AND MORALLY ACCEPTED IN ANY GIVEN COUNTRY, WHERE A COMPANY OPERATORS.
• NEITHER OF THESE POSITIONS CAN BE ADOPTED WITHOUT EXCEPTION. •  THE GENERALLY HIGH LEVEL OF CONDUCT THAT FOLLOWS FROM “WHEN IN ROME, DO  AS WOULD AT HOME”, IS NOT MORALLY REQUIRED OF MNCS IN ALL INSTANCES, AND  THEY SHOULD NOT BE FAULTED FOR EVERY DEPARTURE FROM HOME COUNTRY STANDARDS IN DOING BUSINESS ABROAD.
• HOWEVER “WHEN IN ROME, DO AS ROMANS DO”, IS NOT WHOLLY JUSTIFIED EITHER.
•  THE MERE FACT THAT A COUNTRY PERMITS BRIBERY, UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS, EXPLOITIVE WAGES, AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE PRACTICES ARE MORALLY ACCEPTABLE IN THAT COUNTRY.
•  THE DEBATE OVER ABSOLUTISM AND RELATIVISM REVOLVES AROUND FOUR IMPORTANT POINTS.
  ;5MORALLY DIFFERENT DIFFERENCES: • FIRST, SOME CONDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN LESS
DEVELOPED PARTS OF THE WORLD ARE DIFFERENT IN MORALLY RELEVANT WAYS. •  AS A RESULT, DIFFERENT STANDARDS MAY BE NORMALLY, PERMITTED, INDEED
REQUIRED.
 
  6
•  ALTHOUGH SUCH PRACTICES MAY BE DESIGNED SOLELY TO PROMOTE SALES, SOME DRUGS MAY BE MEDICALLY APPROPRIATE IN AN LDC FOR A WIDER RANGE OF CONSIDERATIONS.
•  WITH REGARD TO ONE POWERFUL BUT DANGEROUS ANTIBIOTIC, WHICH IS PRESCRIBED IN USA ONLY FOR VERY SERIOUS INFECTIONS, DOCTORS IN BOLIVIA CLAIM THAT THIS LIMITED USE IS A LUXURY THAT AMERICANS CAN AFFORD BECAUSE OF GENERALLY BETTER HEALTH.
• “HERE” THEY SAY “THE PEOPLES’ GENERAL HEALTH IS SO POOR THAT ONE MUST MAKE AN ALL OUT ATTACK ON ILLNESS”.
•  THUS AN ANTIBIOTIC THAT SHOULD BE MARKETED IN THE UNITED STATES WITH ONE SET OF INDICATIONS MIGHT BE JUSTIFIABLY SOLD ABROAD WITH A MORE EXTENSIVE LIST.
• MORE GENERALLY, THE RELATIVE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MUST BE  TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
2. THE VARIETY OF ETHICAL CODES : • SECOND, THE ABSOLUTIST POSITION ASSUMES THAT ONE COUNTRY’S STANDARDS ARE
CORRECT AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON PEOPLE ELSEWHERE, PERHAPS IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR OWN MORAL VALUES AND PRINCIPLES.
•  ACTING ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS IGNORES THE WIDE VARIETY OF ETHICAL OUT LOOKS IN THE WORLD.
•  ALTHOUGH SOME BEDROCK CONCEPTIONS OF RIGHT AND WRONG EXIST AMONG PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, MANY VARIATIONS OCCUR DUE TO CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS.
• CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ARE IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THEY MAY AFFECT THE MEANING OF ACTS PERFORMED.
• FOR EXAMPLE, LAVISH GIFTS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED BRIBES OR KICKBACKS IN UNITED STATES, ARE AN ACCEPTED AND EXPECTED PART OF BUSINESS IN JAPAN AND SOME OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES.
 
• CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ARE LESS WITH PERCEPTION OF PRODUCTS AND MORE WITH PROBLEMS IN PERSONAL SELLING.
• PARTLY, THIS IS BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS ARE MORE HOMOGENEOUS  WORLDWIDE THAN CONSUMER PRODUCTS.
• PERSONAL SELLING, ON THE OTHER HAND, PRESENTS THE INTERNATIONAL MARKETER  WITH SPECIAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL ATTITUDES  AMONG NATIONS - DIFFERENCES, THAT IF NOT RECOGNIZED AND ADAPTED TO CAN CRITICALLY AFFECT MARKETING EFFECTIVENESS.
• CULTURAL ATTITUDES, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO TIME, SPACE, MATERIALISM, FRIENDSHIP, AND CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS DIRECTLY AFFECT THE CLIMATE FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS.
1. TIME PERCEPTION : AMERICANS, BRITISHERS AND GERMANS ARE OBSESSED FOR DOING THINGS IN A TIMELY FASHION AND ARE QUITE PUNCTUAL AND VALUE THEIR  TIME VERY MUCH. LATIN NATIONALS HAVE LESS VALUE FOR TIME, FOLLOWED BY  ASIANS AND ETHIOPIANS.
 
  8
3. MATERIALISM PERCEPTIONS : IN USA, MATERIALISM AND ITS REWARDS HAVE LONG BEEN AN IMPORTANT MOTIVATOR IN RECRUITING, KEEPING AND INSPIRING EMPLOYEES TO BE PRODUCTIVE. IN USA STOCKS AND BONDS ARE HIGHLY VALUED.
4. FRIENDSHIP PERCEPTIONS : IN MOST OF THE WORLD, THE MARKETING OF INDUSTRIAL GOODS DEPENDS MORE ON FRIENDSHIP, TRUST AND SERVICE THAN IS THE CASE IN THE MORE PRAGMATIC CASE BY CASE BASICS ORIENTED IN U.S. AMERICANS HAVE SEPARATE SOCIAL RULES FOR BUSINESS AND PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS.
5. CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS : IN AMERICA, HIGH VALUE IS GIVEN ON CAREFULLY WRITTEN CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED.IN LATIN AMERICA AND GREECE MORE IMPORTANCE IS GIVEN TO PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP AFTER SIGNING. IN JAPAN, ORAL CONTRACTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE AS IMPORTANT AS
 
  9
The P!"itic" &Le+" Enir!nent. • The Prctice !# Internti!n" Mr/etin+ is si+ni#icnt") in#"uence* () the P!"itics n* L$s !#
the H!st Nti!ns. 2ht t/es '"ce in the P!"itic"<Le+" Enir!nent ##ects= ;5 2hether !r n!t 3ir $i"" en++e in Internti!n" Mr/etin+ in 'rticu"r c!untr). >5 Its #!r !# Internti!n" Mr/et Entr). ?5 H!$ it *!'ts Mr/etin+ Strte+ies.
• A Nti!ns P!"itic" n* Le+" Acti!ns tht n!r"") ##ect the Internti!n" Mr/eter re ;5 Restrictin+ I'!rts >5 Est("ishin+ Mr/etin+ n* M!netr) C!ntr!"s ?5 T/in+ C!ntr!" !# 3!rei+n O$ne* Assets.
• I'!rt Restricti!ns= T! restrict in#"!$ !# 3!rei+n G!!*s, Nti!ns use Tri##s, I'!rt 0uties, @u!ts, Arti#ici" Brriers n* V!"untr) A+reeents. I'!rt Restricti!ns he"' t! 'r!tect the Nti!n" Ec!n!). 2hen 3!rei+n Pr!*ucts re !re e%'ensie !r inccessi("e, 6!(s n* c'it" rein t h!e.
 
The P!"itic" & Le+" Enir!nent 4C!nt*5
• T/in+ C!ntr!" !# Assets= There re #ie $)s in $hich G!ernents
t/e c!ntr!" !# Assets $ithin their Nti!ns. These re E%'r!'riti!n,
C!n#iscti!n, Nti!n"i1ti!n, S!ci"i1ti!n, n* 0!esticti!n.
• E%'r!'riti!n !ccurs $hen G!ernent t/es C!ntr!" !# 3!rei+n
3irs Assets n* C!'enstes the 3ir #!r the Assets.
• C!n#iscti!n is E%'r!'riti!n $ith!ut C!'ensti!n.
• Nti!n"i1ti!n !ccurs $hen G!ernent t/es C!ntr!" !# Sin+"e
!r 3e$ In*ustries 4 B!th 3!rei+n n* L!c"5.
• S!ci"i1ti!n in!"es G!ernent t/in+ C!ntr!" !# A"" In*ustries.
4 E%'"e= C!unist C!untries "i/e Russi5
• 0!esticti!n ens 3!rei+n C!'nies +r*u"") Trns#errin+
C!ntr!" t! L!c" Citi1ens.
  11
3. THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO DECIDE. •  THE THIRD ABSOLUTIST POSITION DENIES THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE  AFFECTED TO DECIDE ON IMPORTANT MATTERS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT.
•  THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SETTING STANDARDS SHOULD REST ON THE GOVT  AND THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH BUSINESS IS BEING CONDUCTED.
•  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PEOPLE AFFECTED HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE IS NOT A FORM OF ETHICAL RELATIVISM.
•  JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE APPROVE OF A CERTAIN PRACTICE, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. •  THE ARGUMENT IS RATHER AN EXPRESSION OF RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE  TO GOVERN THEIR OWN AFFAIRS, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY.
• IMPOSING THE STANDARDS OF A DEVELOPED, FIRST WORLD, COUNTRY IN THE THIRD  WORLD IS CRITICIZED BY SOME AS, A FORM OF “ETHICAL IMPERIALISM.”
•  A RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE AFFECTED TO DECIDE THEIR OWN STANDARDS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFY CORPORATIONS IN INFLICTING GRAVE HARM TO INNOCENT, PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE – VIOLATING BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
• FURTHERMORE IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED.
4. REQUIRED CONDITIONS FOR DOING BUSINESS :- • SOME PRACTICES MAY BE JUSTIFIED, WHERE LOCAL CONDITIONS REQUIRE THAT
CORPORATIONS ENGAGE IN THEM AS A CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS.
•  THIS POINT MAY BE EXPRESSED BY SAYING “WE DO NOT AGREE WITH ROMANS, BUT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DO THINGS THEIR WAY”.
•  AMERICAN FIRMS WITH CONTRACTS FOR PROJECTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE COMPLIED IN MANY INSTANCES WITH THE REQUESTS NOT TO STATION  WOMEN AND JEWISH EMPLOYEES IN THOSE COUNTRIES.
•  ALTHOUGH DISCRIMINATION OF THIS KIND IS MORALLY REPUGNANT, IT IS ARGUABLY MORALLY PERMISSIBLE, WHEN ALTERNATIVE IS TO RISK LOSING BUSINESS IN THE  ARAB WORLD.
 
  12
GUIDELINES TO MULTINATIONALS. THREE KINDS OF GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO MNCS, BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, WELFARE, AND FAIRNESS OF JUSTICE.
a) HUMAN RIGHTS :- THOMAS DONALDSON SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTALS AS A MORAL MINIMUM :
1) THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PHYSICAL MOVEMENT 2) THE RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP TO PROPERTY 3) THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM TORTURE 4) THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL 5) THE RIGHT TO NON DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT 6) THE RIGHT TO PHYSICAL SECURITY 7) THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION 8) THE RIGHT TO MINIMAL EDUCATION 9) THE RIGHT TO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 10) THE RIGHT TO SUBSISTENCE
b) WELFARE :- RICHARD DEGEORGE OFFERS SEVEN BASIC CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING RIGHTS. HIS GUIDELINES ARE :
1) MNCS SHOULD DO NO INTERNATIONAL DIRECT HARM 2) MNCS SHOULD PRODUCE MORE GOOD THAN HARM TO HOST COUNTRY 3) MNCS SHOULD CONTRIBUTE BY THEIR ACTIVITY TO THE HOST COUNTRY’S DEVELOPMENT. 4) MNCS SHOULD RESPECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES. 5) TO THE EXTENT THAT LOCAL CULTURE DOES NOT VIOLATE ETHICAL NORMS, MNCS SHOULD
RESPECT LOCAL CULTURE AND WORK WITH IT AND NOT AGAINST IT. 6) MNCS SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES. 7) MNCS SHOULD CO-OPERATE WITH THE LOCAL GOVTS IN DEVELOPING AND ENFORCING JUST
BACKGROUND INSTITUTIONS
 
  13
M!r" E!"uti!n. • Pr!"!n+e* Muteness !n+st (!th !ur T!' Mn+ers n* Mn+eent Ac*eics (!ut M!r"
0iensi!n !# Mn+eent is stri/in+ Phen!en!n.
• This is Pr*!%ic" in Cu"ture $hich '!ssesses Per#ect Insi+ht (!ut Hun En*s n* Mens (!th Secu"r n* Scre*.
• In "n* $here S$i Vie/nn* h* *ec"re* tht The Unierse is si'") G)nsiu in $hich the S!u" is t/in+ n E%ercise9 n* $here Rin*rnth T+!re h* tu+ht tht Se"# A(ne+ti!n "e*s t! the #un*ent" re"it) !# se"#, the re"it) $hich is the M!r" n* S'iritu" (sis !# the re" !# Hun V"ues9
• An* $here Gn*hi6i h* sserte* tht A"truis is the hi+hest #!r !# M!r"it)9, it is )ster), $h) !st !# us (ehe the $) $e *!D
• It ''ers tht s th!u+h these !*ern Pr!'hets neer "ie* !n+st us. Th!se $h! $rite !n Mn+eent in In*i !#ten insist !n /ee'in+ the Secu"r 2!r"* !# Business G!"s n* Mens.
• This is n e%'"e !# *ee' sete* 3r+entis.
• T! I""ustrte= A!n+st the M6!r C!nse:uences !# ;> St!c/ E%chn+e & Bn/in+ S)ste Sc !# !er RsFF Cr!res, hs (een *+in+ er!si!n !# In*is cre*i(i"it) in 2!r"* 3innci" Mr/ets.
• H!"istic"") s'e/in+, the c!untr) s $h!"e hs (een "!ser in this 3r+entist +e !# Gree* '")e* () #e$ '!$er#u", 'rii"e+e* citi1ens. et the Scn*" is #re:uent") *escri(e* s !ne !# S)stes 3i"ure9, c!nenient") /in+ the s)ste sc'e+!t #!r !ur s"u(erin+ c!nscience.
 
U. S. A. IN QUEST OF MORAL MANAGEMENT.
THE FOLLOWING TOPICS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED /DEBATED IN GREAT DETAIL NOT ONLY IN U. S. A. BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD.
1. CAN ETHICO-MORALITY BE TAUGHT? 2. HOW FAR CAN THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS BE EXTENDED? 3. DOE ETHICO MORALITY APPLY TO CORPORATE ENTITY? 4. INDIVIDUAL VS CORPORATE ETHICS.
BUSINESS ETHICS VS ETHICS IN BUSINESS. 1. QUANTIFICATION AND BUSINESS ETHICS. 2. THE ROOTS OF ETHICS-MORAL CAPABILITY. 3. THE RATIONAL-ANALYTICAL VS EMOTIONAL –HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO ETHICALITY. 4. CODES OF ETHICS.
5. IN INDIA, IIM KOLKATA STARTED TEACHING THE COURSE OF “”MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS AND  VALUE SYSTEM” FOR MBA STUDENTS FROM 1983 ONWARDS.
6. THEREAFTER SLOWLY, BUT STEADILY OTHER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTES LIKE XLRI, JAMSHEDPUR,  JBIMS AND MUMBAI UNIVERSITY STARTED TEACHING THE COURSE “ETHICS IN BUSINESS” AS A COMPULSORY SUBJECT FOR 2ND YEAR MBA STUDENTS.
EXTENSION OF THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS. • HOSMER HAS RECENTLY SUGGESTED AND EXTENDED VIEW OF ORGANIZATION, SO AS TO ENABLE IT  TO ELICIT CO-OPERATION AND COMMITMENT FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
•  AND FOR THIS HE PUTS THE “ETHICAL LEVEL” OF MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE TOP OF  THE HIERARCHY.
• HE EXPECTS SENIOR EXECUTIVES TO USE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN ECONOMIC IMPERATIVES IN DECISION MAKING.
 
  15
THE ROOTS OF ETHICO-MORAL CAPABILITY :- HOSMER PROVIDES US WITH A GOOD SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE OF THE FIVE ‘’MAJOR ETHICAL SYSTEM: 1) ETERNAL LAW(FROM REVEALED SCRIPTURE) 2) UTILITARIAN THEORY (OUTCOME-ORIENTED, GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER) 3) UNIVERSALISTIC THEORY (INTENT-ORIENTED, SAME DECISION UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES) 4) DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 5) PERSONAL LIBERTY (FREEDOM OF CHOICE)   THE PRO’S AND CON’S OF EACH ARE ANALYSED SHOWING THE EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON ANY ONE OF THEM WILL NOT BE USEFUL IN ALL SITUATIONS.
HOSMER, THEREFORE, EMERGES WITH AN ELECTRIC SOLUTION. “WHAT SHOULD WE DO? INSTEAD OF USING JUST ONE ETHICAL SYSTEM, WHICH WE MUST ADMIT IS IMPERFECT, WE HAVE TO USE ALL SYSTEMS AND THINK THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCE OF OUR ACTIONS ON MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS.
GANDHIJI’S PRINCIPLE OF TRUSTEESHIP (CONT’D)