Chap9 business ethics_powerpoint

PART FOUREthical decision-making in business

This part consist of: Chapter 9 : The RIMS strategy. – It’s a strategy for moral decision-making. Against

this backdrop the strategy itself will be described along with some objections that might be raised against it.

Subsequent chapters will apply this strategy to a number of ethical dilemmas that typically arise in the workplace: Chapter 10: HIV/AIDS, Chapter 11: Affirmative action Chapter 12: Worker participation

Business Ethics Chapter 9 1

Rational Interaction for Moral Sensitivity

(RIMS)

CHAPTER 9

Business Ethics 2Chapter 9

LEARNING OBJECTIVES


At the end of this chapter students will be able to discuss and illustrate the:1. Purpose and meaning of RIMS approach2. Assumptions behind the RIMS approach3. Basic steps in RMIS strategy4. Objections to RMIS Strategy

INTRODUCTION


The Rational Interaction for Moral Sensitivity (RIMS) approach is designed as a decision-making strategy that can be used for both social and personal ethical dilemmas in the workplace.

Social dilemmas arise when different people make conflicting judgments on what is considered to be morally right with regard to a specific situation.

Personal dilemmas occur when a person becomes uncertain about what the most appropriate moral decision should be in a specific situation

HABERMAS AND THE ‘IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION’


According to Habermas (1993), modern rationality excludes vast areas of human life from rational discourse. Habermas proposes consensus within an ‘ideal speech situation’ as the

criterion for ethical knowledge According to his alternative conception of rationality,

knowledge is made in conversational agreement through the interaction of rational participants.

HABERMAS AND THE ‘IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION’


The big difference between Habermas’ approach to ethics and the prescriptive ethical theories is that whereas they focus on the

content of our moral considerations, his theory focuses on the process by which ethical decisions are made.


The ‘ideal speech situation’ provides the context for the process of knowledge formation. This ideal speech situation does not refer

to the personality or skills of the participants, but to the structural features of the discussion.

HABERMAS AND THE ‘IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION


In a simplified way it could be portrayed as that situation where all participants in the discourse are treated as if they are truly equal and in which all forms of coercion or force have been removed. The only force allowed in this situation is

the force of the best rational argument



The basic rules of the process of knowledge formation are the following: i. The only evidence that participants may

introduce into the discourse is empirical experience which is objectively accessible.

ii. The process of communicative interaction is driven only by the force of the strongest rational argument.



The basic rules of the process of knowledge formation are the following: iii. Only those experiences, arguments, and

norms that can attain consensual agreement are regarded as knowledge.

iv. Any knowledge formulated in this way is always open to future revision.


ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE RIMS STRATEGY

Habermas’ moral theory forms the backbone of the RIMS strategy.

It however provides only the broadest of outlines and needs to be fleshed out with a further set of assumptions



Assumption One: Moral dissensus is a givenThe RIMS strategy begins with the assumption that moral

dissensus is an inescapable feature of current culture. Modernity, in its attempt to find secular and rational

grounding for morality, has produced any number of varying moral theories.

All of these modern moral theories are rationally justifiable and defensible.

All need to be taken equally seriously or all need to be rejected. The first option forms the first assumption of the RIMS strategy.



Assumption Two: Moral dissensus does not equal ethical relativismThe RIMS approach assumes that moral dissensus does not

necessarily result in ethical relativism. Moral dissensus only equals ethical relativism if it is

assumed that discourse between the rival moral viewpoints has become meaningless.

The RIMS approach assumes that interaction between rival moral viewpoints is not only necessary, but is also an important source of creativity that can help to find morally sensitive answers.


Assumption Three: Dialogue can produce solutionsThe RIMS strategy assumes that, through dialogue, conflicting

moral views can be creatively harnessed to produce morally sensitive solutions to moral dilemmas. The preconditions for such a dialogue are that:

i. the reality of moral dissensus is understood and accepted by all participants

ii. participants commit themselves to finding solutions within this context of moral dissensus.

Once these preconditions have been satisfied the rivalry between moral viewpoints no longer frustrates moral decision-making.




Assumption Four: Focusing on motives is futileA further assumption is that focusing on the motives underlying

moral viewpoints cannot solve moral dilemmas in a situation of moral dissensus.

At most, a focus on the underlying motives can illuminate the various moral viewpoints, but it cannot overcome the rivalry between conflicting viewpoints. For this reason, the RIMS strategy advises that motivations

underlying moral views should not dominate the process of ethical decision-making.

The focus should rather be on finding solutions that can accommodate the moral concerns of all parties in the dilemma.


Assumption Five: Only moral arguments are allowed Only moral arguments can be included in the dialogue.

That is, only arguments that meet the minimum requirements of a moral argument will be allowed.

To qualify, an argument should display a concern and respect for others and not be merely selfish. It thus excludes any socio-centric or ego-centric arguments.

It is only on the basis of ethical considerations that one can expect to arrive at ethical decisions.



THE RIMS STRATEGYThe RIMS strategy begins with ‘rational interaction’. This is a

rational debate between two or more rival views on the moral issue under discussion.

In such a debate the rival points of views should be presented, analysed and discussed in a rational and tolerant way.

By ‘rational’ is meant that points of view are based on reasons that will make them understandable to others.

Tolerance is required to respect all points of view and to recognize them as valid perspectives that can contribute towards the resolution of the problem


Three basic steps of The RIMS strategy

Step One: Generate and evaluate all points of viewAny moral point of view that satisfies the

following three criteria should be taken into consideration in the decision-making process:

It should be a moral argument and not selfish.It should be clear and intelligible to all.It should be factually correct.


Step Two: Identify implicationsThe focus should not be on the motives

behind the various points of view. Instead the focus should be on identifying

the positive and negative implications articulated in the different points of view.



Step Three: Find solutionsParticipants should co-operate in

finding solutions that will keep negative implications to a minimum, while retaining the positive implications.



OBJECTIONS TO THE RIMS STRATEGY Objection One: It is too time-consuming

A first objection might be that the RIMS approach takes too much time. This is not a legitimate criticism because the fact that it requires time has

less to do with the approach itself than it has to do with the area within which it operates.

Any person who understands the processes of change in ethical attitudes, values, and judgements will confirm that there are no lasting quick-fix solutions in this area.

Change is more than the adjustment of a few nuts and bolts. Change always takes time to achieve, and experience has shown that the

quality and durability of change is enhanced when people actively participate in such processes of change.


Objection Two: No-one can be forced to use it. A second concern that might be raised against the RIMS approach is

that it is doomed to failure if people are not willing to participate in the process.

This objection poses an interesting challenge. On the one hand it could simply be dismissed as unimportant,

because it is true of most processes of change: if people do not want to play the game, the chances of success are very poor.

On the other hand, this objection sets up the challenge of how to motivate people to engage in the RIMS process.


OBJECTIONS TO THE RIMS STRATEGY

a number of strategies that could convince people: Solutions need to be worked out through a process of rational

discussion between all points of view. This will help people to understand that moral disputes need to be

approached in a different way from other decision-making processes.

People could be told of similar situations where this approach was used and was successful. Success stories seem to give credibility to any approach.

Possibly the most compelling way of motivating people is to explain that participation in the RIMS approach enables them actively to shape the values, norms and standards of behaviour within which they have to work. Through participation in this process they become co-creators of

their working conditions.


CONCLUSION The RIMS strategy for moral decision-making is an instrument

devised especially for coping with difficult moral dilemmas that arise within business.

A well-established set of corporate ethical values or a well-institutionalised code of ethics can play a role in easing the process of making moral decisions.

Important as such ethical codes might be, they will seldom be sufficient for dealing with all possible ethical dilemmas that might emerge in business.

In the ever-changing world of business new issues will always crop up. In an uncertain environment a strategy like RIMS is needed for guiding the process of moral decision-making.


Chap9 business ethics_powerpoint

Business

Transcript of Chap9 business ethics_powerpoint