Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics

Donald Morris

ABSTRACT. Managing expectations in a business ethics course is important and a key place to begin is with a definition of a moral problem. Until recently I would explain, using moral terms, good and bad, right and wrong, duty or obligation} or their cognates, what a moral problem is generally and then what it may be in business. However I found that using familiar terms with vague or ambiguous meanings to define the subject matter of the course counterproductive. What I required is a means of explaining to the beginning student what a moral problem is without relying on the prior associations and meanings of the term moral that the student brings to the discussion. In recent years I realized that what I wanted, as a starting point for the business ethics course, is a definition of moral problem that does not use specifically moral terms i.e. good, bad, right, wrong, duty. For pedagogical reasons, I wanted a definition that supplies the criteria for determining whether a given problem is a moral problem or not without using common moral terms. This paper reviews the treatment given to the concept of a moral problem in a number of standard business ethics texts and then presents a working definition that does not rely on the use of specifically moral terms. The definition is then critiqued for limitations and weaknesses. KEY WORDS: business ethics, definition, moral, moral judgment, moral problem, moral standard, pedagogical tool

Introduction When I teach business ethics I find the beginning of the course the most difficult part. What the students believe the course is about and what I plan to do in the class can be 180 degrees apart. Students often come to a business ethics class

with no previous exposure to philosophy or formal introduction to ethics. Students come with preconceptions, myths, misconceptions, apprehensions, unquestioned dogmas, blurred distinctions and no real knowledge of the purpose or goals of the course they chose. My most dramatic experience of this general phenomenon was in the 1970s when I taught a college extension course in ethics at the Marion Federal Penitentiary (a maximum security prison) at Marion, IL. My first night I faced a sea of drab uniforms, arms crossed on their chests. For all they knew I was there to teach them right from wrong and show them the error of their ways. By the end of the first hour I had convinced most of them that a course in ethics will not have such dramatic results I had successfully managed their expectations. At the beginning of a business ethics course the teacher is faced with the challenge of conveying what the branch of philosophy called ethics is and what it does or can be expected to do. In addition some students will smugly assume that whatever constitutes ethics it is certainly antithetical to business. Managing expectations in a business ethics course is important and a key place to begin is with a definition of a moral problem.1 I therefore explain that important business decisions have more than one dimension. I gain assent from the students that important business decisions can have an operational dimension, a legal dimension, a financial dimension, a psychological dimension, an accounting dimension, a marketing dimension, and a human resource dimension. As they assent to this, I note that the same business decisions can have an ethical dimension. Students do not necessarily recognize what this means at this point, but the concept

Journal of Business Ethics 49: 347357, 2004. 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

348

Donald Morris is/should be raised.7 This implies the need to determine the criteria for asserting that a particular business situation involves a moral problem.8 Before offering my attempt to supply a morally neutral definition of a moral problem and explaining its utility as a pedagogical tool, I want to examine the treatment of the criteria for determining the existence of a moral problem in current business ethics texts. I searched a number of standard business ethics textbooks for suggestions or attempts to achieve what I am seeking: criteria for identifying a situation as containing a moral problem.10 Among business ethics texts, few directly define what is meant by moral problem. Most simply begin using the term moral problem without attempting to define or explain how one determines that a given problem is a moral problem. Defining a moral problem requires two simultaneous operations. On the one hand, we want to see if problems that we otherwise would consider to be moral problems (e.g. whistle blowing, affirmative action, the use of animals in drug development) are left out of the class by the proposed definition. On the other hand we test the proposed criteria to see if they include within their reach problems that we might not otherwise consider moral problems. John Dewey struggled with this issue and supplied some insight into its intractability. He stated that Every act has potential moral significance, because it is, through its consequences, part of a larger whole of behavior (1960, p. 11). But, he noted . . . it would be rather morbid if a moral issue were raised in connection with each act; we should probably suspect some mental disorder if it were . . . (1960, p. 10). However, Dewey continued:
Sometimes a juncture is so critical that a person, in deciding upon what course he will take, feels that his future, his very being, is at stake . . . [but] some degree of what is conspicuous in these momentous cases is found in every voluntary decision. . . . [I]t is later experience which makes us aware of the serious commitment implied in an earlier act. . . . Then we reflect upon the value of the entire class of actions. . . . After we have acted and consequences which are unexpected and undesired show themselves, we begin to reflect. . . .

of an ethical dimension added to the list of other dimensions seems to make sense. Until recently I would explain, using moral terms, good and bad, right and wrong, duty or obligation or their cognates, what a moral problem is generally and then what it may be in business.2 I would also list numerous specific examples of ethical problems in business and assume the students can abstract the element(s) common to the concept of a moral problem. Gradually I came to believe that expecting students to grasp the as-yet-undefined concept of a moral problem in this way is ineffective and is retarded by the use of familiar moral terms.3 The reason for this is that these terms already have meanings (confused or otherwise) for the students. From the point of view of effective teaching, one means for introducing new material to students is to relate it to material with which the students are already familiar. The problem here is that what is being introduced, as the already familiar material, is the concept of a moral problem. The student is already familiar with the term moral problem and has his/her own understanding of what this is.

Is a morally neutral definition of a moral problem possible? In recent years I realized that what I wanted as a starting point for the business ethics course is a definition of moral problem that does not use specifically moral terms such as good, bad, right, wrong, duty. For pedagogical reasons, I would like a definition that supplies the criteria for determining whether a given problem is a moral problem without using common moral terms.4 In doing so I am apparently seeking a morally neutral definition of a moral problem.5 The difficulty of such a request may be immediately apparent: the determination of what constitutes a moral problem may itself result from a moral judgment.6 Is there a solution to this paradox? Relying on a definition of moral problem that requires the use of characteristically moral terms raises the problems indicated above. A primary goal of a business ethics course is to enhance students ability to recognize when a moral issue

Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics

But while the material of the judgment comes to us from the past, what really concerns us is what we shall do the next time . . . (1960, pp. 1415).

349

Deweys reflection leaves us with these considerations: (1) potentially every decision situation may involve a moral problem, (2) unexpected consequences lead us to reflect upon and to view a given act as a part of a class of a certain type, and (3) when the consequences of this class of acts is seen as undesirable, our goal is to generalize the action so as to avoid making a decision leading to another act in that class in the future. A moral problem is, therefore, something (potentially) arising in every decision, but to the extent that we can recognize a generalizable class of actions whose results we find unsatisfactory (in some sense), we call these certain types of situations moral problems. This is a very general definition of moral problem and it can be criticized as including too many decisions to be useful. Specifically, this definition does not indicate the basis for judging something unsatisfactory, although this judgment controls the inclusion of certain actions into a class. However it is an attempt to define a moral problem without the overt use of good and bad, right or wrong or duty.

The treatment of moral problems in business ethics texts Business ethics texts tend to treat the definition of a moral problem in one of four principle ways: (1) a list of general characteristics of moral judgments, (2) moral problems as based on experienced conflict, (3) moral problems as based on conflicts of traditional virtues, duties and goods (character centered), and (4) moral problems as based on empirical evidence.

List of general characteristics In Business Ethics, Velasquez (1998, pp. 910) states that whenever we make judgments about the right or wrong way to do things, or judgments about what things are good or bad, our

judgments are based on standards of some kind. . . . What are the characteristics that distinguish moral standards from standards that are not moral? Velasquez presents five criteria for identifying a moral standard and references these to the professional literature. (1) Moral standards deal with matters that we think can seriously injure or seriously benefit human beings. (2) Moral standards are not established or changed by the decisions of particular authoritative bodies. (3) We feel that moral standards should be preferred to other values including (especially?) self-interest. (4) Moral standards are based on impartial considerations. (5) Moral standards are associated with special emotions and a special vocabulary (1998, pp. 1011). If we propose to students that moral standards are what are used to resolve moral problems, we can then ask what kind of problem is it that moral standards resolve: What is a moral problem? From the first two criteria a student might surmise that a moral problem is a serious problem but not one that is against the law (not established by authoritative bodies and hence subjective?). From the remainder of the criteria students may understand that it is a problem that requires us to be objective and ignore our selfinterest while feeling a certain emotion. While someone who has experience reflecting on the nature of moral judgments may find the five criteria unobjectionable, a beginning student may experience them as more of a road block to understanding than an entrance ramp. From a strictly educational point of view, what has occurred is that a central idea in the business ethics course has been introduced and then explained in terms of concepts with which students have prior familiarity moral standard, non-authority based standard, self-interest and impartial consideration but the familiarity is likely superficial. My concern is with the students initial orientation to the process of understanding what constitutes a moral problem. Shaw and Barry, Moral Issues in Business (1998), state that As a practical basis for discussing moral issues . . . it is useful to approach those issues in a way that is acceptable to individuals of diverse moral viewpoints. We want to avoid as much as possible presupposing the truth of one particular

350

Donald Morris are so important, in fact, that they override other considerations. We are morally bound to do what we sometimes may not want to do. . . . Third, moral praise can properly accompany the doing of morally right actions, and moral blame can properly accompany acting immorally (p. 37). Universal applicability is, on the surface, a formal (as opposed to a moral) requirement. But universal applicability suffers from the need for some prior moral guidance. Universally applicable to all people regardless of their contrary moral beliefs? Universally applicable just to people or also to animals or any living organism? The determination of importance in a moral context, obviously requires prior moral consideration. Harris (2002), in Applying Moral Theories (pp. 910), lists four characteristics of moral problems. They are problems that (1) are resolved by the prescription of conduct, (2) are resolved from an impersonal standpoint, (3) regard serious issues, and (4) involve issues that cant be settled by appeal to facts, authority, tradition, or consensus.

theoretical perspective (p. 73). Though this sounds like an attempt to approach a morally neutral definition of a moral problem, it leaves unanswered what criteria were used to select the issues to be examined from diverse moral perspectives. In presenting the specifics of their approach, Shaw and Barry point out that as moral decision makers, we are seeking not just an answer to a moral issue but an answer that can be publicly defended, and the public defense of a moral judgment usually requires an appeal to general principles (p. 73). They then present three properties of moral problems: (1) concern with obligation, (2) impact of our actions on important ideals, and (3) concern with consequences. This characterization of what determines that a given problem requires the recognition of a moral issue is extremely general. This generality can be traced to the vagueness of important ideals, the indeterminate source of obligations and the nature of relevant consequences that must be considered. In addition, the claim that a moral problem is one that requires public defense can be questioned on the ground that it eliminates the possibility of personal moral struggles that do not require public defense. DeGeorge, Business Ethics (1999), identifies three characteristics associated with moral judgments (used to resolve moral problems). First, moral judgments about the rightness or wrongness of an action are held to be universally applicable. If it is right for me, it is also right for anyone else in the same circumstances. . . . Second, moral judgments are important. They

Based on experienced conflict This approach is Deweys as noted above. Beauchamp and Bowie, in Ethical Theory and Business (1997), characterize moral problems as arising out of the conflict between rules regarding our self-interest (prudence) that we accept and were taught as children and moral instructions we have learned that require us to give regard to the interests of others. These

Summary of general characteristics of moral problems Velasquez Seriousness or importance Not resolved by reference to authority or new facts Self-interest may be overridden Impartial consideration, universal applicability Obligation, prescription of conduct Emotional vocabulary of praise or blame Based on consequences X X X X X X X X Shaw and Barry X DeGeorge X Harris X X X X X

Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics moral instructions seek to control actions that affect the interests of other people. While this is a very apt and concise way of characterizing the ground of moral problems, in a classroom it is only helpful to students who have previously examined their beliefs and have a clear idea as to which beliefs relate to self-interest (prudential) and which of these are moral beliefs (learned standards requiring concern with the interests of others). Further, a student can easily boil this down to: Moral problems are problems that arise when our interests conflict with the interest of others. While this is certainly an important component of moral issues it is not a satisfactory definition. Using the term moral early on in the attempt to explain what a moral problem is can result in confusion for the student (or worse, a false sense of understanding by the student that blocks the way to further inquiry). If we say, as implied by Beauchamp and Bowie, that moral beliefs are those beliefs requiring our giving weight to the interests of others, this is prejudicial to the study we are embarking on because we have not yet examined why this should be so and to what extent. Does this mean, for example, that self defense is immoral because in defending ourselves we are necessarily thwarting the interests of someone else? Or that if I step in line for a movie ticket ahead of someone else and as a result I get a better seat in the theater that I have done something immoral? If we were to raise a moral issue with each potential conflict of our interests with others, this would be rather morbid, as Dewey noted, and lead us to suspect some mental disorder. Given this explanation of moral beliefs, it is easy for a student to assume that when we use the term moral belief we are talking only about altruistic motivations. Asserting the equivalence of moral beliefs and altruistic motivations obviously begs the question of what constitutes moral problems. Buchholz and Rosenthal, Business Ethics (1998) presents a view of moral problems as experienced conflicts.
Objects in nature and contextual situations within which they emerge in human experience possess qualities such as being alluring or repugnant, ful-

351

filling or stultifying, appealing or unappealing. These qualities are just as objective as qualities like color, sound, resistance, and so on. . . . As qualities of interactions within nature, they are immediately experienced qualities that emerge in the context of organism-environment interaction. It is the immediately felt or immediately had qualities of experience that provide the basis, along with intelligent evaluation, for the values we hold and come to appreciate. . . . Value emerges in the context of the interactions of humans in nature and is there in that context. . . . The experience of value emerges as both shared and unique, as all experience is both shared and unique. . . . Value situations, like all situations, are open to experimental inquiry. This method involves the progressive movement from a problematic situation to a meaningfully resolved situation. . . . Our moral claims, then, can change the very quality of experience. . . . Thus while moral claims are about the production of value and not about anything else, the production of harmonious situations, which allow for the unimpeded of experience of value, requires that we at times attempt to alter the quality of our value-related experience because of new oughts that have emerged as a result of experimental inquiry (pp. 6062).

What constitutes a moral problem is thus a function of our experiences and the extent to which we reflect upon them and attempt to resolve conflicts. This approach, in spite of any benefits it provides, can easily lead students to believe that moral issues are hopelessly subjective and beyond the grasp of systematic study.

Based on conflicts of traditional virtues and goods The second chapter of Trevino and Nelsons Managing Business Ethics (1999) contains a review of common ethical problems and what makes them ethical problems. In their discussion of why a problem is an ethical problem, using racial or sexual discrimination as an example, they point out that discrimination is an ethical issue beyond any legal protections because its at the core of fairness in the workplace (p. 56). Conflicts of interest give rise to ethical problems because ones objectivity has been compro-

352

Donald Morris business how they feel about it and whether they approve (p. 42). Another way is to determine whether the organization has adopted specific policies on the activity. . . . An issue, activity or situation that can withstand open discussion between many groups, both in and outside the organization, and survive untarnished probably does not pose ethical problems (p. 42). Although obviously practical, this means of determining what constitutes a moral problem by consensus gives rise to serious questions. If no one who is consulted objects, then no moral issue exists. How would we ever know that we had consulted the correct people or enough of them? What if the organization or industry we belong to is corrupt or immoral? Dont we need some standard that is independent of our business or industry?

mised (p. 60). Customer confidence issues give rise to ethical problems because their resolution . . . revolve[s] around fairness, honesty, and respect for others . . . [which virtues form the] basics of trust (pp. 6667). Thus Trevino and Nelson rely on our prior ability to judge that situations require fairness, honesty, objectivity, trust, and respect for others as our basis for determining that a moral problem exists. Since these are traditional Western virtues, a prior acceptance (and understanding) of them is needed to properly evaluate whether a moral issues exists. In a global ethical environment, however, we require a basis for establishing these factors aside from Western cultural tradition. In An Introduction to Business Ethics, Jennifer Jackson (1996) specifically deals with the identification of moral problems. She isolates moral problems as those in which . . . your role (or roles) gives rise to competing claims, tugging you to act in incompatible ways, as when the obligation to be honest requires action that injures the interests of those whom you have a duty to protect (p. 8). Moral problems are located in our indecision. The indecision must be the result of competing goods (ends) or virtues (personal traits). The competing claims are in the form, on the one hand, of goods (trust, bravery) and, on the other hand, virtues (honesty, courage). A moral problem arises in ones attempt to carry out a virtue (such as honesty), which is an implementation of a good (such as trust) but in doing so harm will result. To seasoned ethicists this characterization may seem to encompass the traditional and consensus view of what makes a moral problem. For the beginning student (or the skeptic), however, only vague shadows have been cast on the wall.

A pedagogical tool: a working definition avoiding moral terms Recently I have taken a different approach. I realize that students may agree with me that a business decision can have a moral dimension; but how they each understand what a moral problem is depends on what meanings they assign to moral language, good and bad, right and wrong, obligation and duty. Due to the fact that the students are each assuming that what I mean when I use good or bad, right or wrong, is also what they mean, we may actually have understood each other very little and agreed only to the shell of a proposition. The students who apparently agree with me may be thinking things that I dont and perhaps cant understand. To overcome this problem, which may take the whole semester to uncover and undo, I began approaching the idea of a moral problem from a different angle. I tell students that since ethics and moral issues are very contentious and it is easy for people to think they are agreeing with one another when they are not or to seem to disagree when in fact they agree, I will introduce an (arguably) morally neutral definition of a moral problem. In spite of Pierces admonition that Nothing new can ever be learned by analyzing definitions,11 I explain that this is merely a working definition and that

Based on empirical evidence In Business Ethics, Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell attempt to make the recognition of a moral problem an empirical matter.10 In a discussion titled Recognizing an Ethical Issue the authors state that One way to determine whether a specific behavior or situation has an ethical component is to ask other individuals in the

Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics we may wind up changing it as we go along or may scrap the definition altogether. After all, even suggesting that there could be such a thing as a morally neutral definition of a moral problem may sound to many people as if I have succeeded only in demonstrating my own confusion. The working definition I introduce at the outset of the first class is this.
A moral problem is a choice from among alternative courses of action, made unilaterally by an individual or group of individuals, where at least one of the proposed actions resulting from the decision involves modifying the life plan of another individual or group of individuals.

353

That the decision is unilateral is intended to assure that the individual(s) whose life plan gets modified did not give permission for this outcome. The fact that only one of the actions resulting from the decision may have the affect of altering a life plan is intended to make the definition as inclusive as possible. On the other hand, the fact that the decision has to modify the life plan of an individual or group of individuals is intended to keep the definition from trivializing what may count as a moral problem. Life plan is left vague intentionally, and this has benefits as will be seen when I examine examples of what may or may not fall within the purview of the definition.12 To be useful, a lot of clarification has to occur with respect to the term life plan. It is not a term with a common or accepted meaning. It does seem to point us in a certain direction, however, if only to a series of questions. All of this is positive from a pedagogical perspective. When I speak of a life plan, the students may not have a clear notion of what I am referring to. Yet the term seems fertile; it seems to point in a general way to something they can grasp or at least grapple with. This is the starting point for a discussion: what do you think makes up a life plan? We can list aspects or characteristics. The students feel themselves empowered and involved in the discussion because neither the teacher nor the text has a ready-made definition of life plan. The discussion may take many forms, but typically it produces an initial list of traits of what

a life plan might include. If nothing else it probably involves the belief or hope that most of us share that we will live out our biological lives in accordance with some actuarily determined life expectancy. Many peoples life plans will involve achieving a level of self-defined success (there is no need here for an agreement on what constitutes success). Good or at least decent health may be a common component of peoples life plans. Obviously we are not seeking or expecting anything especially profound to emerge, but only a common ground. If a student says his or her life plan consists in seeking happiness, I would ask him or her to try to break this down into more specific components. The resulting discussion may be no different than the discussion of what constitutes a good life. After all, this is a philosophy exercise. Once we list enough characteristics or aspects of a life plan so that all students can relate the concept to themselves, we return to the idea of having our life plan altered without our permission or against our stated or implied desires. If we are on the receiving end of the unilateral decision, we are the ones determining that the problem leading to this decision is a moral problem. This result is significant for it tends to objectify moral problems. The individual or group of individuals making the decision may or may not realize that it is a moral decision; their failure to make this recognition is not conclusive. This is one of the primary justifications for a course in business ethics: to promote the recognition of moral problems in a business context.

Resolved and unresolved questions Because this working definition of a moral problem is intended as such and is primarily a pedagogical tool, it is not a finished product. A number of important questions can be raised regarding its adequacy. The questions below are not intended to represent a complete list but illustrate points that class discussions can provide. The approach taken by this definition deals exclusively with individual moral problems. But arent there general moral problems as

354

Donald Morris searching? This is an unlikely consequence. Very few business decisions will rise to the level of moral problems. The day-to-day decisions of business rarely involve encroachment on someones life plan. But the few decisions that do fit this categorization will be brought into sharp contrast by applying this definition. What about children or animals? Do they have life plans that we must be concerned about? If we cant realistically expect to know what the specific life plans are for rational adults, how in the world can we even begin to know or understand what the life plans of a baby or an armadillo might be?13 I see no simple answer to this question. Perhaps extending the idea to children is easier than to animals we can presume a minimal generic life plan. What will be excluded from the class of moral problems by this working definition? Does this definition encompass all the issues we generally assume to be included in the class of moral problems? What about homosexuality, prostitution, sexual perversion, pornography or lying? Though these examples are not specific to business ethics, each of them can give rise to a problem framed in a business context. The working definition of a moral problem individualizes problems in a way that cuts across traditional groupings. Do we need to consider life plans of the yet unborn, yet unconceived, and future generations? Many issues in business ethics such as environmental concerns, cloning, and energy conservation relate specifically to the future. When we characterize a moral problem as a choice of right or wrong, good or bad it only looks like we have identified a certain type of problem. Isnt what constitutes a moral problem determined in part by the normative ethical theory one accepts? A moral problem for a Utilitarian may not be one for a Kantian. After all, the very meanings of moral terms are affected by the particular moral theory providing their context. Good for a Utilitarian does not

well? Dont people question whether some general classification of problem is a moral problem? For example, someone could ask Is the size of executive compensation in a corporation, relative to the salaries of rank and file workers, a moral problem? Or it could be asked Is bankruptcy a moral problem? But these general ways of looking at moral issues can easily be translated into individual moral problems. I would argue that speaking of moral problems in a general sense is simply a convenient way of talking about the class of individual problems of which the general problem is an umbrella term. And finding the answer to whether a generally articulated problem is a moral problem will come down to looking at individual instances of the problem and applying the definition. As already noted, the individual who is affected by the unilateral decision is really the one who determines whether the problem resulting in that decision is a moral problem. How then can the individual(s) making the decision possibly be expected to know what goes on in the mind of another? My response is that perhaps they cant be expected to know what goes on in anothers mind, but that does not excuse them from asking as they ponder their choices, Is it possible that any or all of these choices could have as one of its effects, the altering of someones life plan? This is a viable and legitimate question in spite of the fact that we dont know what everyones life plan involves. We do know, or can think about, what our particular life plan entails and at the very least ask whether, if we were on the receiving end of this unilateral decision, our life plan would be altered. If a course in business ethics did no more than sensitize us to ask that question, most of us who teach business ethics would feel the course is justified. Wont this kind of thinking by people in business bring the wheels of commerce to a grinding halt, paralyzing decision makers and making a business judgment into an endless morass of self-doubt and soul

Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics mean the same as good for a Kantian. But then the solutions provided by these theories are not alternative solutions to the same problem. This points to the usefulness of at least the idea of a morally neutral definition of moral problem. An apparent limitation of the proposed definition is that it does not allow for personal moral problems those not involving anyone else. Such problems can occur when an individual sets personal ethical goals and then fails to achieve them. For example, an individual might impose a moral duty upon himself or herself to fast in an attempt to cleanse their body, then fail to keep this obligation. But perhaps this is a problem of determination or discipline or will and not a moral problem at all.14 Can a person have more than one life plan? Can a person change their own life plan, or does this involve a logical contradiction? If our life plans are what we expect or hope to occur, it seems like we could change them. But if life plans are viewed as a clips of history, any change in plans would already be part of the plan itself. Perhaps all moral problems do not share any one characteristic or feature but are grouped together because of partial resemblances. Thus as Wittgenstein pointed out with respect to games what we have is $\dots$ a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail. Rather than a specific set of characteristics common to all moral problems we have a situation of family resemblances.15 What if a student in a class discussion says If my action alters someones life plan, so what! This indicates that the working definition implies a moral basis. It is certainly implying that it is wrong to modify someones life plan. How did this moral belief get smuggled into the definition? My response is that if something as plain as the wrongness of unilaterally modifying someone elses life plan is not wrong, then what can wrong mean? The student in this case is asking for a justification of ethics.

355

This type of question certainly has a place in the discussion. What becomes of traditional virtues like honesty and courage and temperance? In the context of the working definition, they would require analysis in terms of their value in restraining us from unilaterally altering the life plan of another. Thus, while raising numerous questions for thoughtful students, my working definition also gives a concrete starting point and direction or focus for their initial venture into business ethics.

Notes
A moral problem in this context refers to one of many individual moral problems (e.g. whistle blowing, affirmative action, the use of animals in the development of drugs) as opposed to the moral problem as characterized by Michael Smith (1994), by which he means the central problem of ethics. The definition of a moral problem in this paper is limited to seeking a set of characteristics common to individual moral problems and does not directly address Michael Smiths specific moral problem. 2 This is a common approach. Business ethics is the art and discipline of applying ethical principles to examine and solve complex moral dilemmas. Business ethics asks, What is right and wrong? good and bad? in business transactions (Weiss, 1998, p. 7). 3 Although there are philosophers who attempt to draw a distinction between moral and ethical, in this article I follow the convention of using them interchangeably. My reason for not distinguishing between ethical and moral problems is in part because common usage does not clearly distinguish between them and also as Sigdwick (1988) noted, the term moral is commonly used as synonymous with ethical (moralis being the Latin translation of [the Greek term] ethakos). 4 In Robinsons (1965) taxonomy of definitions, I am seeking a stipulative or legislative word-thing definition, since my purpose is to propose this definition in an effort to bring clarity to the issue. 5 R. M. Hare (1981) expresses a similar concern in his attempt to define moral reasoning without using the term moral. In his case he offers two reasons. The first is that we do not need this property in order to construct our account of moral reasoning. . . . A second reason for avoiding, if we can, bringing the
1

356

Donald Morris
This definition covers typical individual moral problems as described by moral philosophers. See for example R. M. Hares (1981) example of a situation in the film The Cruel Sea (p. 29). 13 See the writings of Marcus Singer for example. 14 Hare notes that moral judgements, though they are not confined to situations where the interests of others are affected, have their predominant use in such situations (1981, p. 54). 15 See Wittgenstein (1958), pp. 6567.
12

word moral into our account of moral reasoning is that it is so ambiguous (p. 54). 6 For example, are issues involving the inhumane treatment of animals really moral problems? To answer this question requires establishing criteria for delimiting the class of moral problems. If one takes the position that moral problems involve only humans, or alternately that they may involve any living creature, a moral judgment has been made in supplying definitional criterion. 7 See my article, Business Ethics Survey Results Business v. Philosophy where data recognition the ability to recognize that a situation contains a potential moral dimension, was rated as one of the most common goals of a business ethics course (Morris, 2001). 8 R. M. Hare, preliminary to a discussion of moral reasoning in general, characterizes a moral problem as a conflict of duties. But Hare points out that in order to experience a conflict of duties we must have been brought up right (pp. 2931) or well brought up (p. 58). Approaching the issue from this perspective, however, requires using disguised moral criteria. How would we determine what proper up-brining is unless we start with a notion of morality? Subsequent to this discussion Hare does present three characteristics of moral reasoning that set it apart from other reasoning (without relying on specifically moral terminology). His definition involves the concepts of being (1) prescriptive (2) universalizable and (3) overriding (p. 55). 9 In Business, Institutions, and Ethics, Dienhard (2000) confronts the same problem. I knew the topics covered by business ethics. What I did not know was what tied these topics together beyond what the term business ethics implies: a list of topics resulting from the intersection of business and ethics. His answer is that These topics arise in markets that are embedded in social institutions that guide behavior, involve organizations}, that have internal structures (institutions) that guide behavior, and involve individuals making decisions in the context of market and organizational institutions and relationships (p. xvi). 10 As Dienhard (2000) notes, the same problems are addressed by courses in business ethics as well as business and society courses. The traditional difference between the treatment of these problems by these two disciplines is that business ethics is prescriptive while business and society is descriptive (p. xv). 11 Pierce continued Nevertheless, our existing beliefs can be set in order by this process, and order is an essential element of intellectual economy, as of every other (1986, p. 260).

References
Beauchamp, T. L. and N. E. Bowie: 1997, Ethical Theory and Business (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Buchholz, R. A. and S. B. Rosenthal: 1998, Business Ethics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). DeGeorge, R. T.: 1999, Business Ethics, 5th edn. (Prentice Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Dewey, J.: 1960, Theory of the Moral Life (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Dienhart, J. W.: 2000, Business Institutions, and Ethics (Oxford University Press, New York). Donaldson, T. and P. Werhane: 1996, Ethical Issues in Business, 5th edn. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Ferrell, O. C., J. Fraedrich and L. Ferrell: 2000, Business Ethics, Ethical Decision Making and Cases (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Hare, R. M.: 1981, Moral Thinking (University of Oxford Press, Oxford). Harris, C. E.: 2002, Applying Moral Theories, 4th edn. (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA). Jackson, J.: 1996, An Introduction to Business Ethics (Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., Oxford). Morris, D.: 2001, Business Ethics Assessment Criteria: Business v. Philosophy Survey Results, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(4), 623650. Pierce, C. S.: 1986, Writings of Charles S. Pierce, Volume 3 (Indiana University Press, Bloomington). Robinson, R.: 1965, Definition (Oxford University Press, London). Shaw, W. H. and V. Barry: 1998, Moral Issues in Business, 7th edn. (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA). Sidgwick, H.: 1988, Outlines of the History of Ethics (Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis). Smith, M.: 1994, The Moral Problem (Blackwell, Oxford. Trevino, L. K. and K. A. Nelson: 1999, Managing

Defining a Moral Problem in Business Ethics

Business Ethics, 2nd edn. ( John Wiley & Sons, New York). Velasquez, M. G.: 1998, Business Ethics, 4th edn. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Weiss, J. W.: 1998, Business Ethics, 2nd edn. (The Dryden Press, Fort Worth). Wittgenstein, L.: 1958, Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edn. (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

357

Station 49, College of Business, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM 88130, U.S.A.