Executive Summary
The discussion focuses on the moral dilemma of staying or leaving an environmentally unfriendly company. It was found that Kant’s categorical imperative and ACS Code of Ethics imply that the former option is ethical. The decision-making model of Beemsterboer and Velasquez identified seven steps to come up with this solution.
Introduction
Last year, I began working in the IT division of Powershop in Australia. I was pleased to have this position and delighted to work for a firm with such excellent environmental credentials. I was outraged when Meridian Group revealed that they were selling it to Shell, the world’s largest fossil fuel corporation. Shell management has stated that they would give quarterly loyalty bonuses to guarantee that no employees are lost as a result of the merger. The family is reliant on my income, and the bonus would be helpful in the present economic circumstances. However, the dilemma here is apparent, and below, the analysis of the issue will be provided below, appealing to the relevant ethical theories and decision-making models.
Kant’s Deontological Ethical Framework
The presented dilemma can be analyzed through the lens of Kant’s ethical approach, which refers to the deontological theoretical dimension. According to Kant, it is not the consequences of an action that matter most, but intentions. These consequences of decisions are not always under control, and things do not always work out the way individuals want them to (Hildebrand, 2017). However, Kant believed that our motives are under our control. People bear responsibility for their intention to do good or evil, and so that is what they are morally responsible for.
Kant believed that an act has moral value only if it is done with the right intention or motive; he called it an act of goodwill. In Kant’s words, people should act not only from a sense of duty (to have the right motive) but also according to duty (to do what is right). The point here is how then do we know what is right and what we should do? From the very nature of ethical imperatives, as unconditional and universally binding, Kant derives his views on morality (Hildebrand, 2017). In fact, he uses the term categorical imperative to describe the basic moral principle by which we determine what we should and should not do.
Case Analysis Through the Lens of Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, a moral obligation is categorical, that is, unconditionally and applicable to all people as individuals. Based on this, the first form of the categorical imperative requires that individuals only do what they can accept or want everyone to do. Within the scope of the situation given, it seems crucial to stress that I fully recognize the importance of environmentally friendly business conduct under the current conditions. There is a necessity for everyone to make a contribution to the global struggle against issues caused by humanity the nature (Hildebrand, 2017). From such a perspective, I want other people not to work for companies that adhere to the opposite approach and harm the environment – so as Shell does. Accordingly, a decision to stay in the corporation to obtain significant financial benefits is not ethical, and I am about to leave the corporation.
The theory implies that it is essential to act only on that maxim that people may want as a universal law. Wanting something universally is the same as wanting it as a law; this law, by its very nature, has a degree of universality. By the mentioned maxim, Kant understands the subjective principles of the will of a given individual. In this case, this is expressed in the form of my personal moral rules. The latter implies that working for firms that hinder the international efforts to overcome environmental issues such as gas emissions cannot be accepted.
Starting from the second form of the categorical imperative, I should consider what constitutes the proper treatment of people as individuals. According to Kant, one must always treat humanity not just as a means but as an end (Hildebrand, 2017). I have to treat people as values in themselves, not just as instrumental values. In the described situation, this form can be understood as follows. If I work for Shell, I inevitably interact with other individuals and use these social relations only in order to gain financial benefits because I do not consider the company’s policy appropriate. I would not value the mentioned relationships and people as a value in themselves but just as means to achieve my personal aims. Hence, the second perspective of categorical imperative also suggests that staying in the firm will be unethical.
Case Analysis Through the Lens of ACS Code of Ethics
At this point, it seems reasonable to appeal to the ACS Code of Ethics to explore the ethical dilemma to the greatest extent. A notable point can be stressed here: the first three principles of the code – the primacy of the public interest, enhancement of quality of life, and honesty (ACS, n.d.) – visibly correlate with the discussed categorical imperative. In particular, the adherence to the public interest and contribution to life’s quality means implies that I will not maintain the hindrance to the struggle against the environmental issue. These values cannot be followed if they will stay in the company after the merger. Then, I should be honest with myself and recognize that if other people were in the same situation as mine, I would want them to leave the company, demonstrating caring about nature but not personal financial benefits.
The following values of the code are competence, professional development, and professionalism (ACS, n.d.). Nowadays, being competent in any field – including IT – implies an awareness of environmental issues and ecologically responsible behavior. Moreover, professional development and professionalism will not be enhanced in this case. Respectively, I will not be able to advance my ethical decision-making skills, as well as will not be able to contribute to society’s integrity in its fight against global environmental threats. Thus, the case analysis from the perspective of Kant’s ethical theory and the ACS Code of Ethics has shown the appropriacy of leaving the company.
Ethical Decision Options
In order to define and explore the possible options in the described case, it would be rational to use a specific ethical decision-making model. The latter is based on the philosophy of morality, developed by well-known experts Beemsterboer and Velasquez. It includes the following steps that will be utilized to meet the aims of this section (Velasquez, 2014). First, it is important to identify all the facts relevant to the issue. In this vein, the crucial points are the environmentally unfriendly policy of Shell, bonuses that are given to workers who will not leave, and the necessity to support my family financially. Second, the ethical aspect of the problem should be defined. The issue here is that I do not support corporations that harm nature, but the monetary opportunities that Shell offers are significant and would help my family considerably, especially under the current economic conditions.
The third step is to identify key stakeholders that may be affected by the decision being made, highlighting the key ones. The mentioned stakeholders here are my family, which relies much on my income, and the society as a whole that is adversely affected by the modern environmental problems. The fourth stage of the model is to identify possible alternative solutions. The options are as follows: to leave Shell, to stay in the company accepting the bonuses, and to stay in the corporation accepting the bonuses but trying to change its environmental policy.
Fifth, it is essential to determine the ethical aspects of alternative solutions based on well-known ethical principles to identify the most acceptable solution from the point of morality. The previous sections were dedicated to the analysis of this aspect. It was found that it would be appropriate to leave the firm, given its apparent “environmental drawbacks.” The option to stay but try to change its policy does not seem convincing, as this giant is not likely to shift its course. Sixth, it is necessary to identify practical limitations and those factors that may hinder the implementation of the solution. Critical limitations here are that I will not have the needed income for a while – in case of leaving – and the saturated job market. Finally, I should determine practical measures. The whole analysis shows that I should leave the company. The financial problem that is likely to arise can be diminished by a fast and consistent job search.
Conclusion
The case study contained the dilemma of staying or leaving the company that demonstrated an environmentally unfriendly policy. The discussion appealed to the following theories and frameworks – Kant’s deontological ethical approach, the ACS Code of Ethics, and the ethical decision-making model of Beemsterboer and Velasquez. The moral perspective of these concepts allowed for determining the appropriacy of the option to leave Shell.
References
ACS. (n.d.). The ACS code of ethics.
Hildebrand, C. (2017). Educating for British values: Kant’s philosophical roadmap for cosmopolitan character education. Policy Futures in Education, 15(1), 20–37.
Velasquez, M. G. (2014). Business ethics concepts and cases (7th ed.). Pearson.