Question

1. Discuss how in an organization diffusion of responsibility and conformity can lead people to act unethically.

2. Compare between consequentialist and non-consequentialist theories outlining an advantage and disadvantage of each.

3. Explain John Rawls’ veil of ignorance and discuss if it would ensure justice for all.

Answer 1

1)

Pressure to conform to the group and to adhere to its norms and beliefs can lead to the surrender of individual moral autonomy. This tendency is enhanced by the fact that group actions frequently involve the participation of many people. As a result, responsibility for what an organization does can become fragmented or diffused throughout the group, with no single individual seeing himself or herself as responsible for what happens. Indeed, it may be difficult to say exactly who should be held accountable. This diffusion of responsibility inside an organization leads individuals to have a diluted or diminished sense of their own personal moral responsibilities. They tend to see themselves simply as small players in a process or as cogs in a machine, over which they have no control and for which they are unac-countable. They rationalize to themselves contributing to actions, policies, or events that they would refuse to perform or to authorize if they thought the decision were entirely up to them. ‘‘It’s not my fault,’’ they think. ‘‘This would happen anyway, with or without me.’’ Diffusion of responsibility encourages the moral myopia of thinking ‘‘I’m just doing my job,’’ instead of taking a 20/20 look at the bigger picture. Diffusion of responsibility inside an organization can weakenpeople’s sense of moral responsibility.

2)

A consequentialist theory judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences that action has. The most familiar example would be utilitarianism--``that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number'' (Jeremy Bentham).

• Over what ``ethical community'' are the consequences to be measured? Does damage to trees count as much as damage to human beings
  • John Stuart Mill--``Socrates dissatisfied should have more moral weight than a pig satisfied.''The criterion might be satisfied by an action that causes great harm to a small number of people while giving a small benefit to a great number.

Biodiversity implication--Biodiversity has instrumental value, because it can contribute to human welfare, but it has no intrinsic value. Or at least it has less value than aspects of human welfare. As a result, human welfare will always trump biodiversity if the two conflict.

A non-consequentialist theory of value judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on properties intrinsic to the action, not on its consequences.

• Libertarianism--People should be free to do as they like as long as they respect the freedom of others to do the same.

  Biodiversity implication--Biodiversity has instrumental value, and only to the extent that it can contribute to the expression of individual freedom.

  • It might be possible to develop a libertarian theory that included the rights of non-human organisms to be ``free'', but (a) I'm not aware that it's been done⁵ and (b) I think it would be very difficult to do.

3)

in his book, A Theory Of Justice, Rawls asks us to imagine a fantastic scene: a group of people are gathered to plan their own future society, hammering out the details of what will basically become a Social Contract. Rawls calls this the “Original Position.” In the Original Position, the future citizens do not yet know what part they will play in their upcoming society. They must design their society behind what Rawls calls the Veil Of Ignorance.

Neither do the people know what type of society they will be entering. They do not know its culture, its economic situation, or political climate.

It is important for Rawls that the planners of this future society operate behind this Veil Of Ignorance, for as Rawls says, “if a man knew that he was wealthy, he might find it rational to advance the principle that various taxes for welfare measures be counted unjust; if he knew that he were poor, he would most likely propose the contrary principle. To represent the desired restrictions, one imagines a situation in which everyone is deprived of this sort of information.”

Rawls contends that if “rational persons concerned to advance their interests” found themselves in this type of Original Position, they would agree to a Social Contract in which there existed an equal distribution of liberties and social goods. As an illustration, he describes the following situation:

A group of people are presented a cake (that we assume they all desperately desire). One of them must slice the cake and divvy out the portions. What instructions will they give the man doing the slicing? Rawls says that they will tell the man slicing that he must take the last piece. By doing this, they assure the man will cut equal pieces, for this is the best way he can assure himself that he will get the largest share possible. If he were to cut uneven slices then the larger slices would already be picked when his turn came, and he would be left with the smallest slice.