POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INTERNATIONAL TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

Name : Jan Mathew Jaive M. Mascardo

Time : 06:00 - 09:00 / Saturday
Professor : Dr. Daryl Ace V. Cornell
Subject : HRM and Ethics in Tourism and Hospitality Industry
Topics : Ethical Decision Making
● Ethical Dilemma
● Ethical Decision Making
● Frameworks of Ethical Decision Making
● 6 Ethical Lenses
● Ethical Decision-Making Process
● Obstacle of Ethical Decision-Making Process: Rationalizations

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Understand the principles and theories of ethical decision-making: The learner should be
able to comprehend the fundamental ethical principles. They should also be familiar with
ethical theories that guide decision-making, such as the ethical decision-making models
and frameworks.
2. Analyze ethical dilemmas and evaluate alternative courses of action: The learner should
be able to identify and analyze ethical dilemmas in various contexts, such as professional,
personal, and societal settings. They should develop the ability to critically evaluate
alternative courses of action by considering the ethical implications, consequences, and
potential conflicts of interest involved.
3. Apply ethical decision-making frameworks to real-life situations: The learner should be
able to apply ethical decision-making frameworks, such as the ethical decision-making
process or the four principles approach, to real-life scenarios. They should demonstrate
the capacity to identify the stakeholders, assess the relevant ethical considerations, and
propose ethical solutions or actions.
4. Recognize biases and ethical pitfalls in decision-making: The learner should develop
self-awareness and an understanding of cognitive biases and ethical pitfalls that can
impact decision-making. They should be able to recognize and mitigate common biases
like confirmation bias, groupthink, and overconfidence, ensuring that their
decision-making process is more objective, fair, and ethically sound.
 5. Develop a personal code of ethics and ethical leadership skills: The learner should reflect
on their own values, beliefs, and ethical principles to develop a personal code of ethics.
They should also cultivate ethical leadership skills, including integrity, empathy,
accountability, and the ability to communicate and promote ethical behavior within their
organizations or communities.

CONTENT

ETHICS

Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the
many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens,
businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It requires
knowledge, skills, and habits.

ETHICAL DILEMMA

An ethical dilemma is a complex situation a person (business) faces in which a decision

must be made about the adequate action to be taken. A dilemma may derive from the conflict
between the rightness or wrongness of the actions and the goodness or badness of the
consequences of the actions. In other words, doing what is morally right apparently results in a
bad outcome and doing what is morally wrong seems to lead to better effects.

Some examples of ethical dilemma include:

● Taking credit for others’ work

● Offering a client, a worse product for your own profit
● Utilizing inside knowledge for your own profit

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

Ethical Decision-Making Process is the processes of choosing the best alternative for
achieving the best results or outcomes compliance with individual and social values, moral, and
regulations.

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a
practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations
that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision-making
is essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it
automatically without consulting the specific steps.
 The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on
discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the
problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical
choices in such situations.

FRAMEWORK OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

ETHICAL INTENSITY ISSUE

can be defined as the relevance or importance of an ethical issue in the eyes of the
individual, work group, and/or organization. It is personal and temporal in character to
accommodate values, beliefs, needs, perceptions, the special characteristics of the situation, and
the personal pressures prevailing at a particular place and time.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

“The more likely individuals are to perceive an ethical issue as important, the less likely
they are to engage in questionable or unethical behavior.”

● GENDER - women are generally more ethical than men. By “more ethical,” we
mean that women seem to be more sensitive to ethical scenarios and less tolerant
of unethical actions.
● EDUCATION or WORK EXPERIENCE - he more education or work
experience that one has, the better he or she is at ethical decision making.
● NATIONALITY - nationality and culture appears to be significant in that it
affects ethical decision making
 ● AGE - the older you are, the more ethical you are.
● LOCUS OF CONTROL - External Control VS Internal Control
o External Control - see themselves as going with the flow because that’s all
they can do.
o Internal Control - believe that they control the events in their lives by their
own effort and skill.

ORGANIZATOINAL FACTORS

“The more ethical employees perceive an organization’s culture to be, the less likely they
are to make unethical decisions.”

● the organization’s values often have greater influence on decisions than a person’s
own values.
● Ethical choices in business are most often made jointly, in work groups and
committees, or in conversations and discussions with coworkers. Employees
approach ethical issues on the basis of what they have learned not only from their
own backgrounds but also from others in the organization.

OPPURTUNITY

● Describes the conditions in an organization that limit or permit ethical or

unethical behavior.
● Opportunity results from conditions that either provide rewards, whether internal
or external, or fail to erect barriers against unethical behavior.

SIX ETHICAL LENSES

If our ethical decision-making is not solely based on feelings, religion, law, accepted
social practice, or science, then on what basis can we decide between right and wrong,
good and bad? Many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us answer this
critical question. They have suggested a variety of different lenses that help us perceive
ethical dimensions. Here are six of them:

THE RIGHTS LENS

Some suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral
rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity
based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with
their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends in
themselves and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights—including the
rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not
to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on—is widely debated; some argue that
non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying duties—in
particular, the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.

THE JUSTICE LENS

Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is
often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people should be
treated as equals according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not
necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect. There
are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These
include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice
(distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices),
retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative
or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an
alternative to criminal punishment).

THE UTILITARIAN LENS

Some ethicists begin by asking, “How will this action impact everyone
affected?”—emphasizing the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based
approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good
over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of
the likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, the ethical corporate
action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who
are affected—customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment.
Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach.

THE COMMON GOOD LENS

According to the common good approach, life in community is a good in itself and our
actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking
relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion
for all others—especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such reasoning. This
approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare
of everyone—such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire
departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.
Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates goods for every individual, the
common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a
community.

THE VIRTUE LENS

A very ancient approach to ethics argues that ethical actions ought to be consistent with
certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues
are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our
character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion,
generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all
examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, “What kind of person will I become
if I do this?” or “Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?”

THE CARE ETHICS LENS

Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals
in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It
privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values
interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation
of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness,
compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics
holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings
of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal
duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public
health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing
support, and environmental protection alongside physical health.

Using the Lenses

Each of the lenses introduced above helps us determine what standards of behavior and
character traits can be considered right and good. There are still problems to be solved,
however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific
lenses. For example, we may not all agree on the same set of human and civil rights. We
may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is
a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different lenses may lead to different answers to the
question “What is ethical?” Nonetheless, each one gives us important insights in the
process of deciding what is ethical in a particular circumstance.

ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Steps to Ethical Decision Making

1. Step 1: Identify the problem. Sometimes just realizing a particular situation is

ethical can be the important first step. Occasionally in our organizations, we may
 feel that it’s just the “way of doing business” and not think to question the ethical
nature.
2. Step 2: Identify the potential issues involved. Who could get hurt? What are the
issues that could negatively impact people and/or the company? What is the
worst-case scenario if we choose to do nothing?
3. Step 3: Review relevant ethical guidelines. Does the organization have policies
and procedures in place to handle this situation? For example, if a client gives you
a gift, there may be a rule in place as to whether you can accept gifts and if so, the
value limit of the gift you can accept.
4. Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. If the company doesn’t necessarily
have a rule against it, could it be looked at as illegal?
5. Step 5: Obtain consultation. Seek support from supervisors, coworkers, friends,
and family, and especially seek advice from people who you feel are moral and
ethical.
6. Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. What are all of the
possible solutions for solving the problem? Brainstorm a list of solutions—all
solutions are options during this phase.
7. Step 7: List the consequences of the probable courses of action. What are both
the positive and negative benefits of each proposed solution? Who can the
decision affect?
8. Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. With the facts
we have and the analysis done, choosing the best course of action is the final step.
There may not always be a “perfect” solution, but the best solution is the one that
seems to create the best and the least harm.
9. Step 9: Review the course of action. How did my decision turn out, and what
have I learned from this specific situation? What (if any) follow-up actions should
I take?

OBSTACLES IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: RATIONALIZATIONS

We judge ourselves by our best intentions, our noblest acts and our most virtuous habits.
But others tend to judge us by our last worst act. So, in making tough decisions, don’t be
distracted by rationalizations. Here are some of the most common ones:

If It’s Necessary, It’s Ethical

This rationalization rests on the false assumption that necessity breeds propriety. The
approach often leads to ends-justify-the-means reasoning and treating non-ethical tasks or
goals as moral imperatives.
The False Necessity Trap

As Nietzsche put it, "Necessity is an interpretation, not a fact." We tend to fall into the
"false necessity trap" because we overestimate the cost of doing the right thing and
underestimate the cost of failing to do so.

If It’s Legal and Permissible, It’s Proper

This substitutes legal requirements (which establish minimal standards of behavior) for
personal moral judgment. This alternative does not embrace the full range of ethical
obligations, especially for individuals involved in upholding the public trust. Ethical
people often choose to do less than the maximally allowable, and more than the
minimally acceptable.

It’s Just Part of the Job

Conscientious people who want to do their jobs well often fail to adequately consider the
morality of their professional behavior. They tend to compartmentalize ethics into two
domains: private and occupational. Fundamentally decent people thereby feel justified
doing things at work that they know to be wrong in other contexts. They forget that
everyone’s first job is to be a good person.

It’s All for a Good Cause

People are especially vulnerable to rationalizations when they seek to advance a noble
aim. "It’s all for a good cause" is a seductive rationale that loosens interpretations of
deception, concealment, conflicts of interest, favoritism and violations of established
rules and procedures.

I Was Just Doing It for You

This is a primary justification for committing "little white lies" or withholding important
information in personal or professional relationships, such as performance reviews. This
rationalization pits the values of honesty and respect against the value of caring. An
individual deserves the truth because he has a moral right to make decisions about his
own life based on accurate information. This rationalization overestimates other people’s
desire to be "protected" from the truth, when in fact most people would rather know
unpleasant information than believe soothing falsehoods. Consider the perspective of
people lied to: If they discovered the lie, would they thank you for being thoughtful or
would they feel betrayed, patronized or manipulated?

I’m Just Fighting Fire with Fire

This is the false assumption that promise-breaking, lying and other kinds of misconduct
are justified if they are routinely engaged in by those with whom you are dealing.
Remember: when you fight fire with fire, you end up with the ashes of your own
integrity.

It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone

Used to excuse misconduct, this rationalization falsely holds that one can violate ethical
principles so long as there is no clear and immediate harm to others. It treats ethical
obligations simply as factors to be considered in decision-making, rather than as ground
rules. Problem areas: asking for or giving special favors to family, friends or public
officials; disclosing nonpublic information to benefit others; using one’s position for
personal advantage.

Everyone’s Doing It

This is a false, "safety in numbers" rationale fed by the tendency to uncritically treat
cultural, organizational or occupational behaviors as if they were ethical norms, just
because they are norms.

It’s OK If I Don’t Gain Personally

This justifies improper conduct done for others or for institutional purposes on the false
assumption that personal gain is the only test of impropriety. A related but narrower view
is that only behavior resulting in improper financial gain warrants ethical criticism.

I’ve Got It Coming

People who feel they are overworked or underpaid rationalize that minor "perks" — such
as acceptance of favors, discounts or gratuities — are nothing more than fair
compensation for services rendered. This is also used as an excuse to abuse sick time,
insurance claims, overtime, personal phone calls and personal use of office supplies.

I Can Still Be Objective

By definition, if you’ve lost your objectivity, you can’t see that you’ve lost your
objectivity! It also underestimates the subtle ways in which gratitude, friendship and the
anticipation of future favors affect judgment. Does the person providing you with the
benefit believe that it will in no way affect your judgment? Would the person still provide
the benefit if you were in no position to help?
References

ARTICLES

Markkula Center For Applied Ethics At Santa Clara University

Https://Www.Scu.Edu/Ethics/Ethics-Resources/A-Framework-For-Ethical-Decision-Mak
ing/

Https://Saylordotorg.Github.Io/Text_Human-Relations/S09-02-Making-Ethical-Decisions
.Html

Https://Web.Engr.Uky.Edu/~Jrchee0/Ce%20401/Josephson%20edm/Making_Ethical_De
cisions.Pdf

BOOKS

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical Decision Making: A Review Of The
Empirical Literature. Journal Of Business Ethics, 13, 205-221.

Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2021). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making And
Cases. Cengage Learning.

The Dilemma Of Business Ethics (Panelikbale Tota, Hidajet Shehu)

Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00195-5

Corey, G., Corey, M . S., & Callanan, P. (1998). Issues And Ethics In The Helping
Professions. Toronto: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; Syracuse School Of Education.