Abstract
Most authors and researchers consistently perceive ethics as being invariably divided into two clearly discernible divisions. The Kantian categorically imperative and universalistic divinity prescribes a somewhat non-negotiable and positivistic duty based maxim that guide the actualization of altruism. Conversely, the contemporary but more relative utilitarian approach advocates that an action that produces the greatest wellbeing of good for the greatest number is undeniably the ethical one. Clearly, it makes little sense and very negligible contribution to literature if corporations are continuously misled to believe that such strict and fervent dichotomy exist. On one hand, business firms in this globalized era are increasingly pressured to comply with emerging universalistic international laws. On the other, business firms cannot remain entirely altruistic. Corporations greatly need the flexibility and capability to relate dissimilar cultural contents and moral distorts. This paper maintains that there is an inextricable link between universalism and utilitarianism. The association between the two is at best complex and intricate. Business firms commonly usurp a utilitarian slant where relativity and ability to adapt is pivotal. However, a firm is estopped from usurping utilitarianism if a firm’s conduct falls below the threshold and minimum content of morality. This would immediately instigate a punctuated equilibrium in the firm triggered through a tsunamic impact, causing the firm to refresh into a universalistic mode. This punctuated equilibrium is frequently activated by external factors that are adequately vigorous to refresh and reset the moral values of a firm. Consider Shell’s defensive posture over the Brent Oil Spar allegation which left the firm with diving stock value and tarnished branding. Shell since then has taken a more Kantian receptive posture of apologizing for their catastrophic mistakes which resembled a renewed commitment to the betterment of human kind. This paper contributes to better the understanding of this ethical transition that firms might experience in their course of organization life cycle and how it can be managed tactfully.
Highlights
Most authors and researchers consistently perceive ethics as being invariably divided into two clearly discernible divisions
This paper maintains that there is an inextricable link between universalism and utilitarianism
A firm is estopped from usurping utilitarianism if a firm’s conduct falls below the threshold and minimum content of morality. This would immediately instigate a punctuated equilibrium in the firm triggered through a tsunamic impact, causing the firm to refresh into a universalistic mode
Summary
It has often been an intellectual norm for researchers and authors to classically characterise ethics into two divisions of normative notions. Shaw (2013) for example, indicates that such division is a common and simplistic practice It contributes to resolving specific and general ethical dilemmas. Shaw mentioned that: It is a common practice to group these theories as consequentialist and non-consequentialist This is a way of separating those theories that are concerned primarily with outcomes (or consequences) and those theories that are primarily concerned with particular or general principles or rules on which to base our decisions or resolve dilemmas It can reverse the polarity of the firm’s ethical position and steers the firm towards a purely universalistic one In conjunction to this view, this paper aims to explore this inextricable link between utilitarianism and universalism using a qualitative approach
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
