Morality Management and Situation Ethics: Metatheory and Practice

Jacko, Jan F anciszek
Book
Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics: Me a heo y
and P ac ice
Rou ledge S udies in Business E hics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Taylo & F ancis G oup
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Jacko, Jan F anciszek (2025) : Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics:
Me a heo y and P ac ice, Rou ledge S udies in Business E hics, ISBN 978-1-040-16593-5, Rou ledge,
Ox o d,
h ps://doi.o g/10.4324/9781003250623
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/312732
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
MORALITY MANAGEMENT AND SITUATION ETHICS
MORALITY MANAGEMENT
AND SITUATION ETHICS
METATHEORY AND PRACTICE
Jan F anciszek Jacko
Rou ledge S udies in Business E hics
Mo ali y Managemen
and Si ua ion E hics
This book p esen s he philosophical assump ions o si ua ion e hics o show
he p ac ice o mo ali y managemen ha ollows om hem. This esea ch
comp ises heo e ical and applied aspec s: I is an in es iga ion in o me a-
e hics ha encompasses s a egic and quali y managemen p oblems. Wi h
he example o si ua ion e hics, he book illus a es he ole o philosophical
in es iga ions and solu ions in managemen heo y and p ac ice. I will be o
in e es o esea che s, academics and ad anced s uden s in he ields o busi-
ness and managemen s udies, e hics, quali y managemen and philosophy.
Fu he mo e, his book may be use ul o senio execu i es and poli icians
cha ged wi h nego ia ing complica ed mo al quanda ies and o e seeing he
implemen a ion o e hical policies in hei o ganisa ions and communi ies.
Jan F anciszek Jacko is an Associa e P o esso a he Jagiellonian Uni e -
si y in K aków, Poland. His esea ch in e es s a e a ional choice heo y,
business e hics and applied philosophy.
Business e hics is a si e o con es a ion, bo h in heo y and p ac ice. Fo
some i se es as a sal e o he wo s e ec s o capi alism, gi ing businesses
he means o sel - egula e away om en enched endencies o mal easance
and exploi a ion. Fo o he s business e hics is a mo e pe sonal ma e , con-
ce ning he way ha indi iduals can e ec i ely wade h ough he mo al
quagmi es ha cha ac e ise so many dimensions o business li e. Business
e hics has also been concei ed o as a ig lea , designed o allow business-
as-usual o con inue while co e ing o e he less sa ou y p ac ices so as o
c ea e an appea ance o igh eousness.
Ac oss hese and o he app oaches, wha emains c i ical is o ensu e ha
he e hics o business is he subjec o incisi e ques ioning, c i ical esea ch,
and di e se heo e ical de elopmen . I is h ough such schola ly inqui y
ha he inc easingly powe ul pu iew o co po a ions and business ac i -
i y can be in e oga ed, unde s ood and, ul ima ely, e o mula ed. This se-
ies con ibu es o ha goal by publishing he la es esea ch and hinking
ac oss he b oad e ain ha cha ac e ises business e hics.
The se ies welcomes con ibu ions in a eas including: co po a e social e-
sponsibili y; c i ical app oaches o business e hics; e hics and co po a e go -
e nance; e hics and di e si y; eminis e hics; globaliza ion and business e hics;
philosophical adi ions o business e hics; pos colonialism and he e hics o
business; p oduc ion and supply chain e hics; esis ance, poli ical ac i ism and
e hics; sus ainabili y, en i onmen alism and clima e change; he e hics o co -
po a e misconduc ; he poli ics o business e hics; and wo ke ’s igh s.
23. App oaches o Co po a e Social Responsibili y
Knowledge, Values, and Ac ions
Edi ed by S e an Ma ko ic, Adam Lindg een, Nikolina Kopo cic, and
Milena Mice ski
24. Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
Me a heo y and P ac ice
Jan F anciszek Jacko
Rou ledge S udies in Business E hics
Mo ali y Managemen
and Si ua ion E hics
Me a heo y and P ac ice
Jan F anciszek Jacko

Fi s published 2025
by Rou ledge
605 Thi d A enue, New Yo k, NY 10158
and by Rou ledge
4 Pa k Squa e, Mil on Pa k, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Rou ledge is an imp in o he Taylo & F ancis G oup, an in o ma
business
© 2025 Jan F anciszek Jacko
The igh o Jan F anciszek Jacko o be iden i ied as au ho o his
wo k has been asse ed in acco dance wi h sec ions 77 and 78 o he
Copy igh , Designs and Pa en s Ac 1988.
The Open Access e sion o his book, a ailable a www. aylo ancis.
com, has been made a ailable unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-
Non Comme cial-No De i a i es (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
Any hi d pa y ma e ial in his book is no included in he OA
C ea i e Commons license, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi
line o he ma e ial. Please di ec any pe missions enqui ies o he
o iginal igh sholde .
T adema k no ice: P oduc o co po a e names may be adema ks
o egis e ed adema ks, and a e used only o iden i ica ion and
explana ion wi hou in en o in inge.
Lib a y o Cong ess Ca aloging-in-Publica ion Da a
Names: Jacko, Jan F., au ho .
Ti le: Mo ali y managemen and si ua ion e hics : me a heo y and p ac ice /
Jan F anciszek Jacko.
Desc ip ion: New Yo k, NY : Rou ledge, 2025. | Se ies: Rou ledge s udies in
business e hics | Includes bibliog aphical e e ences and index.
Iden i ie s: LCCN 2024028705 | ISBN 9781032168531 (ha dback) |
ISBN 9781032168555 (pape back) | ISBN 9781003250623 (ebook)
Subjec s: LCSH: Si ua ion e hics. | Me ae hics. | Managemen --Mo al and
e hical aspec s.
Classi ica ion: LCC BJ1031 .J325 2025 | DDC 170--dc23/eng/20240823
LC eco d a ailable a h ps://lccn.loc.go /2024028705
ISBN: 978-1-032-16853-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-16855-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-25062-3 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003250623
Typese in Gallia d
by KnowledgeWo ks Global L d.
To my Mo he
Con en s
Acknowledgemen s x
Fo ewo d xi
In oduc ion 1
1 Goals and Me hods 3
2 The P oblem: Mo ali y Managemen Pa adox 4
3 The Subjec Ma e and I s S a e o Resea ch 5
I P elimina y Concep s 13
4 Me aphysical Realism e sus Subjec i ism in
Me ae hics 13
5 Epis emological Realism e sus Subjec i ism in
Me ae hics 13
6 No ma i e Rela i ism e sus No ma i e An i-
Rela i ism (Absolu ism) in Me ae hics 15
7 No ma i e Gene alism e sus Pa icula ism in
Me ae hics 16
8 Ra ional Decisions 16
9 Goods, Values and Thei Hie a chies 18
10 The Adjec i e Mo al 20
11 Mo ali y 21
12 Managing Mo al P e e ences 23
II Th ee P ojec s o Mo ali y 28
13 The P ojec o Legalism 28
14 The P ojec o An inomianism 33
15 The P ojec o Si ua ion E hics 35
xi Fo ewo d
capaci y o choose nonbeing seems o be he ul ima e oo o eedom. We
ind his, o ins ance, in he s o y o he philosophical suicide o Jules Lequie .
I we ollow he logic o he a gumen o Jan Jacko, we see ha he
engagemen o eedom wi h he wo ld is no de oid o p esupposi ions.2
Namely, we a e always si ua ed in being, and we ake a s and in on o and
wi hin a si ua ion ha p ecedes us. We a e bo n om a mo he and wi h he
con ibu ion o a a he . We exis in a sys em o social coope a ion wi hou
which o ou o which we could no ac and su i e. Mo ali y Manage
p esupposes his s a e o a ai s. Mo ali y p esupposes he inse ion o he
indi idual wi hin socie y. This does no mean, howe e , ha he ques ion
o he decision be ween being and no being and o he ma e ial con en o
he ac o sel -engagemen is de oid o philosophical in e es . I pe ains,
howe e , o ano he domain o philosophy: no o mo ali y managemen
bu o he ounda ions o mo als o pu e e hics i we dis inguish e hics as
an a p io i science om mo ali y managemen as he science ha egula es
he conc e e and pa icula exe cise o he mo al choices in a gi en his o ical
con ex . Pe haps his issue will be deal wi h in he nex book by Jan Jacko.
Rocco Bu iglione
No es
1 This a gumen a i e s a egy p esupposes being as a alue bu he es ic i e
pa adigm o mo ali y i adop s (mo ali y as he no ma i e sys em ha allows
an ins i u ion o a communi y o exis and o lou ish) makes i unnecessa y o
ake in o accoun he objec ion o Da id Hume ha om an “is” s a emen no
“ough ” s a emen can be de i ed. An in e es ing answe o Hume’s p oblem
can howe e be de i ed om Die ich on Hildeb and’s disco e y o he “ alue
esponse”: he ough s a emen is no de i ed om he is s a emen bu is phe-
nomenologically gi en oge he wi h he is s a emen in he immedia e human
expe ience. We ne e expe imen beings as neu al. The neu ali y is an e ec o
he abs ac ion. Beings a e immedia ely cha ged wi h a alue pe cep ion.
2 This ema k does no oppose he equi emen o unbiased app oach ha he
Ge man idealis ic philosophy called Vo ausse zungslösigkei .

DOI: 10.4324/9781003250623-1
This chap e has been made a ailable unde a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
In oduc ion
Mo ali y managemen and managing mo ali y do no ha e any canonical
de ini ion ye . In his book, hese e ms (abb e ia ed as “MM”) mean he
pu pose ul shaping (p ese ing o changing) o people’s mo al p e e ences
(see Sec ion 12). Applied sciences ha e apidly accumula ed g owing in-
o ma ion on his p ac ice. This desc ip i e and know-how knowledge is in-
c easingly asymme ic owa ds he awa eness o MM goals. The no ma i e
ques ion emains p oblema ic as i was in ancien imes. One way o am-
ing his ques ion is as ollows: Which alue p e e ences should be p omo ed
and suppo ed in he p ocess o MM? I s answe is mo e p essing han e e
due o he ecen de elopmen o AI, big da a echnologies and elec onic
communica ion media, which p o ide unp eceden ed and unp eceden -
edly e ec i e social enginee ing ools o manage human p e e ences. This
s udy add esses his ques ion in he con ex o si ua ion e hics (si ua ion-
ism), a philosophical concep ha eme ged in he 1960s and 1970s o he
20 h cen u y.
Al hough si ua ion e hics is no a popula e m oday, he si ua ionis
app oach o MM is s ill in e es ing because i add esses people’s mo al
knowledge limi s, which ou gene a ion aces. Namely, he sciences and
echnology p o ide e ec i e ools o managing mo ali y wi hou p o iding
answe s o he abo e ques ion. Wi hou an answe , hese ins umen s a e as
useless and isky as medicines wi hou knowledge o he ailmen s hey can
cu e and hei side e ec s. The si ua ion o MM is d ama ic when people
do some hing hey do no ully unde s and, and he e is some hing e y
impo an o lose o gain. Howe e , as si ua ionis s (p oponen s o si ua-
ion e hics) show, his si ua ion is no agic because he e a e analy ical and
phenomenological me hods o philosophy o in es iga e and weigh no ma-
i e assump ions ha speci y he di ec ions o MM. These p emises speci y
he na u e o goods o alues and hei hie a chy.
Si ua ion e hics does no o e a simple answe o he abo e ques ion.
They p opose a me hodology o se MM goals by in es iga ing he a ion-
ale o di e gen and compe ing no ma i e assump ions and accoun ing o
2 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
he ele an ci cums ances o ac ion. This app oach may be a no el y in
his managemen esea ch, which ma ginalises philosophical heo y behind
solu ions.
Si ua ionis s do no use he e m mo ali y managemen o managing mo-
ali y. Howe e , hese hinke s hema ise he ideas and p ac ices o MM by
showing how hey eme ge om philosophical (on ological, epis emological
and no ma i e) p emises.1
Si ua ion e hics p oposes he MM me hod, which commences wi h a
philosophical explo a ion o no ma i e p emises. Acco ding o si ua ionis s,
such philosophical in es iga ion is he mos secu e poin o depa u e o
es ablishing MM goals. Wi hou his ounda ion, hey migh be andomly
selec ed o blind olded acco ding o s e eo ypes o a bi a y wishes. Philo-
sophical me hods canno p esen p oo , bu hey can enable agen s o weigh
he a ionale o a ious op ions and make a ional choices abou no ma i e
assump ions.
Si ua ion e hics shows how know-how ques ions p esume logically p io
know-why answe s. Si ua ionis s discuss no ma i e assump ions ha explain
and de e mine solu ions o mo al p oblems. In his way, si ua ionism pe -
ains o he me ae hics o e hical app oaches. This e hics p oposes a me hod
o selec no ma i e assump ions o p ac ice. Si ua ionis s do no p eju-
dice wha MM p ac ices a e igh o w ong. Howe e , si ua ion e hics de-
mands ha hey be consis en wi h he agen ’s in en ions and bes a ailable
knowledge.
Si ua ionis s equi e ha people who manage mo ali y (mo ali y man-
age s) in es iga e hei no ma i e p emises. Wi hou his in es iga ion,
hese manage s isk ha hei ac ion des oys wha hey wan o should
a ain. Si ua ionis s wa n ha ailing o examine he no ma i e a ionale
behind ac ions ende s such ac ions highly isky, po en ially ine ec i e o
ine icien .
As si ua ionis s ha e shown, implici no ma i e assump ions may de-
e mine he p ac ical meaning o mo al no ms, ules and pos ula es. Si u-
a ionis s demand ha MM’s ideas and doc ines disclose hei no ma i e
assump ions. Suppose hey a e hidden behind he nice w apping o poli ical
ad e isemen s. In ha case, he MM p ocess may ake he o m o manipu-
la ion, in which he nice-sounding MM pos ula es ha e a di e en meaning
in p ac ice han in how hey a e p esen ed.
Si ua ionis s iden i y he no ma i e assump ions o a ious MM heo-
ies and p ac ices o p esen disc epancies be ween hei p emises and
ou comes. These hinke s equi e MM p ac ices consis en wi h hei as-
sump ions, which may be explici o implici in MM’s ac ions, s a egies
and ac ics. When a p ac ice di e s om i s p emises, one should change he
p ac ice o modi y he p emises o make hem compa ible wi h he p ac ice,
as si ua ionis s sugges .
In oduc ion 3
Consequen ly, he si ua ionis app oach o MM ocuses on ela ion-
ships be ween no ma i e assump ions and MM’s p ac ices. These ela ion-
ships a e bo h logical and p ac ical. F om a logical pe spec i e, si ua ion
e hics show mu ual logical in e ences be ween he assump ions and di-
e gen codes o mo al conduc . I s applied (p ac ical) conce ns in ol e
how no ma i e assump ions p og amme he di ec ions and me hods o
he MM.
Si ua ion e hics ocuses on peculia me ae hical know-why issues ela ed
o selec ing no ma i e assump ions conce ning he capaci y o explain da a
and sol e p oblems. I p ima ily conce ns managing hough s and ideas ha
p og amme he goals and p ac ices o he MM. This in es iga ion aspec is
ela i ely a e in he li e a u e; howe e , as si ua ionis s show, i is necessa y
because e hical heo ies wi hou me ae hical in es iga ion a e unc i ical and
g oundless.
1 Goals and Me hods
This s udy p esen s and discusses he si ua ionis app oach o MM. Con-
sequen ly, he me a heo ies o MM and hei ela ionships wi h MM a e
cen al o his in es iga ion. I is a concep ual and p ima ily me ae hical
enqui y.2
The aims o his s udy a e heo e ical and p ac ical (applied). The heo-
e ical aim is o p esen no ma i e assump ions o di e gen me a heo ies o
MM acco ding o si ua ion e hics. In his espec , he book is philosophi-
cal. I add esses he philosophical p oblems o MM. The applied goal is o
demons a e he possibili ies o applying si ua ion e hics in MM and he
isks associa ed wi h i .
Abduc i e easoning ( om conclusions o p emises) led o he heo e i-
cal goal o his s udy. This in es iga ion began wi h he p ojec s o mo ali y
and he p ac ices o MM acco ding o legalism, an inomianism and si u-
a ionism o a i e a hei mos undamen al no ma i e p emises.
The analy ical me hods and deduc i e easoning led owa ds he applied
goal o his s udy, highligh ing he p ac ical implica ions o he no ma i e
p emises. When discussing hei impac on p ac ice, his in es iga ion aligns
wi h a phenomenological me hod o show how hey shape he in en ions
and a i udes o agen s who adop hese p emises. Consequen ly, he ap-
plied aim is o p esen he ole o no ma i e assump ions in he p ac ice
o MM. This s udy add esses business and managemen e hics, s a egic
managemen and quali y conce ns by demons a ing how no ma i e as-
sump ions a ec MM. Howe e , he applied p oblems, case s udies and
his o ical examples play only illus a i e oles in in es iga ing si ua ionism.
This monog aph ma ginally deals wi h ypical issues o business and man-
agemen e hics handbooks, such as ques ions abou equali y, disc imina ion
4 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
o wo kplace sa e y issues because his book is no abou applied e hics. I is
a s udy in he me ae hics o MM.
This book consis s o he ollowing se en chap e s: Chap e I desc ibes
he me hodology and de ines he key concep s o he s udy. Chap e II
p esen s he si ua ionis ypology o MM p ojec s. Chap e III shows he
si ua ionis ypology o MM me a heo ies and hei no ma i e assump ions.
Chap e IV p esen s he si ua ionis ypology o MM ac ics. This s udy
adop ed a c i ical app oach o si ua ion e hics. A e demons a ing i s ad-
an ages, his book p o ides a ho ough isk c i ique o he si ua ionism
me hod in Chap e s V and VI. Chap e V p esen s ambigui ies in si ua-
ion e hics and he me ae hical ques ions ha si ua ionis s aise wi hou
answe ing. The haza ds o hese ambigui ies a e p esen ed in Chap e VI.
Chap e VII o e s solu ions ha si ua ion e hics sugges s bu does no
make explici . These conclusions p o ide u he pe spec i es o in es iga -
ing me ae hics in MM, which conclusions emb ace.
This s udy is he i s ins almen o a ilogy on MM. Two mo e sequels
a e planned: one will p esen he philosophical in es iga ion o si ua ion
e hics, and he o he will p esen he ull spec um o MM me a heo ies,
ex ending beyond he ypology o e ed by si ua ion e hics.
2 The P oblem: Mo ali y Managemen Pa adox
Si ua ionis s highligh he pa adox,3 which is a p ac ical con adic ion be-
ween espec o mo al du ies and an a emp o modi y hem. I occu s in
he p ocess o MM, when people in end o change mo ali y mo ally. This
in en ion is pa adoxical because i one wan s o change mo al du ies, one
canno espec hem; by modi ying hem, one ac s agains hem. This p ac-
ical con adic ion is he MM pa adox. Si ua ionis s p esen i wi h examples
o legalism and an inomianism wi hou naming his p ac ical con adic ion
a pa adox.
As si ua ionis s ha e shown, acco ding o legalism, a mo al code (a se
o mo al no ms and ules) speci ies mo al du ies. F om his pe spec i e,
changing mo al no ms and ules aims o c ea e some hing impossible and
immo al. This is impossible because, acco ding o legalism, no human p e -
e ence can al e mo al du ies. Each a emp o al e mo al no ms and ules
is immo al because i denies mo al du ies. The e o e, acco ding o legal-
ism, someone espec ing mo al du ies should espec mo al s anda ds a he
han ques ion hem (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 26–37, Sec ion 16).
As si ua ionis s sugges , he posi ion o legalism is i sel pa adoxi-
cal (agains common sense) when ac ions acco dan o some mo al code
con adic mo al du y – when hey ha m people o gene a e injus ice. As
si ua ionis s no ice, hese si ua ions expose he agen o a mo al du y o dis-
espec , abandon o edesign he code (Fle che , 1966b; Robinson, 1963).
In oduc ion 5
An inomians (p oponen s o an inomianism) o e a solu ion o MM
pa adox by assuming adical no ma i e ela i ism in me ae hics and a dis-
inc ion be ween p i a e and public mo ali y (see Sec ion 17). F om his
pe spec i e, p i a e mo ali y is a sou ce o mo al du ies. This consis s o
indi iduals’ mo al p e e ences. Public mo ali y is a code o mo al conduc
imposed on indi iduals. In his iew, public mo ali y does no speci y mo al
du ies. This posi ion se s he goal o he MM as managing public mo ali y
acco ding o he p i a e mo ali y o mo ali y manage s.
As Fle che shows, he an inomian solu ion is also agains common sense
(pa adoxical), gi en he b oad consensus ha manage ial decisions, includ-
ing ac s o MM, equi e some mo al jus i ica ion beyond he pe spec i e
o p i a e alue p e e ences. Consequen ly, agen s (who manage mo ali y)
should espec some mo al no ms and ules (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 22–26).
The e o e, by sol ing he MM pa adox, an inomianism gene a es ano he
pa adox, which s a es ha he e mus be no hing mo ally w ong when peo-
ple impose hei p i a e mo ali y on o he s— o ins ance, when male olen
people, acco ding o hei p i a e alue p e e ences, in oduce socially de-
s uc i e ideas in o public mo ali y.
Si ua ionis s sol e he MM pa adox by sugges ing a dis inc ion be ween
no ma i e and desc ip i e mo ali y (see Sec ion 11.1). No ma i e mo al-
i y comp ises he mo al p inciple o lo e and i s equi emen s, which a e
mo al du ies. Desc ip i e mo ali y is people’s mo al p e e ences and codes
o mo al conduc based on hese p e e ences. Acco ding o si ua ion e h-
ics, he goal o MM is o accommoda e desc ip i e mo ali y o mee he
equi emen s o no ma i e mo ali y.
3 The Subjec Ma e and I s S a e o Resea ch
The subjec ma e o his s udy comp ised se e al aspec s. I is abou he
si ua ionis app oach o MM, and he no ma i e assump ions o MM. This
s udy also add esses he pa adox o MM ha si ua ion e hics pinpoin s.
Consequen ly, his objec is ou old: si ua ion e hics, he MM, i s no ma-
i e assump ions and he MM pa adox.
3.1 Si ua ion E hics
In his s udy, he e ms si ua ionism and si ua ion e hics a e synony-
mous.4 They e e o he s eam o e hics and i s ideas, which became
popula a e Wo ld Wa II. One should dis inguish he mo emen o
si ua ion e hics om i s ideas, which was an in ellec ual ebellion in he
1960s and he 1970s agains laws, ins i u ions and con ols. This up is-
ing was exp essed in philosophical and heological w i ings and li e a y
wo ks ha p esen ed he expe ience o eeling los in he wo ld o he

6 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
legal s uc u es o he s a e and eligious communi ies. Howe e , hese
w i ings ha e no ye been composed o heo ies. In he 1950s and he
1960s, si ua ion e hics spa ked a wa e o c i icism. In esponse, si u-
a ionis s e ined hei p ima y ideas. They o e ed a heo y known oday
as si ua ion e hics (Cox, 1968; Dimmock & Fishe , 2017, pp. 79–89;
Ebikaboe e, 2012; Gus a son, 1965, pp. 171–172; McCo mick, 1982,
pp. 74–77; Poppi, 1957, pp. 26–56; Rosik, 1986). This heo y is he
subjec ma e o his s udy.
Richa d McCo mick and James M. Gus a son conside h ee hinke s o
be he mos ep esen a i e o si ua ion e hics Joseph F. Fle che , Douglas
A. Rhymes and John A. Robinson (Gus a son, 1965, p. 172; McCo mick,
1966, pp. 612–613; McCo mick, 1982, pp. 74–75). When ela ing o si u-
a ionis s in his book, hese hinke s’ ideas a e he main poin o e e ence.
Howe e , his book also discusses he hough s o o he si ua ionis s, such
as Paul Lehmann and Paul Ramsey.5
The e is no claim o cohe ence among si ua ionis concep ions. Thei
posi ions di e a ce ain poin s and e ol e acco dingly. Ne e heless, hese
hinke s sha e common ideas ha de ine si ua ion e hics. Fo ins ance, si u-
a ionis s c i icise e hical legalism; wa n agains adical ela i ism in e hics;
s ess he indi iduali y and uniqueness o each pe son, si ua ion and mo al
du y; demand ha mo al agen s ollow he p inciple o lo e; pay mo e a -
en ion o human needs han o any law6; and base decisions on a since e
ecogni ion o conc e e si ua ions and ci cums ances.
In his book Si ua ion E hics (1966b), Fle che ou lined he common
philosophical backg ound o hese ideas h ough ou p esupposi ions (p ag-
ma ism, ela i ism, posi i ism, and pe sonalism). His o mula o hese as-
sump ions is conside ed “ he clea es s a emen o si ua ion e hics” (Lu ze ,
1972, p. 16), and he li e a u e on si ua ionism iden i ies he heo y o si u-
a ion e hics by hese p emises (Daniel, 2009; Dimmock & Fishe , 2017, pp.
79–89; Ebikaboe e, 2012). This s udy ollows his sugges ion and p esen s
a si ua ionis me a heo y based on hese ou p esupposi ions.
C i ical s udies o mula ed i e canonical a gumen s agains si ua ion
e hics: i (a) is ambiguous (Conne y, 1954; Dimmock & Fishe , 2017,
pp. 79–89; Hildeb and & Hildeb and, 1966; Lu ze , 1972), (b) does
no su icien ly speci y he p inciple o lo e o make i applicable o
p ac ice (Child ess, 1992; Daniel, 2009; De Geo ge, 1986, p. 428;
DeMa ino Swyha , 1979; Dimmock & Fishe , 2017, pp. 79–89; Mc-
Co mick, 1966, 1982; S yczeń, 1973), (c) is sel -con adic o y, (d) is
inadequa e o mo al expe ience and (e) is isky in p ac ice (Hildeb and
& Hildeb and, 1966; S yczeń, 1973). Some au ho s disc ee ly de end
si ua ion e hics agains he accusa ions men ioned abo e by demon-
s a ing i s possible e inemen by combining i wi h b oade heo ies o
In oduc ion 7
philosophy (Child ess, 1992; Do is, 1998; Ha is, 2002; P ice, 1985),
heology (Ebikaboe e, 2012; Tu le, 2002), psychology (S oudenmi e,
1976, p. 299) and i ue e hics (Ha is, 2002, 2002; Kam eka , 2004a;
Me i , 2000).
A e he 1980s, deba es on si ua ion e hics g adually ceased. Howe e ,
ex ensi e li e a u e exis s on he applica ion and impac o si ua ion e hics
on mode n heo ies and p ac ices. Besides he publica ions o si ua ionis s,
ew sys ema ic monog aphs a e dedica ed o si ua ion e hics (Ebikaboe e,
2012; Hildeb and & Hildeb and, 1966; Lu ze , 1972; Pieniążek, 2008;
Rosik, 1986). Many s udies ha e e iewed he publica ions o si ua ion-
is s (Ban jes, 1980; Ba na d, 1980; Bass, 1955; Co y, 1975; Da is, 1980;
Elkind, 1971; Fos e , 1955; Gu ak, 1975; Ki kendall, 1974; Kolbe, 1968;
Milosh & Li ell, 1973; Sh yock, 1955; Smi h, 1967; Swyha , 1980; Wes -
be g, 1955; Ze e be g, 1956).
Al hough he his o ical s eam o si ua ionism belongs o he pas , and
he name o si ua ion e hics is nei he well known no do i s p oponen s
domina e con empo a y e hics, many publica ions show ha he ideas
o si ua ion e hics a e ali e in con empo a y imes. Fo example, some
managemen concep s inco po a e si ua ionis decision-making me h-
ods (Ha is, 2002). Some empi ical managemen in es iga ions ollow
he si ua ionis dis inc ion be ween an inomian, legalis and si ua ionis
decision-making me hods (Gillmo e & Hun e , 1974). Thinke s p esen
applica ions o si ua ion e hics in managemen (Ba ne , Bass, & B own,
1994; B igley, 1995; Fo sy h, 1992; Gillmo e & Hun e , 1974; Ramsey,
Ma shall, Johns on, & Dee e -Schmelz, 2007; Tansey, B own, Hyman
& Dawson, 1994), managing c ises o alues (F ede ick, 1982, p. 96),
mo al educa ion o p o essionals (B ady, 1999, pp. 313–314), and coun-
selling (Hou s, 1974). Some publica ions ha e p esen ed he impac o
si ua ion e hics on con empo a y bioe hics (Child ess, 1992; Daly, 1987;
Hou s, 1974; Jonsen e al., 1993; Koop, 1990; Monday, Esq, & Pea ce,
2018; Shel on, 1978; Smi h, 1967, 2020), mo al heology (Szos ek,
1989), he e hics o law (Pieniążek, 2008; Shel on, 1978) and admin-
is a i e (La e y, 1989, pp. 377–378) o managemen e hics (Me i ,
2000; Up on, 2009).
Al hough si ua ion e hics includes a ho ough analysis o MM, si ua ion-
is s do no name his p ocess. I emains nameless and, he e o e, is implici
in hei ex s. This is p obably why he MM’s si ua ionis idea goes unno-
iced in he li e a u e on si ua ionism. Al hough some au ho s ha e indi-
ca ed he impac o si ua ionism on mo ali y (Conne y, 1954; Dimmock &
Fishe , 2017, pp. 79–89; Hildeb and & Hildeb and, 1966; Lu ze , 1972),
no s udy has p esen ed he si ua ionis app oach o MM. This monog aph
aims o ill his gap in esea ch on si ua ionism.
8 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
As Sec ion 3.2 shows newe and mo e e ined concep ions o MM exis .
Howe e , he si ua ionis concep o MM is wo h in es iga ing o se e al
easons.
a Si ua ion e hics in es iga es he spec um o no ma i e assump ions ha
speci y MM’s a ious p ojec s and ac ics. This me ae hical app oach is
s ill unique o he manage ial li e a u e.
b Si ua ionis s g ound hei idea o MM in philosophical in es iga ions,
which is a e in he subjec - ela ed li e a u e on MM. Mos app oaches
o MM concen a e on i s p ac ice and only ma ginally discuss he a-
ionale o i s philosophical assump ions behind he p ac ice.
c Si ua ionis s show how philosophical heo ies a e ins umen s o MM.
Si ua ion e hics o e s an exci ing idea o MM h ough philosophising.
d Si ua ionism exempli ies he peculia luck o some ideas ha become in-
luen ial despi e hei ambigui ies and con adic ions. This luck wa an s
u he in es iga ion.
e Finally, si ua ion e hics hema ises he MM pa adox (see Sec ion 2). This
opic appea s o be unde - esea ched o possibly unexplo ed, al hough i
is no de ini i e ha no s udies exis .
Si ua ion e hics eme ged in he con ex o heological dispu es in Ch is-
iani y. Howe e , Ramsey ( ollowing he ecommenda ions o William K.
F ankena) summa ises he Ch is ian in luence on si ua ion e hics wi h he
sole no ma i e assump ion ha lo e is he in insic alue (Ramsey, 1967,
pp. 1–3). Fo Fle che , he posi ion o agapism is a philosophical heo y
independen o any heological o eligious con ex (Fle che , 1966b, pp.
14–15, 154-159). Acco dingly, his s udy ocuses on he philosophical con-
en s o si ua ion e hics wi hou diminishing he impo ance o si ua ionis s’
heological p oblems and eligious inspi a ions.
3.2 Mo ali y Managemen
Un il now, he idea o MM has e ol ed o e cen u ies unde di e gen
names. Fo example, Niccolò Machia elli ou lined he idea o mo al educa-
ion in his concep ion o e ec i e go e nance, in which agen s wi h powe
(kings and p inces) manage hei subjec s’ p e e ences using pe suasion
o coe cion (Benne , 2009; Cosans & Reina, 2018). F ied ich Nie zsche
(1989) e isi ed his idea in his concep ion o mas e -sla e dependencies.
Ma xis heo ies demons a e economic mechanisms ha explain how social
classes can shape people’s mo al p e e ences h ough ideology o achie e
poli ical o economic goals (John Mo gan, 2005; Rengge , 2008). Mod-
e n au ho s unanimously emphasise changes in o ganisa ional mo ali y and
wa n agains lea ing his p ocess ou o in es iga ion (Goodpas e & Ma -
hews, 1982; McMahon, 1981; S idha & Cambu n, 1993).
In oduc ion 9
App oaches o MM ocus on desc ip ions, applica ions, explana ions
and e alua ions. Desc ip i e s udies p esen he p ac ices o MM in s a es
(Chak abo y, 2009; Hen icson, 2016, pp. 95–112) and o he o ganisa ions
(Kucha ski, 2016; Maclagan, 1998, pp. 137–185; Rossouw & Vuu en, 2003;
Ruiz Palomino e al., 2011). Applied psychology and sociology o e nume -
ous ools o shape alue p e e ences o people (Cialdini, 2007; Coons &
Webe , 2014; Lea y, 2022). Explana o y s udies elabo a e on he mechanisms
o he MM. Fo example, Michel Foucaul showed a mu ual in e dependence
be ween powe and knowledge. He showed ha hose who con ol knowl-
edge can exe powe , including shaping socie al no ms, e hics and mo als.
He be Ma cuse’s c i ical heo y explo es how echnology and social sys ems
shape and limi human alue p e e ences. Cass R. Suns ein’s wo k on beha -
iou al economics examines how go e nmen s and ins i u ions can in luence
decision-making and socie al p e e ences wi hou coe cion (Suns ein, 2016,
2020). Yu al Noah Ha a i in es iga es he impac o echnology and social
enginee ing on human alues and e hics (Ha a i, 2016, 2018). Explana o y
s udies obse e ensions be ween p i a e and public mo ali y and ques ion
he p e e ences ha should be p i ileged in he MM p ocess (Geo ge, 2000;
Hend y, 2004; Medina, 2010; S a a, 2015; Swanson, 1992).
No ma i e app oaches se goals o MM and e alua e hei p ac ices.
Fo example, Robe P. Geo ge main ained ha o ganisa ions should in o-
duce espec o mo al p inciples in o public mo ali y. In his opinion, hey
should play a legi ima e ole in p ese ing he mo al ecology o he cul u al
en i onmen in which people make mo ally signi ican choices (Geo ge,
1995). Pla o, A is o le, and some ep esen a i es o i ue e hics sugges
ha he main goal o MM is o shape i ues (MacIn y e, 2007). E hical
u ili a ianism p esen s his goal in he u ili a ian op imisa ion p inciple o
he g ea es possible good. Va ious app oaches sugges MM (wi hou using
he e m mo ali y managemen ) as a emedy agains egoism, dis us and
i esponsibili y, which can educe he ine iciency o an o ganisa ion’s pe -
o mance (Bugdol, 2013; Maclagan, 1998) o bu nou (Schau eli, Maslach,
& Tadeusz Ma ek, 1996).
Some no ma i e s udies on MM a e c i ical. Fo example, mo al pa e nal-
ism7 has ecen ly aced in ense discussion (Begon, 2016; G oll, 2012; Sal a ,
2008). Ba ak Medina and Eyal Zami c i icise legal pa e nalism in MM,
which limi s indi iduals’ au onomy in deciding mo al p e e ences (Zami &
Medina, 2010). The au ho s seek a comp omise be ween pa e nalism and
eedom. Medina a gues ha MM decisions should p omo e common-sense
mo ali y (Medina, 2010, pp. 77–78). Luciano Flo idi p oposes he ac ics
o ole an pa e nalism in MM, which p o ec s some p incipal social alues
“while s ill sa egua ding ole a ion and espec o indi idual p e e ences,
including he desi e no o be implici ly o ced in o a posi ion and os e -
ing he de elopmen o a mo e c i ical unde s anding o one’s own choices”
16 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
mo al du ies a e uni e sal. Some hinke s suppo his hesis by obse ing
common- alue p e e ences ac oss cul u es and con lic ing g oups (Ca chidi,
2020; G aham e al., 2012; Hause , 2006; Kuka has, 2008; Mikhail, 2007).
A mo e p o ound e sion o uni e sal ela i ism akes he poin o depa -
u e in analysing a p io i p econdi ions o in en ions o show ha a ional
ac s equi e espec ing some mo al du ies. Fo example, Kan p esen s his
easoning in his concep ion o he ca ego ical impe a i e. This s ance leads
o no ma i e an i- ela i ism in me ae hics (Gowans, 2012; Hill, 2007;
Ta a kiewicz, 1919, p. 22; Wes aco , 2012).
No ma i e ela i ism and absolu ism a e no me aphysical iews (al hough
hey may ollow om o lead o some me aphysical s ances). Consequen ly,
in me ae hics, no ma i e ela i ism should be dis inguished om me aphys-
ical ela i ism, which e e s o he ela ional na u e o alues and goods.
Fo example, Fle che decla ed me aphysical ela i ism in me ae hics. In
his iew, alues and du ies “consis in an in e ac ion o mind and en i on-
men ” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 58). This me aphysical ema k does no p eju-
dice whe he he akes he posi ion o no ma i e ela i ism o an i- ela i ism.
7 No ma i e Gene alism e sus Pa icula ism in Me ae hics
Acco ding o he posi ion o e hical pa icula ism in me ae hics, mo al
du ies a e unique in each si ua ion. Consequen ly, he e a e no uni e sal
mo al no ms and ules. This s ance has signi ican implica ions in p ac ice:
“Mo al pa icula ism, a i s mos enchan , is he claim ha he e a e no
de ensible mo al p inciples, ha mo al hough does no consis in he ap-
plica ion o mo al p inciples o cases, and ha he mo ally pe ec pe son
should no be concei ed as he pe son o p inciple” (Dancy, 2013).
The opposi e s ance is he posi ion o e hical gene alism (uni e salism)
in me ae hics. In his iew, all o some mo al du ies, no ms and ules a e uni-
e sal, o a a ional agen should conside hem uni e sal. Consequen ly, “E h-
ical gene alism is he iew ha he a ionali y o mo al hough and judgemen
depends on a sui able p o ision o mo al p inciples” (Dancy, 2013).
Si ua ionis s ake he middle posi ion be ween e hical gene alism and
pa icula ism. They op o uni e salism by claiming ha he p inciple o
lo e is uni e sal. Howe e , si ua ion e hics p esen s pa icula ism by pos-
ula ing ha he conc e e mo al impe a i e o lo e may be unique and i -
educible o any gene al no ms o ules.
8 Ra ional Decisions
In his s udy, he e m a ional a i ude3 means a disposi ion (inclina ion)
o he agen o make a ional decisions, and he wo d a ional agen sig-
ni ies a pe son who makes a ional decisions o adop s a a ional a i ude

P elimina y Concep s 17
when making decisions. The e m a ional decision can ha e se e al mean-
ings in his s udy. I can designa e (a) me hodologically, (b) ins umen ally
o (c) alue- a ional decisions.
8.1 Me hodological Ra ionali y
Acco ding o Tadeusz Ko a biński, me hodologically a ional decisions a e
(x) consis en wi h he a ailable knowledge, (y) mo i a ed by a ional be-
lie s and (z) aimed a e icien ac ion:
(x) A me hodologically a ional agen (who makes a ional decisions) in es-
iga es he easons o decisions and accommoda es decisions o a ailable
knowledge.4 Consequen ly, me hodologically a ional decisions espec
epis emic easons.5 Me hodologically i a ional agen s (who make me h-
odologically i a ional decisions) neglec hei knowledge in hei deci-
sion-making. Fo example, hey can igno e in o ma ion on he isk o
ele an ci cums ances o hei ac ions (Ko a biński, 1973, p. 123).
(y) The asse ion o a ional belie s is symme ic o hei a ionale. A me h-
odologically a ional agen is mo e ce ain o be e -jus i ied belie s and
less su e o wo se-jus i ied belie s. She abandons sel -con adic o y belie s
and he belie s which con adic he knowledge. Fo example, she is mo e
ce ain o mo e p obable p edic ions han less p obable ones. Decisions a e
me hodologically i a ional when hey a e no mo i a ed by a ional belie s.
A me hodologically i a ional agen can main ain belie s ega dless o hei
jus i ica ion. Fo example, she can be mo e ce ain o less p obable han
o mo e p obable p edic ions o main ain hei belie s when knowing ha
hey a e alse (Bo olo i, 2010; Jacko, 2016a; Pagin, 2014).
(z) The me hodologically a ional agen conside s all a ailable means and
chooses he means ha gi e he bes chances o e ec i e and e icien
ac ion. They a e e ec i e when hey each hei goal and e icien (eco-
nomic) when e ec i e wi h minimal cos s (Dennis, 2012; Hey, 1993).
Webe speci ies condi ion (z) by dis inguishing wo aspec s o a a ional
decision: i s ins umen al and alue a ionali y. He demons a ed ha hese
aspec s a e insepa able and complemen a y (Callahan, 2007; Kalbe g,
1980; Kim, 2007; K onman, 1983; Oakes, 2003; Peuke , 2004; Webe ,
1985, p. 565; 2002).
8.2 Ins umen al Ra ionali y
Acco ding o Webe , ins umen ally a ional (Ge . zweck a ional – aim- a-
ional) decisions adop e ec i e means o a aining hei aims (Webe 1985, s.
565). An ins umen ally a ional agen chooses means ha , acco ding o he
18 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
bes knowledge, will p oduce he desi ed e ec (will be e ec i e). Ins umen-
ally a ional agen s mus be me hodologically a ional because hey adop
a ailable knowledge o choose he means and p edic he consequences, p ob-
abili y, chances and isks o hei ac ions (Oakes, 2003, pp. 38–39).
8.3 Value Ra ionali y
Webe calls decisions alue- a ional (Ge . we a ional) when hey a e co-
he en wi h agen s’ alue p e e ences (Webe , 1985, s. 565). He shows
ha alue- a ional agen s c ys allise hei alue p e e ences in o a hie a -
chical sys em o p e e ences and ac acco ding o his hie a chy. In his
hie a chy, some alues a e mo e impo an han o he s. Value- a ional
decisions can sac i ice lowe alues o a ain highe ones when necessa y.
Value-i a ional decisions do he opposi e: hey sac i ice some highe alue
o a ain a lowe alue o des oy alues wi hou any signi ican eason.
Value- a ional agen s may di e in hei p e e ences and hie a chies o sub-
jec i e alues (Kim, 2012; K onman, 1983; Minne , 2020; Oakes, 2003;
Peuke , 2004).
Jean-Paul Sa e names alue a ionali y o decisions au hen ici y. They
a e consis en wi h he exis en ial commi men , which is he decision o
speci y he alue hie a chy o he agen (see Sec ion 17.2).
Si ua ionis s speci y bene olence in e ms o he alue a ionali y o au-
hen ici y o decisions. They e e o hese as sel -since i y and hones y. In
hei iew, bene olen agen s admi hones ly o hei alue sys ems and
make decisions acco dingly (Robinson, 1963).
9 Goods, Values and Thei Hie a chies
Si ua ionis s in e changeably use he wo ds good and alue, meaning hei
subjec i e sense. In his meaning, hey deno e alue p e e ences o some-
hing ( o example, an en i y, i s p ope y, aim, ideal, ela ion) ha someone
app ecia es. In his e minological con en ion, he e m hie a chy o alues
e e s o a sys em o alue p e e ences o a pe son o g oup (Hansson &
G üne-Yano , 2018). This subjec i e de ini ion is compa ible wi h he p em-
ises o me aphysical subjec i ism and no ma i e ela i ism in me ae hics.
Howe e , when si ua ionis s speci y alue o lo e, hey adop a posi ion
o no ma i e absolu ism and in oduce an objec i e sense o he e ms good
and alue. In his meaning, hey deno e some hing p ecious and independ-
en o human p e e ences. In his con ex , he e m hie a chy o alues has
an objec i e meaning and e e s o he alue p e e ences ha each a ional
agen should adop . This de ini ion is compa ible wi h no ma i e absolu -
ism. In his s udy, I use wo d alue o deno e subjec i e meaning and ese e
he e m good o con ex s in which no ma i e an i- ela i ism is p esen ed.
P elimina y Concep s 19
9.1 The P incipal Good
The hie a chy o alues has some op. I is he mos p ecious o app ecia ed
good o alue. I can be e e ed o as he p incipal alue, p incipal good,
mo al p inciple o he p inciple o mo ali y. Si ua ionis s call his (La .) sum-
mum bonum (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 31, 43, 129).
Unde he assump ion o no ma i e ela i ism, some hing becomes he
p incipal alue due o alue p e e ence. Consequen ly, he alue hie a chy is
he p oduc o he alue p e e ences o ce ain en i ies (indi iduals, g oups
o o ganisa ions) ha mos app ecia e he p incipal good, which is a he
op o his alue sys em.
Acco ding o heo ies o no ma i e absolu ism, he p incipal good is mos
p ecious ega dless o human p e e ence. Consequen ly, acco ding o no -
ma i e absolu ism, he e is some in e subjec i e hie a chy o goods, and he
p incipal good is a op his hie a chy, which each a ional agen should adop .
Plu alis ic alue concep s (e.g. Pla o’s me a heo y o Geo ge Moo e and
Has ings Rashdall’s ideal u ili a ianism) encompass di e gen ypes o p in-
cipal goods. Monis me a heo ies o e hics speci y one ype o p incipal
good: Fo ins ance, A is o le (and he e hics o eudemonism ini ia ed by
him) iden i ies he p incipal good wi h human de elopmen , he ul ilmen
(eudaimonia, εὐδαιμονία in G eek) o he mos p ecious possibili ies o hu-
mans, which a e capaci ies o unde s and eali y and c ea e social bonds o
iendship (B ink, 2014; C isp, 2016; K au , 2016). Some pe sonalis con-
cep ions make no ma i e assump ions abou e e y pe son’s in insic alue
(digni y), which is he p incipal good (Williams and Beng sson, 2016; Sen,
1990). E hical libe alism in me ae hics assumes ha he p incipal good is
he eedom o each indi idual (Kelly, 2005). Some o hese concep s spec-
i y he p incipal good in e ms o undamen al human igh s o he equi e-
men s o jus ice, which speci y he p econdi ions o espec ing he p incipal
good (B ems, 2001; Keys & Bu ke, 2013; Sen, 1990, 2017). Si ua ionis s
assume goodwill (lo e) is he p incipal good (Fle che , 1966a).
9.2 In insic – Ex insic
The e ms in insic and ex insic can ha e se e al meanings in me ae hics
(Rønnow-Rasmussen, 2015; Zimme man, 2001, 2019):
a An in insic good o alue is p ecious ega dless o whe he someone
app ecia es i . Value is ex insic when i is p ecious because and inso a as
someone (an indi idual o a g oup) app ecia es i .
b The disjunc ion be ween in insic and ex insic alues can speci y he
locus o hese alues. In insic alues a e he p ope ies in and o be-
ings, and ex insic alues a e ou side he being in human pe cep ion o
in en ion.
20 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
c The p incipal good is called in insic. Ex insic alues a e no he p in-
cipal good.
d Goods o alues a e in insic when a p incipal good canno exis in hei
absence. Fo example, human exis ence is a p e equisi e o eedom.
Consequen ly, when eedom is conside ed a p incipal alue, human ex-
is ence is in insically good.
e Si ua ions use in insic o designa e alue as p ecious in all ci cums ances.
Ex insic alues a e p ecious in some si ua ions bu no in all.
The dis inc ion be ween in insic and ex insic can also indica e he di -
e ence be ween au o elic and ins umen al alues (see Sec ion 9.3).
In his s udy, in insic and ex insic ha e meaning (a). Howe e , si u-
a ionis s can use hese e ms o all meanings men ioned abo e in di e gen
con ex s.
9.3 Au o elic – Ins umen al
Acco ding o Webe , ins umen al alues a e app ecia ed because o hei
(u ili y) unc ion – because and inso a as hey a e conduci e o o he (au-
o elic and ins umen al) alues. In con as , au o elic (in insic, Ge . Eigen-
we e) alues a e app ecia ed ega dless o his unc ion (Kim, 2012; Oakes,
2003; Webe , 1985, pp. 51, 565; Zimme man, 2001, 2019).
Concep ions o no ma i e absolu ism and ela i ism di e in hei idea
o au o elic alue. Acco ding o no ma i e ela i ism, human p e e ences
speci y au o elic alues. In no ma i e absolu ism, he p incipal good(s) and
o he in insic goods a e au o elic, ega dless o human p e e ences.
10 The Adjec i e Mo al
In he no ma i e meaning, he adjec i e mo al means posi i e and immo al
means nega i e alue (an i- alue) o human ac s (decisions o ac ions). I
is he posi i e mo al alue o mo ally good decisions o mo ally igh ac-
ions; immo al designa es mo ally bad decisions and mo ally w ong ac ions.
Mo al goodness and badness a e quali ies o decision’s in en ion, whe eas
mo al igh ness and w ongness a e quali ies o ac ion which is he ou come
o he decision. In his sense, decisions and ac ions a e mo al when hey
espec and con ibu e o he p incipal good. They we e conside ed im-
mo al in his no ma i e sense when hey dis espec ed o des oyed i . Mo al
no ms speci y ela ionships be ween he p incipal good and human ac s (see
Sec ion 11.2). Consequen ly, mo al ac s dese e a posi i e e alua ion, and
immo al ac s dese e a nega i e e alua ion acco ding o mo al no ms.
Adjec i e mo al may also ha e a desc ip i e ( alue-neu al) meaning, de-
no ing some hing ela ed o he mo al p inciple (i.e., some hing mo ally
P elimina y Concep s 21
ele an ). In his sense, he e m mo al is he opposi e o amo al o mo ally
neu al. Fo example, a physics heo y is mo ally neu al, as i is no abou
a p incipal good. In his meaning, he adjec i e mo al does no imply ha
i s designa e is mo al in he no ma i e sense. This e m can e e o mo ally
good o bad, igh o w ong p e e ences, codes, e alua ions, s e eo ypes,
decisions, in en ions, and ac ions. In his book, he adjec i e mo al has de-
sc ip i e meaning. Consequen ly, he e m mo al p e e ences in Sec ion 12.1
means any p e e ence ha ela es o he p incipal good. No ms, ules and
codes o conduc a e conside ed mo al (see Sec ion 11.2) when hey a e
abou espec ing o dis espec ing mo al p inciple(s). In con as , o exam-
ple, no ms and ules o p axeology o economics a e mo ally neu al when
hey do no ela e o he p incipal good.
11 Mo ali y
This s udy dis inguishes mo ali y om e hics. E hics include knowledge,
e lec ion and he heo y o mo ali y. Mo ali y is a subjec o e hics and
e hical esea ch.
11.1 Desc ip i e and No ma i e Mo ali y
In he li e a u e, desc ip i e mo ali y can encompass a wide spec um o
phenomena. I can be:
a Mo al p e e ences o indi iduals and g oups.
b Mo al codes ha exp ess o ou line mo al p e e ences, as speci ied abo e.
c The p ac ices o e alua ion acco ding o a mo al code.
d Indi idual o social s e eo ypes (o hinking, eelings and ac ing) abou
mo al p inciple(s), including mo i es o mo al p e e ences in ideas o
ideals. In his sense, desc ip i e mo ali y emb aces he cul u e o socie ies
and he o ganisa ional cul u e o ins i u ions.
e Mo ally ele an decisions, in en ions, ac ions and consequences.
Any di ec cause o mo i o mo al p e e ences.
In his book, mo ali y wi hou adjec i es means desc ip i e mo ali y
in he meaning in (a). The e m no ma i e mo ali y deno es he no ma-
i e meaning o mo ali y, which means a pa e n o o ideal o mo ali y
(“Mo ali y,” n.d.). I can be some mo al code:
“In i s no ma i e sense, mo ali y may be de ined as a code o conduc
ha would be accep ed by all a ional people unde ce ain idealised
condi ions. In simple e ms, ‘mo ali y’ is he se o co ec mo al

22 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
p inciples, which, hough hey p obably will ne e be uni e sally
adop ed, ough o be adop ed.” (Ge , 2012)
S ances o no ma i e ela i ism and absolu ism di e gen ly speci y no -
ma i e mo ali y. Acco ding o no ma i e ela i ism, each mo ali y begins
wi h some mo al p e e ences (o indi iduals, g oups and o ganisa ions)
conce ning he p incipal alue and i s equi emen s. In his iew, he e can
be di e gen no ma i e mo ali ies speci ied by people’s mo al p e e ences
abou he p incipal alue and i s equi emen s.
In he iew o no ma i e absolu ism, p inciples o no ma i e mo ali y
do no depend on human p e e ences. Fo example, acco ding o A is o le,
no ma i e mo ali y comp ises equi emen s o human eudaimonia. Fo S .
Thomas Aquinas, no ma i e mo ali y comp ises equi emen s o na u al law.
In he iew o Kan , mo ali y is based on a p io i (i.e., independen o expe i-
ence) condi ions o ac ion ha a e in acco dance wi h he equi emen s o
p ac ical eason, and p oponen s o pe sonalism may speci y no ma i e mo al-
i y in e ms o equi emen s o human digni y and undamen al human igh s.
11.2 Mo al No ms, Rules and Codes
Mo al no ms and ules ansla e he p inciple o mo ali y in o ac ion lan-
guage. Mo al ules a e di ec i es and p ocedu es ha speci y he condi ions
o espec ing o p omo ing he p incipal good. Mo al no ms a e c i e ia o
e alua ing ac s’ compliance wi h he mo al p inciple. These ools a e used
o mo al judgemen .
Si ua ionis s dis inguish be ween gene al and uni e sal no ms and ules.
Gene al ones ha e a gene al meaning bu may ha e excep ions. Uni e sal no ms
and ules a e alid o each si ua ion. Fo example, he ule One should no s ill,
o he no m The is mo ally ep ehensible, has a gene al meaning. Howe e , as
si ua ionis s main ain, hey a e no uni e sal because hey may ha e excep ions
and may no apply o si ua ions whe e s illing is mo ally pe missible.
In his ex , he e m code o mo al conduc o mo al code e e s o a sys em
o (logically o de ed se s) mo al no ms and ules. They speci y s anda ds o
in en ions, decisions, ac ions and e alua ions. Howe e , no e e y code is
mo al (in he desc ip i e meaning o mo al). Fo example, he no ms and
ules o g amma a e no mo al when hey do no (implici ly o explici ly)
e e o mo al p inciple(s).6
11.3 P i a e and Public Mo ali y
In his s udy public mo ali y means codes o mo al conduc and alue p e -
e ences imposed on socie y (by o ce, coe cion, pe suasion, law o police
P elimina y Concep s 23
wo k o social p essu e), in con as o p i a e mo ali y, which consis s
o alue p e e ences and mo al codes o indi iduals (Hampshi e, 1978;
Medina, 2010; Swanson, 1992). In his de ini ion con en ion, public mo-
ali y emb aces mo al s anda ds en o ced in socie y and applied o public
li e, including he media and conduc in public places (Saha, 2010, p. 35).
In con as , p i a e mo ali y can be de ined as he mo al alue p e e ences
and codes pu o h by indi iduals in hei p i a e sphe e (Hampshi e,
1978; Medina, 2010).
12 Managing Mo al P e e ences
12.1 Mo al P e e ences
P e e ences a e in en ions, decisions, emo ions o men al a i udes (in ol -
ing hinking, deciding and ac ing) ha a ou some hing o e some hing
else. P e e ence is he g ea e liking o inclina ion owa ds one al e na i e
o e ano he . Some p e e ences a e be ween alues. These a e alue p e e -
ences. No all p e e ences a e alue p e e ences. Fo example, i he clien
p e e s one ca o e ano he , his inclina ion is a p e e ence bu no a alue
p e e ence. Howe e , when she app ecia es a ca ’s sa e y a he han i s aes-
he ic appeal, his conce ns alues and is he alue p e e ence.
Some alue p e e ences ela e o he p incipal good(s). In hese p e e -
ences, agen s decide ha some hing is o is no a he op o hei hie a -
chy o alues o ake a s ance on his good by a i ming i s supe io wo h
di ec ly o indi ec ly. Such alue p e e ences a e called mo al in his s udy.
They ake place, o example, when someone conside s some hing he p in-
cipal good o adhe es o no ms, ules o du ies by belie ing hey sa egua d
espec o mo al p inciple(s).
Acco ding o a longs anding dis inc ion in psychology, p e e ences can
be explici o implici . Agen s know and decla e hei explici p e e ences.
Implici p e e ences guide agen s’ decisions; howe e , hey a e unawa e o
o hide hei p e e ences. Implici p e e ences a e ema kable only h ough
ac ion. The e o e, subjec i e hie a chies o alues can also be explici o
explici (Cunningham & Quid , 2016; Ogunnaike e al., 2010).
12.2 Mo ali y Managemen
One can manage p e e ences wi hou managing alue p e e ences. Fo ex-
ample, a selle educes he p ice o a p oduc o make i mo e a ac i e o
cus ome s. When consume s p e e his p oduc , hey ac acco ding o hei
alue p e e ences (p esuming ha a lowe p ice is be e han a highe p ice
in hei alue sys em). The e o e, p ice educ ion manages p e e ences bu
no cus ome alue p e e ences.
24 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
One can also manage p e e ences ia managing alue p e e ences. In his
case, a selle can un an ad e ising campaign o change he buye ’s alue
sys em, expec ing i o mo i a e hei pu chase decisions. Fo example, he
pha maceu ical company os e s an app ecia ion o heal h o inc ease sales
o i s p oduc s. In his case, he ad e isemen campaign aims o mo i a e
people o modi y hei alue p e e ences (so ha hey s a app ecia ing
hei heal h).
In his s udy, alue managemen means managing alue p e e ences (in
economic con ex s, his e m may ha e di e en meanings). I occu s when
some ac ions sus ain o change people’s p e e ences abou alues. This p o-
cess may be unin en ional. Fo example, c ea o s o some ad e isemen
campaigns may no in end o a ec people’s alue p e e ences, bu when
his e ec occu s, hey change. I may also happen when he e ec is in-
ended bu does no occu . Fo example, when some ad e isemen is o
change he alue p e e ences bu u ns ine ec i e in a aining his goal. I is
an example o ine ec i e alue managemen .
Usually, i is impossible o iden i y in en ional alue managemen when
manage s do no exp ess hei in en ions. Howe e , he a ibu i e in e p e-
a ion me hod allows us o explain ac ions ega ding supposed in en ions.
Mo al p e e ences a e hose alue p e e ences ha conce n a sup eme
good (e.g. ecognizing some hing as such a good, de ining he condi ions
o espec ing i , and he ways o achie e i ). MM in ol es managing hese
p e e ences. MM is a ype o alue managemen , bu no each case o alue
managemen is MM. Fo example, when ma ke ing ac i i ies lead cus om-
e s o app ecia e he aes he ics o a ca mo e han be o e, i does no nec-
essa ily quali y as MM. Managing alue p e e ences becomes MM when
impa ed o in ended o mo al p e e ences. Fo example, an ad e ising
campaign ha seeks o e oke cus ome s’ eelings ha ha ing an a ac i e
ca con ibu es o hei undamen al alues o he p incipal good(s).
Ac oss his o y, he e ha e been nume ous no ewo hy occu ences o
in ended o unin ended MM. Fo example:
• In he Wes , he social espec o undamen al equali y and digni y o
all humans was o iginally ini ia ed by Ch is iani y and os e ed by social
e olu ions and he ci il igh s mo emen s.
• The Enligh enmen E a, which spanned he 17 h and 18 h cen u ies,
p o oked depa ing om some adi ional alue sys ems.
• The Indus ial Re olu ion, which occu ed h oughou he 18 h and
19 h cen u ies, esul ed in modi ica ions o aluing labou and i s
legisla ion.
• The en i onmen al mo emen s con ibu ed o ecognising na u e as an
in insic alue, ein o cing how people ank and engage wi h he na u al
wo ld.
P elimina y Concep s 25
In many cases i may be impossible o dis inguish MM om o he cases
o alue managemen . Howe e , one can suppose and in es iga e he im-
pac o change in he hie a chy o alues on he pe cep ion o p incipal
alue. Fo example:
• Cosme ic su ge y: Ad campaigns, pa icula ly hose in he ea ly s ages o
some ea men s, some imes gloss o e po en ial heal h haza ds in a ou
o he beau y and a ac i eness o he ou comes.
• Tanning salons and sunsc een: Despi e he well-known dange s o exces-
si e UV exposu e, anning ad e isemen s in he 1970s and he 1980s
emphasised he a ac i eness o b onzed skin, con incing many people
o place a anned appea ance abo e heal h p o ec ion.
• Gea o ex eme spo s: Companies may emphasise he cooling ac o o
ex eme spo s, some imes by ma ginalising necessa y sa e y measu es.
12.3 Manage ial Func ions
MM can be speci ied ega ding manage ial unc ions de ined by Hen i Fayol
i hey ela e o mo al p e e ences. These a e planning (designing), o ganis-
ing, commanding (mo i a ing), coo dina ing and con olling ou comes and
p ocesses.7 By adop ing his ypology in MM, one can de ine i as planning
(designing) he mo ali y p ojec and i s implemen a ion in e ms o o ganising
ac ions and s uc u es, commanding (mo i a ing) people o accep and ollow
he p ojec , coo dina ing and con olling he p ocess o p ojec pe o mance.
Si ua ion e hics p esen s a amewo k o planning mo ali y. I p ima ily
comp ises a mo ali y design. This manage ial unc ion in ol es designing a
mo ali y p ojec , which is mo al p e e ences and he mo al code he MM
should os e and p omo e. Fo example, one can plan MM in educa ion by
de ining he mo al p e e ences ha eaching should os e o planning MM
h ough he media may in ol e deciding he mo al p e e ences ha media
co e age should ad e ise.
In addi ion o mo ali y design, mo ali y planning can include he o -
mula ion o ac ics o p omo e and implemen mo ali y p ojec s. In his
unc ion, ac ions can be p og ammed, hei sequence and p io i y es ab-
lished, and p ocedu es de ined. Planning mo ali y may consis o speci y-
ing policies o espec ing and p omo ing he code o conduc , scheduling
(deciding on a ime sequence o p og am s eps) and budge ing (alloca ing
esou ces) o implemen ing he plan.
O ganising mo ali y in ol es coo dina ing social s uc u es, ins i u ions
and in e ac ions be ween people o p omo e mo ali y p ojec s. This unc-
ion alloca es ac i i ies and esou ces.
The mo i a ion unc ion o MM aims o adjus he decisions and p e e -
ences o indi iduals and g oups in he p ojec . Fo example, in legisla ion,
32 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
deduc i e casuis y, whe e decisions and c i e ia o mo al judgemen ollow
om some gene al no ms and ules o a code o mo al conduc (Robinson,
1964, pp. 40–41). Consequen ly, legalis ic mo al assessmen s come down
o con olling he compliance o ac ions wi h some no ms and ules o he
law (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 27, 76).
The si ua ionis c i ique o he legalis ic me hod culmina es in examples
o mo al dilemma cases, which his me hod canno sol e because he law
con adic s i sel when applied o a gi en si ua ion. Fo example, he law
equi es he p o ec ion o human li e. Howe e , in some si ua ions, one
canno sa e one pe son’s li e wi hou sac i icing ano he , o i is impossible
o sa e human li e wi hou lying (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 123–125). In his
case, he legalis ic me hod would suppose inac ion, as any ac ion is agains
legalis ic obedience and co ec ness. Howe e , Fle che main ains ha in-
ac ion c ea es an illuso y eeling o good conscience because inac ion also
iola es mo al no ms o he mo al law in such si ua ions.2
As si ua ionis s no ice, when he deduc i e legalis ic decision-making
me hod does no o e solu ions, i equi es a jus i ica ion o decisions in
legal p o isions and pe mission om some au ho i y. I a legalis canno
ind some solu ions in he law, she looks o some in e p e a ion. As he law
a ely applies o si ua ions wi hou some aid o in e p e a ion, he p ac ice
o legalism pe pe ually equi es some in e p e ing au ho i ies. The a gu-
men (La .) ad auc o i a em is decisi e in his decision-making me hod.
Consequen ly, legalis s canno sol e simple p oblems wi hou he aid o
au ho i ies, e en when common sense is su icien o know igh and w ong
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 20–21, 98–99).
The e a e manage ial haza ds o he deduc i e app oach o legalism
ha a e wo hy o men ioning because hey impac he p ocess o mo-
ali y managemen (MM) when mo ali y manage s apply he legalis ic
me hod:
• S ic adhe ence o laws in some o ganisa ions can inhibi he adop ion
o new solu ions. In e ec o he legalis ic app oach, inno a i e no el-
ies may be neglec ed o ejec ed in a ou o adhe ing o adi ional
solu ions.
• A igid s a egy may lea e oppo uni ies on he able ha a mo e lexible,
si ua ion-speci ic s a egy migh seize.
• Legalis ic decision-making may gene a e a de iciency in adap abili y:
S ic adhe ence o p ede e mined guidelines can limi one’s capaci y o
adjus o un o eseen e en s o ci cums ances.
• O e ime, legalis s may become unduly elian on ules, which may im-
pai hei capaci y o c i ical hough o he use o judgemen in si ua-
ions when ules a e ambiguous.

Th ee P ojec s o Mo ali y 33
• The legalis ic me hod may lead o decisional pa alysis because elying
oo much on ules can cause delays, especially i such ules a e unclea ,
con adic o y, o do no apply well o a pa icula si ua ion.
• Con inually employing obsole e o ine ec i e p ocedu es migh esul
om elying on es ablished egula ions wi hou egula examina ion and
e isions.
• Following he le e o he law can delay apid esponse o eme gencies.
Fo example, suppose a p ocu emen p ocess equi es app o al om
mul iple le els. In ha case, i can delay he deli e y o c i ical supplies
in an eme gency.
14 The P ojec o An inomianism
Fle che sees he an inomianism p ojec o mo ali y as he opposi e o legal-
ism. As he me hod o decision-making, an inomianism
is he app oach wi h which one en e s in o a decision-making si ua-
ion a med wi h no p inciples o maxims wha soe e , o say no hing
o ules. In e e y ‘exis en ial momen ’ o ‘unique’ si ua ion, i de-
cla es ha one mus ely upon he si ua ion i sel , he e and hen, o
p o ide i s e hical solu ion. (Fle che , 1966b, p. 22)
Fle che illus a es his me hod wi h he p ac ices in some s eams o
ea ly Ch is ian libe inism o Gnos icism (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 22–23). A
o m o his hinking in he imes o si ua ionism may be some ana chis and
hippie mo emen s in he 1960s and 1970s.
14.1 P ac ical Subjec i ism and Rela i ism
As Fle che main ains, an inomians (agen s who ollow he an inomian
me hod o decision-making) e use “ o admi o any gene ally alid p inci-
ples a all, no hing e en o dina ily alid, o say no hing o uni e sal laws”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 25). This me hod ollows he no ma i e assump ion
ha he mo al o de does no mo ally bind people (Robinson, 1964, p. 21).
Acco ding o his me hod, decisions should be “ andom, unp edic able,
e a ic, qui e anomalous,” as Fle che main ains (Fle che , 1966b, p. 23).
Si ua ionis s b ie ly discuss an inomianism in con as o hei c i ique
agains legalism. Thei c i iques o he an inomian me hod ocus on p ac-
ical subjec i ism in decision-making and p ac ical ela i ism in mo al as-
sessmen . P ac ical subjec i ism consis s o ac ing acco ding o a bi a y
p e e ences. P ac ical ela i ism is he me hod o mo al e alua ion based
on a bi a y p e e ences (Fle che , 1966b, p. 44).
34 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
14.2 Social Haza ds and Egoism
Si ua ionis s main ain ha he an inomian decision-making me hod leads
o ana chism in p i a e and social p ac ice.3 Si ua ionis s may ag ee wi h
ana chism when i means ci il disobedience agains unjus laws.4 Howe e ,
si ua ionis s deny ana chism, which gene a es chaos, cul u al degene a ion
and he des uc ion o social bonds (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 44, 100; Robin-
son, 1964, pp. 12, 21).
As si ua ionis s suppose, he an inomian me hod o ces mo al agen s
o app ecia e hei eedom abo e e e y hing else. The e o e, as Robinson
w i es, lo e canno mo i a e he an inomian (who ollows he an inomian
decision-making me hod) because she uses pe sons o sa is y he eedom,
acco ding o his me hod (Robinson, 1964, pp. 12, 21). Fe che main ains
ha his p emise pu s a p emium on he a i ude o egoism, acco ding o
he maxim “my i s and las conside a ion is mysel ” (Fle che , 1966b,
p. 109). Consequen ly, an inomianism en isions a socie y whe e indi idu-
als and g oups s i e o ealise hei own eedom by imposing i on o he s,
leading o social con lic and he domina ion o he mos e ec i e indi idu-
als o g oups.
14.3 Some Ad an ages
Howe e , he an inomian me hod has some ad an ages which si ua ionis s
app ecia e bu ma ginalise in p esen ing an inomianism. These bene i s a e,
o example, as ollows:
• Adap ing o any si ua ion wi hou p econcep ions o ules os e s c e-
a i i y. Relying on he ci cums ances can encou age a g ea e eliance
on ins inc o in ui ion, some imes leading o i ing uncon en ional
solu ions.
• En e ing a si ua ion wi hou p econcei ed no ions makes i possible o
be mo e ecep i e o new ideas and poin s o iew.
• Wi hou igid ules o p inciples, he e is a low isk o de eloping
an ideological o dogma ic commi men , which can hinde good
decision-making. This decision-making me hod ensu es ha e hics
a e always ele an o he con ex , which may a y om scena io o
scena io.
• Relying on he ci cums ances hemsel es o di ec ion ensu es di ec en-
gagemen wi h he ci cums ances. I os e s a ho ough unde s anding
o hei in icacies.
• This me hod enables as e and mo e e ec i e esponses o apidly
changing si ua ions han legalism, which equi es ac ions acco ding o
some ules.
Th ee P ojec s o Mo ali y 35
15 The P ojec o Si ua ion E hics
Fle che sums up he si ua ionis me hod o decision-making as ollows:
The si ua ionis en e s in o e e y decision-making si ua ion ully
a med wi h he e hical maxims o his communi y and i s he i age, and
he ea s hem wi h espec as illumina o s o his p oblems. Jus he
same, he is p epa ed in any si ua ion o comp omise o se hem aside
… i lo e seems be e se ed by doing so. (Fle che , 1966b, p. 26)
Va ious decisions can exempli y he si ua ionis me hod. Fo example:
• Doc o s may gi e an expe imen al d ug o a e minally ill pa ien ,
e en i i is agains he accep ed p ac ice, i hey belie e i will sa e
he li e.
• E en i i goes agains p o essional no ms, an indi idual may expose un-
e hical ac ions wi hin an o ganisa ion i i is necessa y o p o ec ing he
public’s sa e y o well-being.
• Th oughou his o y, people ha e decided o b eak he law o pu sue
a highe mo al pu pose because hey belie e jus ice and lo e a e mo e
impo an han espec ing some no ms.
Legalis s may see si ua ionis s as in e p e ing he law oo loosely. Typical
legalis ic allega ions include non-compliance wi h legal egula ions, gene -
ally accep ed codes and cons i u ions o agains he legalis ically unde s ood
ule o law. An inomians, on he o he hand, may ind si ua ionism oo le-
galis ic and oo espec ul o he laws and social sys ems o con ol.
Fle che belie es his me hod akes ad an age o legalism and an inomi-
anism and minimises he isks men ioned in he o me wo sec ions. Like
legalis s, si ua ionis s wan o espec he laws and lea n om mo al adi-
ions, which s o e he expe ience and wisdom o he communi ies. Like an-
inomians, si ua ionis s os e au onomy o human eedom and conscience
by ocusing he decision-make ’s a en ion on decision-making si ua ions.
Con a y o legalism, his me hod p e en s judgemen s om being ig-
idly cons ained by one-size- i s-all ules. Ins ead, i allows hem o adap
o each ci cums ance’s pa icula nuances. This app oach conside s bo h
gene al mo al p inciples and he equi emen s o he gi en ci cums ance,
esul ing in mo e ounded conclusions. Ra he han elying on es ablished
no ms, decision-make s a e encou aged by his me hod o hink c i ically
abou he op imal cou se o ac ion. This s ance equi es espec ing he spi i
o he law mo e han i s le e , whe e he spi i means he p incipal good and
in insic alues ha he law is o p o ec and p omo e.
36 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
In con as o an inomianism, he si ua ionis me hod leads o compas-
siona e and humane ou comes by emphasising lo e as a guiding p inciple.
People and o ganisa ions ha ollow his me hod mus de elop hei un-
de s anding o wha is e hical by ou inely e-e alua ing and e lec ing on
ac ions conside ing es ablished p inciples and cu en ci cums ances. Ac-
co ding o he si ua ionis decision-making me hod, one uses he law o
sol e p oblems. Si ua ionis s do no ma ginalise he law. They aim o in e -
p e and change i ollowing i s spi i o i eali y bes .
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, MM is o os e lo e in socie y. Al hough
Fle che denies any on ological in e p e a ion o i ue (Fle che , 1970),
he si ua ionis app oach o MM ollows he adi ion o i ue e hics, ac-
cen ua ing mo al educa ion’s ole in MM (F ankena, 1973). In he si u-
a ionis iew, MM aims o c ea e a socie y o i uous ci izens.
15.1 Agape. Bene olen Decision-Making
Fo Fle che , lo e means agape o agapeic lo e. Fle che dis inguishes
his lo e om emo ions ha may ha e lo e’s name. In his iew, agape
is goodwill – he will aiming a he good o people (Fle che , 1966b,
pp. 103–119) acco ding o he op imisa ion p inciple o u ili a ian e hics.
Acco ding o his p inciple, bene olen (mo ally good) decisions aim a he
g ea es possible good o he g ea es possible numbe o people (Fle che ,
1966b, p. 95; Fle che , 1967, pp. 19, 56).
As Fle che s esses, lo e is nei he egois ic no al uis ic (Fle che , 1966b,
p. 107). Lo ing decisions sea ch o comp omising in e es s o all people, in-
cluding he in e es s o he decision-make (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 110–114).
Lo e is no an emo ion o eeling o him (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 103, 105).
I is p ima ily he will – goodwill, which is a ional, which wo ks “in pa ne -
ship wi h eason” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 69). Si ua ionis s speci y he a ional-
i y o lo e by he equi emen o p udence and esponsibili y.
15.2 P uden Decision-Making
Fo A is o le, p udence is a mo al i ue in ol ing p ac ical wisdom and he
abili y o easonably judge wha is mo ally igh and ad an ageous in pa -
icula si ua ions. This i ue is in ellec ual abili y and mo al disce nmen ,
which syn hesises in ui ion, knowledge and li e expe ience o de e mine he
op imal cou se o ac ion in conc e e ci cums ances (Uh , 2015).
Acco ding o Fle che , p udence is no a i ue. I is a “ca e ul calcula-
ion” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 88), ecognising exis ing o po en ial good in
conc e e si ua ions and inding he bes way o p o ec o p omo e his
good. I is a p ac ical conside a ion in de e mining he means o a ain he
goal o lo e.
Th ee P ojec s o Mo ali y 37
P uden decisions a e me hodologically a ional (Sec ion 8.1), using
a ailable knowledge. Gene al knowledge emb aces da a om sciences and
mo al adi ions. Conc e e knowledge is abou he ci cums ances o he
decisions (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 87–88). P udence can also mean a capaci y
o in ui ional mo al knowledge and choice (see Sec ion 24).
15.3 Responsible Decision-Making
In he con ex o si ua ionis ex s, he e m “ esponsibili y” akes on di e -
en meanings. Each o hese meanings in luences unde s anding indi idual
ac ions and decisions in di e en e hical and mo al con ex s.
15.3.1 Mo i a ion
Responsibili y can mean mo i a ion, which is he quali y o esponsible de-
cisions. Fle che de ines his quali y in line wi h u ili a ian e hics: Respon-
sible decisions p e e solu ions ha bes mee he op imisa ion p inciple
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 114–119).
Responsible decisions a e mo i a ed by hei chances and isks. Respon-
sible agen s (who make esponsible decision) p edic and scale hem ac-
co ding o hei bes a ailable knowledge and choose he cou se o ac ion
ha gi es he bes chances and minimises isks. In con as , i esponsible
decisions may in ol e in oducing isky inno a ions wi hou es ing hei
impac on socie y. Howe e , as Fle che no ices, esponsibili y may equi e
he cou age o pe mi isks when inac ion o a delay in deciding ca ies a
g ea e isk (Fle che , 1966b. pp. 83–84).
15.3.2 Mo al Du y
Responsibili y is also a mo al du y o make esponsible decisions. In
his espec , people a e esponsible o making socially use ul choices
based on hei bes a ailable knowledge and unde s anding. This du y
in ol es conside ing and minimising po en ial ha m o o he s and max-
imising he posi i e impac o decisions. In his meaning o esponsibili y,
indi iduals and o ganisa ions ha e he mo al obliga ion o esponsible
decision-making.
15.3.3 Mo al Responsibili y
The du y o mo al esponsibili y gene a es mo al esponsibili y o agen s in
e ms o hei esponsibili y o he consequences o hei ac ions. This e-
sponsibili y occu s when agen s hold esponsibili y o some hing in e ms

38 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
o hei me i o guil o he e ec s o hei ac ions. In his meaning o
esponsibili y, indi iduals and o ganisa ions a e esponsible o ca ing o
and p omo ing he wel a e o hose a ec ed by hei decisions.
15.3.4 Conscien iousness
Fle che also speci ies he in e nal esponsibili y o decisions. In his e-
spec , agen s ensu e hei mo i es a e genuinely lo ing and compassion-
a e. A c ucial aspec o his esponsibili y is he ca e o in en ions behind
one’s ac ions – his esponsibili y is ypical o examining conscience. Fle che
names his esponsibili y conscien iousness (Fle che , 1966b, p. 27; 1967,
p. 8). When de ining i , Fle che d aws on he wo ks o Die ich Bonho-
e e , Reinhold Niebuh , Paul Tillich, and he philosophy o dialogue. In
his app oach, esponsibili y is seen as ela ional and dialogic, ep esen ing
a esponse o lo e owa ds pe sons. This esponsibili y should be guided
by he well-being o people and he bes a ailable knowledge abou wha
bene i s hem (Fle che , 1967).
15.3.5 Taking Responsibili y
Responsibili y can also mean aking esponsibili y o someone o some-
hing. Fle che speci ies his esponsibili y as ca e in e ms o ca ing o
people (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 87–89). Howe e , he also speci ies aking e-
sponsibili y as cou age. As all decisions a e isky – hey can cause unp e-
dic ed bad side e ec s – Fle che de ines aking esponsibili y as cou age o
pe mi hem (Fle che , 1966b, p. 84).
Fle che main ains ha esponsible decision-make s should p o i om
he communi y’s wisdom in he w i en and unw i en law. Howe e , he
denies uni e sally alid c i e ia o e alua e he consequences o ac ions. Ac-
co dingly, esponsible agen s should i s in es iga e and hen decide on
hese c i e ia. Fle che pos ula es ha in he momen o decision-making,
“ he esponsible sel in he si ua ion decides whe he he Sophia can se e lo e
he e” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 33). Acco ding o him, his e alua ion should
be esponsible – conside ing he consequences o espec ing o dis espec -
ing hem (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 82, 135–137). The e o e, in his iew, a
esponsible decision-make e alua es he social u ili y o mo al no ms and
ules in each decision-making momen . She mus ake esponsibili y o
adop ing some law and o b eaking i .
Consequen ly, Fle che pos ula es aking esponsibili y o he
e alua ion c i e ia. In his espec , esponsibili y means ha he agen
g an s he sel he compe ence o choose he c i e ia o e alua ing conse-
quences. Fle che main ains ha his esponsibili y is una oidable in he
si ua ionis me hod, as i ollows om pe sonal au onomy and eedom
Th ee P ojec s o Mo ali y 39
in decision-making. Howe e , he no ices ha some agen s may abuse his
p i ilege by making a bi a y mo al p e e ences ou o hei mo al igno-
ance o male olence.5
No es
1 “Classical paci ism … holds he use o iolence o be always w ong ega dless o
he si ua ion. This is a legalism, e en hough many paci is s would be unhappy
o hink o i as such. The sub le y he e is his: he paci is knows ha i , as in
he ‘jus wa ’ doc ine, i is possible ha some wa s a e jus and some a e no …”
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 83–84).
2 Fle che indica es a ious examples o si ua ions whe e mo al ac ions acco d-
ing o some mo al no ms mus iola e o he no ms o he law. Fo example:
“Alexande Mille in e iewed some o he F ench maquis a e Wo ld Wa
II, abou hei expe iences in he esis ance s uggle. (I is a amous passage
in his Renewal o Man.) They had li ed on lies ( o ged passpo s, a ion
ca ds, I.D. ca ds, e c.), by he o ood and supplies, by killing occupa ion
o ice s and collabo a o s, some imes e en killing one o hei own membe s
in dange o a es and exposing hei whole conspi acy. He asked i e e y-
hing, hen, is pe missible? Thei eply was clea and c ucial. ‘Yes, e e y hing
is pe mi ed – and e e y hing is o bidden.’ Mille ’s commen was ha ‘i
killing and lying a e o be used i mus be unde he mos u gen p essu e
o social necessi y, and wi h a p o ound sense o guil ha no be e way can
be p esen ly ound.’ We should change his ‘guil ’ o so ow, since such agic
si ua ions a e a cause o eg e , bu no o emo se” (Fle che , 1966b,
p. 124).
3 “While legalis s a e p eoccupied wi h law and i s s ipula ions, he Gnos ics a e
so la ly opposed o law – e en in p inciple – ha hei mo al decisions a e
andom, unp edic able, e a ic, qui e anomalous. Making mo al decisions is
a ma e o spon anei y; i is li e ally unp incipled, pu ely ad hoc and casual.
They ollow no o ecas able cou se om one si ua ion o ano he . They a e,
exac ly, ana chic – i.e., wi hou a ule. They a e no only “unbound by he
chains o law” bu ac ually shee ex empo ize s, imp omp u and in ellec u-
ally i esponsible. They no only cas he old To ah aside; hey e en cease o
hink se iously and ca e- ully abou he demands o lo e as i has been shown
in Ch is , he lo e no m i sel . The baby goes ou wi h he ba h wa e !”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 23).
4 “We ough no o hesi a e o b eak a law ha is in all conscience unjus , ha is
o say, unlo ing. Pe haps also we should be o e o pa i passu do wha we can
o ge i ein e p e ed in he cou s o h own ou on some g ound such as
cons i u ionali y, using legisla i e machine y o co ec i . Bu nei he he s a e
no i s laws is boss o he si ua ionis ; when he e is a con lic , he decides o
he highe law o lo e. He has o weigh immedia e and emo e consequences as
well as local and b oade in e es s, bu i he scales go agains law, so does he”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 101).
5 “A no ewo hy complain is ha si ua ion e hics p esumes mo e abili y o know
he ac s and weigh hem han mos people can mus e . I is ue ha all o us
a e limi ed in how much we know abou hings and how compe en we a e o
e alua e e en wha li le we know o hink we know. … Bu in his mo e immedi-
a e si ua ion, he mus make his own decisions and should. I i is ue ha one’s
40 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
opinions a e no be e han his ac s, hen si ua ion e hics pu s a high p emium
on ou knowing wha ’s wha when we ac . We a e always ee and o en well
ad ised o call in expe and p o essional ad ice i we choose o call upon i . Bu
i he law cu s down ou ange o ee ini ia i e and pe sonal esponsibili y by
doing ou hinking o us, we a e so much he less o i as pe sons. Law eas-
ily unde mines poli ical eedom (democ acy) and pe sonal eedom (g ace)”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 84).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003250623-4
This chap e has been made a ailable unde a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Th ee Me a heo ies o
Mo ali y Managemen
16 Me a heo ies o Legalism
Fle che p esen s wo me a heo ies cha ac e is ic o legalism: heo ies o
na u al and sc ip u al laws. Acco ding o he o me heo y, humans by
hei na u e aim o achie e a ce ain goal (happiness, ul ilmen ), which is
he p incipal good o each pe son. In his pe spec i e, mo ally good in en-
ions align wi h and mo ally igh ac ions con ibu e o his goal. Mo -
ally bad decisions and ac ions a e no compa ible wi h his objec i e. In
his iew one can no ice some p econdi ions o accomplishing happiness.
They speci y he law ha is in he human na u e (na u al law). A is o le and
S Thomas Aquinas ini ia ed his me a heo y.
Acco ding o heo ies o sc ip u al laws (which a e called sc ip u alism
in his book), alues mani es h ough in e e ence wi h he will o ce ain
au ho i ies, who posi he mo al law by hei decisions. In his pe spec i e,
he mo al alue o decisions depends on hei adhe ence o his au ho i y’s
will. Religious sc ip u alis s poin o he Di ine Au ho i y o God, while
a eligious sc ip u alis s poin o human au ho i y (o an indi idual, g oup o
o ganisa ion) ha designs he posi i e law (Fle che , 1966b, p. 47; Fle che ,
1970, pp. 121–137; Robinson, 1970, pp. 7–18).
16.1 Deon ological E hics: Obedience Ins ead o Bene olence
Deon ological e hics posi ha some ac ions a e mo ally obliga o y, pe -
missible o o bidden based on p inciples and du ies inhe en o he ac ion
a he han he ou comes hey p oduce. This app oach con as s wi h con-
sequen ialis heo ies, which e alua e ac ions ega ding hei ou comes. Si -
ua ionis s main ain ha legalis e hics is deon ological, whe e gene al mo al
no ms and ules dic a e mo ally good and bad o igh and w ong ac ions
and hei mo al e alua ions. In his iew, “ he e a e a g ea many ac ions
ha would be w ong … no ma e wha good consequences a e expec ed
o ollow …” (Fle che , 1988, p. 120). As si ua ionis s no ice, Immanuel
III
48 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
such as Paul Tillich and Die ich Bonhoe e . Howe e , hese hinke s dis-
inguish be ween mo ally igh and w ong exis en ial choices. In hei iew,
only he exis en ial commi men s o lo e a e mo ally good. In p ac ice, his
posi ion equi es ac ing ou o lo e and aiming o lo e in o he s (Fle che ,
1967, p. 56).
Fle che asse s ha lo e is p ecious “ ega dless o he con ex ” (Fle che ,
1966b, p. 60) and independen o human app ecia ion (Fle che , 1966b,
pp. 57–68). As Fle che pu s i , “… No hing is in insically good, bu he
highes good, he summum bonum, he end o pu pose o all ends – lo e”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 129). Si ua ionis s label his posi ion as agapism. This
s ance p esen s no ma i e absolu ism ega ding lo e. In his iew, all o he
alues a e ins umen al. They a e p ecious only when hey con ibu e o
lo e. As Fle che main ains, “E e y hing, please no e … wha e e i is –
migh be sold o lo e’s sake i he si ua ion calls o i ” (Fle che , 1966b,
pp. 33, 121).
Acco ding o his s ance, he uni e sal du y o lo e does no de e mine
any uni e sally alid no ms and ules, as he con en o conc e e mo al du-
ies depends on he unique si ua ion o decision-making and he decision-
make ’s p e e ences. Fle che s summa ises his by s a ing, “… he e a e no
uni e sals o any kind. Only lo e is objec i e alue, only lo e is uni e sal”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 64).
18.2.2 The Essence o Lo e: Sha ing In en ion
Acco ding o Fle che , no symp oms o lo ing in en ions would allow in-
di iduals o ecognise lo ing in en ions and ac ions in ex aspec ion. In his
iew, mo al judgmen s a e only possible h ough in ospec ion. He s a es
ha “E e y man mus decide o himsel acco ding o his own es ima e o
condi ions and consequences, and no one can decide o him o impugn he
decision o which he comes” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 37).
Fle che wa ns agains de ining lo e. He main ains ha “Lo e like good
i sel is axioma ic and os ensi e, ca ego ical, like blue o sou o any hing
else ha simply is wha i is, a ‘p ima y’ no de inable in e ms o some hing
else” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 47).
Fle che p esen s lo e in e ms o he A is o elian iendship: I is a deci-
sion – he will o good o ano he pe son. In con as o S agi i e’s idea,
acco ding o si ua ionis posi i ism (see Sec ion 18.4), each pe son de ines
lo e h ough hei exis en ial commi men . Acco ding o his iew, lo e has
no uni e sal symp oms o p econdi ions. The only ema kable symp om o
lo e is he sha ing in en ion, which is he will o he p incipal good o o h-
e s, which is lo e acco ding o si ua ion e hics.
This de ini ion o lo e is o mal and ci cula . I is o mal because si ua-
ion e hics speci ies he s uc u e o lo e’s in en ions wi hou de e mining

Th ee Me a heo ies o Mo ali y Managemen 49
i s in en ional objec . I is ci cula because i s de iniendum (“lo e”) belongs
o i s de iniens. Howe e , acco ding o Fle che , his o mali y and ci cula -
i y o de ini ion a e igh because hey emb ace di e gen concep ions o
he p incipal good.
Fle che asse s ha ega dless o whe he bene olen agen s assume lo e
o any o he alue (human pe sonali y, pe sonhood, well-being, digni y o
happiness) o be he p incipal good, hey make simila decisions because
hey in end o sha e his good wi h o he s. This sha ing in en ion is he es-
sence o lo e, as he shows (Fle che , 1966b, p. 96).
18.3 U ili a ianism
In si ua ionis li e a u e, he e m ela i ism can designa e he u ili a ian
no ion o alue and mo al du y. Acco ding o his concep ion, mo al im-
pe a i es a e ela i e o he alue o he consequences o espec ing
hem.
18.3.1 Op imisa ion P inciple
U ili a ian e hics p esen s he s ance o consequen ialism ( eleologism) in
me ae hics. In his iew, “… whe he an ac ion is mo ally igh o w ong
has exclusi ely o do wi h whe he i s consequences a e in insically be e
han hose o any o he ac ion one can pe o m unde he ci cums ances”
(Zimme man, 2019). F om his pe spec i e, mo ally good decisions s i e
o , and mo ally igh ac ions p omo e “ he g ea es good o he g ea es
numbe (o people)” (Fle che , 1988, pp. 138–139). When saying e ms
like use ul o ha m ul, si ua ionis s conside social u ili y (Fle che , 1966b,
pp. 107–110).
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, lo e is he in en ion (decision o p e e -
ence) o enhance he well-being o all humans (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 79,
103, 107, 109) adhe ing o he u ili a ian p inciple o “ he g ea es amoun
o neighbou wel a e o he la ges numbe o neighbou s possible” as ou -
lined by Je emy Ben ham and John S ua Mill (Fle che , 1966b, p. 95;
Fle che , 1967, pp. 8, 53). Howe e , si ua ionis s eplace he u ili a ians’
“pleasu e p inciple” wi h agape (Fle che , 1966b, p. 95). Consequen ly, he
op imisa ion p inciple o si ua ion e hics equi es pu suing he g ea es pos-
sible lo e in he uni e se – “ he g ea es amoun o agape o he g ea es
numbe o neighbo s possible.” (Fle che , 1967, p. 56)
Fle che obse es ha he op imisa ion p inciple may seem c uel when
i equi es sac i icing indi iduals and mino i ies, i i is indispensable, o
p o ec “ he g ea es good o he g ea es numbe o people.” Howe e ,
he main ains ha “calcula ion is no c uel” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 114). He
p esen s a ious examples o dilemmas (in a ian s o he olley dilemma),
50 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
p io i ising he good o he “g ea es possible numbe ,” e en i i en ails
ha m o a smalle amoun o people (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 114–119).
18.3.2 Rule U ili a ianism
In selec ing codes o mo al conduc in MM, Fle che sugges s he me hod
o ule u ili a ianism,4 which in ol es e alua ing and selec ing mo al ules
and no ms based on he consequences o hei implemen a ion. The p e e -
ence is o he mos use ul mo al no ms, ules and codes.
Si ua ionis s ask MM wi h p edic ing he social consequences o imple-
men ing codes o mo al conduc and selec ing he code ha bes mo i a es
agen s o make mo ally good and sound decisions. They a gue ha his code
should p ima ily speci y he decision-making me hod ins ead o codi ying
ac ions as mo ally igh o w ong in he legalis ic s yle. Following he ac
u ili a ianism in he MM p ocess in ol es p edic ing and e alua ing he so-
cial consequences o implemen ing a mo al code o selec he mos socially
use ul code o socie y, acco ding o he u ili a ian op imisa ion p inciple.
Si ua ionis s obse e ha some mo al p ohibi ions a e well-g ounded in
human expe ience. Howe e , acco ding o si ua ion e hics, e en he mos
undamen al mo al p ohibi ions may ha e excep ions in a ypical si ua ions
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 26–31; Robinson, 1970, pp. 15–16).
As Ramsey no ices, empi ical in es iga ion o he pas allows us o o -
mula e summa y ules speci ying he s a is ical p obabili y ha some ac ions
iola e he p inciple o lo e. Howe e , he no ices ha hese ules a e allible
in p edic ing u u e consequences, emphasising ha each agen mus in es-
iga e hei sui abili y in new si ua ions (Ramsey, 1966, p. 192).
18.4 Posi i ism
In ou lining si ua ionis posi i ism, Fle che alludes o Sa e’s idea o ex-
is en ial commi men , labelling i “ou choice o ou summum bonum”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 43), which is he highes good ( alue) in he hie a chy
o alues adop ed by he en i y and he mos impo an aim in li e. Acco ding
o Fle che , his choice de e mines agen s’ alue p e e ences and comp e-
hension o alues. In si ua ionism, his s ance encompasses h ee p emises:
no ma i e, me aphysical and epis emological decisionism in me ae hics.
18.4.1 No ma i e Decisionism
In si ua ion e hics, ela i ism can deno e he assump ion o no ma i e
ela i ism ha alues a e p ecious because someone app ecia es hem.
The no ma i e decisionism p esumes ha some hing “…is a alue because
somebody decided i was wo h some hing” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 59).
Th ee Me a heo ies o Mo ali y Managemen 51
Consequen ly, alues become p ecious when someone app ecia es, wan s
o aims o achie e hem by an exis en ial commi men , which is a decision.
This ela i ism is mode a e, as si ua ion e hics asse ha lo e is p ecious
ega dless o human p e e ences.
18.4.2 Me aphysical Subjec i ism in Me ae hics
Si ua ion e hics adop s he exis en ial on ology, whe e decisions a e he
sou ce o mo al meaning o eali y, leading o me aphysical subjec i ism.
In his iew, alues a e pu ely in en ional objec s and lack inhe en eal-
i y. I is he s ance o me aphysical subjec i ism in me ae hics. As Fle che
s a es, “The e a e no ‘ alues’ a all; he e a e only hings (ma e ial o
nonma e ial) which happen o be alued by pe sons …” (Fle che , 1966b,
p. 58). In his iew, decisions c ea e alues by speci ying pu ely in en ional
objec s o decisional in en ions o wan ing, aiming o , o app ecia ing
some hing.
18.4.3 Epis emological Decisionism
Acco ding o si ua ionis posi i ism, mo al knowledge a ises om deci-
sions. Emo ions only media e he unde s anding o exis en ial commi -
men (Fle che , 1966b, p. 106). The eason’s unc ion is o disco e he
mos e ec i e means o achie e he goals se by he will (Fle che , 1988,
p. 34). In his iew, he eason is a unc ion o eedom – a endency o
eedom no o con adic i sel . In his iew, human eason can ecognise
ac s as well as hei causal and logical links be ween s a emen s o no ms.
Howe e , i lacks knowledge abou mo al impe a i es wi hou a decision
ha p esen s some hing as a alue o an end wo hy o a aining. Thus, hu-
man eason can only deduce impe a i es om no ma i e p emises elec ed
by exis en ial commi men . Consequen ly, eason alone can ind ac s and
ins umen al alues by iden i ying he mos e ec i e means o achie e a
gi en end, bu eason does no es ablish any mo al aims o ac ion.
Acco ding o Fle che , alue p e e ences a e a bi a y, a ising om a bi-
a y decisions o exis en ial commi men : “Value choices a e made, and no -
ma i e s anda ds a e emb aced in a ashion e e y bi as a bi a y and absu d
as he leap o ai h” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 48). Acco ding o him, alue choices
(exis en ial commi men s) a e sel -jus i ying, simila o he choice o lo e is
sel -jus i ying, acco ding o Be na d o Clai aux’s s a emen , “Amo quia amo
(I lo e because I lo e)” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 47). No easoning o knowledge
can p o e a alue p e e ence (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 47–49) because he e is no
logical me hod o jus i y o alsi y exis en ial commi men s (Fle che , 1966b,
p. 49). They can be “ indica ed” by educ i e easoning showing hei com-
pa ibili y wi h knowledge, expe ience o a heo y. Howe e , Fle che s esses
52 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
ha he exis en ial choice logically p ecedes any heo y, which akes place ex-
pos – logically a e he exis en ial choice is al eady alid (made).
18.5 Pe sonalism
As Fle che s a es, “ he bias o [ he si ua ionis ] … e hical s andpoin …
is p obably bes pin-poin ed as pe sonalis ” (Fle che , 1979, p. XVIII). In
hei pe sonalism, si ua ionis s d aw on Kan ’s concep ion o he ca ego i-
cal impe a i e and he exis en ialis no ion o human exis ence (Fle che ,
1966b, pp. 50–52). Si ua ionis pe sonalism comp ises he ollowing wo
assump ions: (a) Human pe sonali y se es as he p ima y means o unde -
s anding alues, and (b) human beings ( hei pe sonali y and eedom) a e
he highes good (Fle che , 1979, p. XVIII).
Si ua ion e hics p esen s hei pe sonalism by sugges ing espec ing peo-
ple by p o ec ing and os e ing hei lo e. Consequen ly, he heo y o hu-
man na u e and well-being is ma ginalised.
Si ua ionis s asse ha mo ally igh ac ions should con ibu e o “human
pe sonali y” (Robinson, 1964, p. 12) o “well-being” (Fle che , 1970, p. 2).
Fle che p o ides examples o well-being, such as human “heal h, su i al,
g ow h, joy, social in e es , sel - ealisa ion, and so on” (Fle che , 1988, p. 30).
Howe e , si ua ionis s do no in es iga e hese equi emen s by emphasising
ha all he cha ac e is ics o human exis ence a e ins umen al alues when
“ hey happen o con ibu e o some good o he han hemsel es” (Fle che ,
1966b, p. 129). In his iew, lo e is he only in insic and au o elic alue ha
speci ies he good o pe sons – human well-being in he s ic sense.
Consequen ly, he si ua ionis pos ula ion o pe sonalism na ows o
agapism – he equi emen o p o ec and os e lo e in people. This na -
owing is ema kable in he si ua ionis concep ion o mo al igh ness. Ac-
co ding o si ua ionis s, his alue o ac ions encompasses he u ili y o hei
consequences. As si ua ion e hics denies any in insic alue o he conse-
quences, excep o he alue o lo e, he op imisa ion p inciple ansla es
in o he impe a i e o op imising lo e in he uni e se.
18.6 P agma ism
Fle che selec i ely alludes o Ame ican p agma ism, in oducing he p ag-
ma ic concep o meaning and heo y o he u h in o si ua ion e hics
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 40–43).
18.6.1 Theo y o Meaning and Objec i es o E hics
Acco ding o p agma ism, heo ies de i e meaning om hei ou comes – he
ac ions o hei adhe en s and he esul ing consequences (Hookway, 2013).
Th ee Me a heo ies o Mo ali y Managemen 53
Fle che emb aces his idea. He obse es no signi ican di e ence in e hical he-
o ies when mo i a ing people o make simila decisions (Fle che , 1970, p. 2).
Si ua ion e hics adop s a “p ac ical o success pos u e” o p agma ism
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 42) by ma ginalising heo e ical p oblems and p io -
i ising applied (p agma ic) e hical objec i es. The heo e ical goals include
de ining and explaining some (objec i e o subjec i e) eali y and jus i y-
ing s a emen s o no ms. The p agma ic goal is o e oke some expec ed
ou comes ega ding ac ions om he heo y’s ollowe s. Fle che conside s
hese p agma ic objec i es o be he p ima y goal o any e hics, leasing
o mo ally good decisions, mo ally igh ac ions and socially use ul p ac-
ices. Consequen ly, si ua ion e hics is an ideology ha se es as MM’s ool
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 41–42).
18.6.2 Ideologies
Acco ding o Fle che , si ua ion e hics adop s he p agma ic me hod o
choosing among compe i i e ideologies (ideas, concep ions, heo ies, codes
o mo al conduc , heo ies ha he collec i ely e e s o as “ideology”).
Fle che summa ises his me hod in he ollowing way:
When belie s o non-empi ical opinions, nei he o hem being alsi i-
able, con adic o clash wi h each o he , he only possible way o
choose be ween hem mo ally is in e ms o hei consequences i hey
a e ollowed ou logically in p ac ice. The one which esul s in g ea e
good o people is he co ec one. (Fle che , 1988, pp. 138–139)
Consequen ly, si ua ionis s p opose e alua ing ideologies based on hei
consequences. Howe e , o e alua e he consequences, one mus apply some
c i e ia belonging o a ce ain ideology. He e, he me hod o ule u ili a ianism
comes ull ci cle unde he p agma ic de ini ion o u h: To e alua e an ideol-
ogy, i is necessa y o e alua e i s ou comes. To e alua e hem, one needs some
c i e ia (ideology) ha also need e alua ion. To e alua e hem, i is necessa y o
e alua e hei ou comes acco ding o some c i e ia (ideology) and so on.
18.6.3 T u h Ma ke s
Wi h p agma ism, Fle che posi s ha he alidi y o ideas and heo ies lies
in hei success. He de ines i in e ms o “sa is ac ion” acco ding o John
Dewey, “expediency” acco ding o William James and “wha wo ks” ac-
co ding o F. C. S. Schille . Consequen ly, in he si ua ionis li e a u e, he
e m u h does no ha e he classical meaning o epis emological u h

54 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
(acco ding o he co espondence de ini ion speci ied by A is o le o Al ed
Ta ski). Fo Fle che , u h deno es he u ili y o ideologies in p o iding
sa is ac ion, expediency and unc ionali y o people. This unc ion se es as
he indica o (ma ke ) o u h (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 41–42).
Si ua ionis s asse ha socially use ul ideologies gain popula i y o e
ime and, he eby, become (p agma ically) ue. People abandon socially
ha m ul and useless ideologies because hey do no sa is y people. Con-
sequen ly, si ua ionis s con end ha he popula i y o ideologies is he
decisi e ma ke o hei u h (Fle che , 1966b, p. 43; Rhymes, 1966; Rob-
inson, 1964, p. 14). Acco dingly, ue heo ies exp ess he dominan alue
p e e ences o be pe suasi e enough o become popula (Fle che , 1966b,
p. 47). Si ua ion e hics is wi hou he answe o he ques ion o whe he
socially ha m ul ideologies a e (p agma ically) ue when hey a e popula .
No es
1 I ha e ansla ed engagemen (F ench) as exis en ial commi men o exis en ial
choice.
2 “Ou obliga ion is ela i e o he si ua ion, bu obliga ion in he si ua ion is
absolu e. We a e only obliged o ell he u h, o example, i he si ua ion calls
o i ; i a mu de e asks us his ic im’s whe eabou s, ou du y migh be o lie”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 27).
3 “To be ela i e, o cou se, means o be ela i e o some hing. To be ‘absolu ely
ela i e’ (an uneasy combina ion o e ms) is o be inchoa e, andom, unp edic -
able, unjudgeable, meaningless, amo al – a he in he an inomian mode. The e
mus be an absolu e o no m o some kind i he e is o be any ue ela i i y.
This is he cen al ac in he no ma i e ela i ism o a si ua ion e hic. I is no
ana chic (i.e., wi hou an a che, an o de ing p inciple). In Ch is ian si ua ionism
he ul ima e c i e ion is, as we shall be seeing, ‘agapeic lo e.’ I ela i izes he
absolu e, i does no absolu ize he ela i e!” (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 44–45).
4 Acco ding o ule u ili a ianism “A mo al ule is jus i ied i i s inclusion in o ou
mo al code would c ea e mo e u ili y han o he possible ules (o no ule a
all)” (Na hanson, n.d.).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003250623-5
This chap e has been made a ailable unde a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Th ee Tac ics o Mo ali y
Managemen
19 The Tac ics o Legalism
Si ua ionis s p esen legalism as mo ali y managemen (MM) ac ics o codi-
ying mo ally igh ac ions and an icipa ing ha obedience o codes o mo al
conduc (laws) will p oduce bene olen ac ions. Si ua ionis s a gue ha his
ac ic builds legalis s’ social au ho i y bu does no always esul in bene olen
ac ions. Si ua ion e hics p esen h ee obs acles o his ac ic: Fi s , espec o
he p inciple o mo ali y (lo e o any o he p incipal alue, like God, happi-
ness o human digni y) is no ully codi iable. Second, he complexi y and a -
iabili y o eali y p e en any code o mo ali y om emb acing all si ua ions
and mo al dilemmas. Thi d, espec ing mo al p inciples equi es eedom and
c ea i i y, elemen s es ic ed by he legalis ic decision-making me hod.
19.1 The Me hod o Codi ica ion
Any p ac ice o legalism begins wi h codi ying ac ions h ough legisla ion
o casuis y. Al hough si ua ionis s ecognise he u ili y o codes o conduc
in p e en ing isks and ha monising social ac ions,1 hey deny he possibil-
i y and need o codi y e e y hing. They main ain ha codi ica ion is use ul
only when i o e s be e solu ions han common sense, ende ing codi ica-
ion unnecessa y in o he cases (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 19–21).
As si ua ionis s no ice, in complex o a ypical si ua ions, he mo al agen
mus some imes independen ly and c ea i ely ind he bes solu ions. O e ly
de ailed codi ica ion o mo ali y can hinde he de elopmen o a sense o
esponsibili y in people o he consequences o hei ac ions. Fu he mo e,
excessi e codi ica ion poses he isk o abuse o powe as codi ie s may inse
hei own in e es s behind de ailed no ms and ules.
19.2 The Goal o Obedience
Si ua ionis s wa n agains con using he means wi h he goal o MM.
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, MM should p omo e mo ally good and
IV
56 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
igh decisions, wi h he laws se ing as he means o his end. Howe e ,
bad legalism subs i u es he end o MM by i s means. Consequen ly, le-
galis ic MM aims o e oke obedience o he laws, elying on his obedi-
ence o gene a e o accoun o bene olence. This ac ic is u opian as
Sec ion 19.5 shows.
The dis inc ion be ween he means and end o MM in ol es nuances
and sub le shi s o accen s in legalis heo ies o na a ions. Howe e , hese
nuances and accen s a e decisi e o p ac ice o MM: Si ua ionis s s ess he
signi icance o de e mining whe he a legalis conside s espec o he law
as a p econdi ion o goal o mo al ac ion.
In good legalism, he accen is on he p incipal good. In his app oach,
lawgi e s and in e p e e s cons an ly in es iga e laws o accommoda e hem
o he equi emen s o he p incipal good. In bad legalism, he emphasis is
on obedience. In his app oach, mo ali y manage s spa e all e o in accom-
moda ing he pe cep ions o he p incipal good o sa is y some ideology.
19.3 Managemen by P ejudice
Si ua ionis s debunk assump ions o legalism as p ejudices ha legalis ic
MM uses o os e he au ho i y o mo ali y manage s in social pe cep ion.
These p emises a e supe s i ions because, as si ua ionis s a gue, hey con a-
dic e idence and p ima acie mo al expe ience. These p ejudices a e abou
pe ec laws, in allible adi ions and au ho i ies.
19.3.1 Pe ec Laws
As si ua ionis s no ice, con e ing he law in o ac ion necessi a es in e -
p e a ion and heu is ics acco ding o he p emises ha belong o he spi i
o he law, which speci y he alues ha he law is o p o ec and os e .
Hence, any unde s anding o he law necessi a es su passing i s li e al wo d-
ing (Fle che , 1966b, p. 47; Fle che , 1970, pp. 121–137; Robinson, 1970,
pp. 7–18).
Si ua ionis s obse e ha p oponen s o sc ip u alism employ espec o
laws by p opaga ing he belie ha hey apply o eali y wi hou any dose
o in e p e a ion. As si ua ionis s main ain, p opaga ing his belie may be a
ick in which agen s hide hei in e p e ing ole unde he guise o p esen -
ing he law o a wide audience.
P oponen s o na u al law may also use his ac ic when p esen ing one
o some op ional in e p e a ions o na u al law as unques ionable na u al
law i sel . Howe e , au ho s (also sympa hising wi h he na u al law heo y)
ha e al eady c i icised his misin e p e a ion (Finnis, 1979; F ied, 1964;
Geo ge, 1992; Mu phy, 2001).
Th ee Tac ics o Mo ali y Managemen 57
19.3.2 In allible T adi ions
The si ua ionis s’ cen al c i icisms o legalism ocus on he legalis ai h in
he in allibili y o legal solu ions, a belie shaken by examples o unjus and
socially ha m ul laws, when hey become ou da ed. As si ua ionis s no ice,
laws may equi e changes. Ne e heless, legalism impedes such changes. The
adical posi ion o sc ip u alism denies any changes in laws, while mode a e
sc ip u alis s allow e olu iona y changes unde he equi emen o hei co-
he ence wi h he exis ing laws. Acco ding o his in e p e a ion o he ule o
law, any changes o laws mus adhe e o he applicable ac ual laws.
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, he ule o law p ima ily equi es compli-
ance wi h he spi i o he law, which encompasses alues he laws should
p o ec (Fle che , 1966b, p. 18).2 Si ua ionis s main ain ha in some ex-
cep ional si ua ions, legal sys ems may no pe mi signi ican changes when
he laws o hei ins i u ions a e undamen ally unjus . In such si ua ions,
si ua ionis s p opose “ci il disobedience” o hese laws and ins i u ions
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 101–102). Si ua ionis s conside hese si ua ions ex-
cep ional, s essing ha MM should os e espec o mo al and legal a-
di ions, especially by eaching o le e age he wisdom s o ed in hem o
p uden and esponsible decision-making.
19.3.3 In allible Au ho i ies
Some iews o legalism p esume he in allibili y o mo al au ho i ies (who
in e p e he law and p esen i s meaning o he public). As si ua ionis s
main ain, his assump ion is alse, as any in e p e a ion “s ands always in he
p esence o he in e p e e who is allible” (Gus a son, 1963, p. 23). Sec-
ion 19.5 u he p esen s and c i icises his supe s i ion.
19.4 Subs i u i e Solu ions
Si ua ionis s obse e ha he legalis ic MM cen ed on obedience shi s he
a en ion o socie y and mo ali y manage s away om impo an mo al is-
sues, ocusing on ma ginal o ake mo al p oblems. Mo ali y manage s may
do i on pu pose. Then, hey in oduce subs i u i e opics, ed hea ings
di e si y ac ics o di e se public opinion om hei inac ion o ailu e in
p oblem-sol ing. Si ua ionis s do no name his ick and do no p esen i s
case s udies. Howe e , hei c i iques o legalism allow some o hese a i-
an s o be speci ied.
The ac ic o subs i u i e solu ions en ails p esen ing a solu ion o a sec-
onda y p oblem (p oblem B) as i i we e he solu ion o he p ima y p ob-
lem (p oblem A). P oblem B, which is easie o sol e, has some simila i ies
o he mo e di icul p oblem A. The ick lies in po aying he solu ion o
B as he solu ion o A.
64 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
Consequen ly, he an inomian idea o MM o e s some hing else as i
p omises. I is supposed o os e human libe y. Howe e , i limi s ci il lib-
e ies by equi ing ha mo ali y manage s impose hei iews agains o he
people’s eedom.
20.2 An inomian Fana icism
When Sa e cha ac e ises exis en ial commi men s as a bi a y, he signi ies
he co e exis en ialis concep ha human li e has any p ede e mined essence
o in insic signi icance ha p esc ibes objec i es o p inciples. In his iew, in-
di iduals mus au onomously selec hei ideals and ajec o ies in li e, de oid
o any mo al compass ex e nal o hei decisions. F om an ex e nal pe spec i e,
his decision may seem a bi a y due o he lack o p ede e mined signi icance
o mo al absolu es. Ne e heless, he e m a bi a y in his con ex does no
sugges any o m o negligence o cap iciousness in making decisions.
Ne e heless, as some c i ics no ice, Sa e does no p esen any way
o g ounding exis en ial commi men in knowledge, which means ha
mo al (au hen ic) agen s may emain insensi i e o a ional a gumen a ion
conce ning hei goals as speci ied by exis en ial commi men (Aku, 2012;
B onne , 2021; C owell, 2004; Ray, 2012; Sealey, 2012). Acco ding o
his in e p e a ion, si ua ionis s p esen he an inomian decision-making
me hod as i esponsible, as i equi es agen s o make exis en ial commi -
men ega dless o he knowledge hey ha e o can possess. E en i hey a e
me hodologically a ional in selec ing he means o hei ac ions, hey mus
be me hodologically i a ional in se ing hei goals, as hese goals ollow
om hei exis en ial commi men , which is a bi a y. Agen s who ac his
way should emain insensi i e o easons o and agains hese goals unde
he p emise ha hey mus emain a bi a y. Consequen ly, as Fle che no-
ices, hei decisions can be “ andom, unp edic able, e a ic, qui e anoma-
lous” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 23). When his way o decision-making becomes
a pe manen in a pe son, i pe ec ly mee s he cha ac e is ics o ana icism
(Le esque, 2018). Howe e , he an inomian ana icism is un ypical, as a-
na ics usually ollow some ex e nal au ho i y. An inomianism equi es ha
agen s adhe e o hei a bi a y goals blind olded.
20.3 The P imacy o Powe
As si ua ionis s sugges , he e hics o an inomianism does no speci y any
mo al limi o ac ions besides he equi emen o au hen ici y. The only ex-
e nal limi a ion o ac i i ies is he esis ance o eali y. Consequen ly, when
a mo ali y manage se s some MM goals acco ding o he exis en ial com-
mi men , she has he mo al obliga ion o use any e ec i e means o a ain
hem. I can be coe cion and manipula ion. These ools may become mo e

Th ee Tac ics o Mo ali y Managemen 65
ex eme han legalism allows, as an inomianism does no equi e espec o
he law o any o he mo al no ms ex e nal o he agen ’s will. E icacy is he
only c i e ion and es o selec ing ac ions’ means in his iew.
Consequen ly, acco ding o he logic o an inomianism, he powe be-
comes also he decisi e ac o o selec ing mo ali y manage s: En i ies com-
pe e o manage mo ali y. The s onges and he mos in luen ial indi idual,
g oup o o ganisa ion wins his compe i ion, becoming he mo ali y man-
age by he powe o ac s. He a bi a y will speci ies he goals o MM.
He e, he eason o powe subs i u es he powe o eason in MM.
21 The Tac ic o Si ua ionism
Si ua ionis s sha e he an inomian espec o indi idual eedom. Howe e ,
si ua ion e hics se s he p incipal alue in lo e. In his iew, MM should
p o ec and p omo e lo e in he uni e se. Howe e , si ua ionis s dis ance
hemsel es om o cing his mo i a ion h ough legal egula ions o sanc-
ions. Si ua ionis s p esen he ac ics o eaching his goal wi hou o ce
and coe cion.
21.1 The Op imisa ion P inciple and Rule U ili a ianism
Si ua ionis s do no d aw a clea bounda y be ween mo ali y and law. Con-
sequen ly, in he w i ings o si ua ion e hics, he e m law may e e o
w i en laws, unw i en o cus oma y mo al s anda ds e lec ing he mo al
belie s o a communi y.
Acco ding o si ua ionism, he spi i o he law should be u ili a ian. In
his iew, one should design and execu e legal and mo al laws in a socially
use ul way. This ac ic ollows ule-u ili a ianism. In his iew, MM should
design and implemen he mos socially use ul code o conduc , adhe ing o
he u ili a ian op imisa ion p inciple o aiming a he “g ea es good o he
g ea es numbe ” o people (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 95–96). Consequen ly,
si ua ion e hics os e s he adop ion o socially use ul laws.4
Si ua ionis s emphasise ha mo ali y manage s should no change law
and mo ali y wi hou signi ican eason. They should espec he mo al and
legal adi ions when hey emain socially use ul, abolishing no ms and ules
ha a e socially ha m ul (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 99–102; Robinson, 1963,
pp. 118–119).
Acco ding o si ua ionism, ci izens should con ol he decisions o mo-
ali y manage s. People should espec he law bu ha e a mo al obliga ion
o disobey i when i is unjus and socially ha m ul. As Fle che pu s i , “We
ha e a mo al obliga ion o obey ci il law, o o de ’s sake; and we ha e a
mo al obliga ion o be si ua ional (e en disobeying he law) o lo e’s sake”
(Fle che , 1966b, p. 101).
66 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
21.2 P incipled Rela i ism
As Fle che main ains, he heo y o name o he p incipal good holds
ma ginal signi icance in he p ac ice o MM because he ue meaning
o mo al heo ies lies in he p ac ice o hei ollowe s. He assumes ha
bene olen agen s make simila decisions ega dless o whe he he name
o he p incipal good is pe sonhood, human digni y, happiness o lo e.
Namely, hey a e bene olen because hey in end o sha e his good wi h
o he s. He names his sha ing in en ion lo e o agapeic lo e. Acco d-
ing o him, MM should encou age agen s o make bene olen decisions
wi hou censo ing hei comp ehension o he p incipal good (Fle che ,
1966b, p. 96).
Fle che sugges s ha MM should p omo e a dose o ela i ism, which
consis s o a oiding gene alisa ions: “The si ua ionis a oids wo ds like
‘ne e ’ and ‘pe ec ’ and ‘comple e’ as he a oids he plaque, as he a oids
absolu ely” (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 43–44). This ela i ism is he shi
“ om a hie a chy o alues, anged in some supposedly ‘gi en’ and pe -
manen o de o bad o be e , o a luid spec um o alues” (Fle che ,
1966b, p. 44).
Fle che main ains ha some p incipal good should emain cen al o he
e hical na a i es o MM. Howe e , his good should be gene al enough
o emb ace di e gen iews. He p oposes de ining his good as lo e. Con-
sequen ly, MM should each socie y o conside all mo al no ms and ules
condi ionally, depending on how hey “se e lo e” (Fle che , 1966b, p. 33).
Fle che names his ac ic p incipled ela i ism (see Sec ion 18.2).
21.3 Didac ic Pa e nalism
Si ua ionis s do no deny mo al (pe sonal o ins i u ional) au ho i ies. On
he con a y, si ua ionis s o en ake he ole o mo ali y eache s, and some
w i ings o si ua ion e hics p esen he s yle o ex-ca hed a p eaching e hics
a he han ques ion-asking o discussing di e gen mo al iews (Gus a -
son & Johnson, 1989). Howe e , si ua ionis s s ess ha he ole o mo al
au ho i ies is p ima ily inspi a ional. Si ua ionis s p opose a new app oach
o au ho i ies ha educes hei ole o case s udies and inspi a ion o
in es iga ions:
The mode n his o y o he a s and sciences, and o he echnologies
ha unde gi d hem, makes i plain ha hey no longe bow down o
no cu hei clo h o au ho i a ian p inciples. Thei li eline is no mo e
handed down in ad ance o d opped om abo e by “ e ela ion” o
majes y. Men ha e u ned o induc i e and expe imen al me hods
o app oach, wo king by ial and e o , appealing o expe ience o
Th ee Tac ics o Mo ali y Managemen 67
alida e hei en a i e and loosely held gene alisa ions. I has wo ked
wi h unp eceden ed success as a s a egy o me hod o inqui y and
g ow h. Psychology, o example, go i s s a and g ow h his way.
The same is ue in many o he sec o s o he g owing edge o he
human en e p ise. Now, a las , e hics and mo al inqui y a e doing
i oo. This is he new u n in he his o y o Ch is ian e hics. This is
he empe o clinical, case-cen ed, si ua ional “conc e ion” – o use
Bonhoe e ’s wo d. (Fle che , 1966b, p. 158)
Si ua ion e hics p esen s he educa ional ole o MM in na a ion ha
p esen s pas ac ions o mo i a e agen s o make mo al decisions. This na -
a ion is called neocasuis y o neocasuis ics. In con as o classical casuis y,
neocasuis y does no p esen any pa e n o ac ion bu se es as a mo i a-
ional ole. I is a didac ic ool mo i a ing people o ake mo al ac ions by
illus a ing he a ac i eness o bene olen decisions and he d ead ulness
o male olen decisions (Gus a son, 1971, pp. 177–185).
Consequen ly, si ua ion e hics p oposes MM as mo al educa ion ha
does no iola e human au onomy. In his iew, me hods o MM should
make alues a ac i e o decision-make s – wi hou coe cion and de-
cep ion. Al hough si ua ion e hics does no p esen any examples o his
p ac ice, one can imagine p ac ices ha mee he abo e equi emen s o
si ua ionis mo al educa ion. Thei examples a e p esen ed in Sec ions 21.4
and 21.5, concluding his chap e .
21.4 Making Values Accessible
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, coe cion and punishmen should be he las
me hods o MM when o he me hods do no wo k. In his iew, one should
i s make alues a ac i e o people. The e o e, p ima ily, one should acili-
a e possibili ies by enhancing accessibili y o e hical op ions.
Fo example, conside MM p omo ing espec o ecology: The legalis ic
app oach o ecology may consis o p ohibi ing and en o cing measu es,
such as imposing high axes on en i onmen ally un iendly ca s (including
hose wi h olde o diesel engines) and banning hei en y in o ci y cen es.
In con as , he si ua ionis app oach would seek o ind a solu ion o make
sus ainable ca s mo e a ac i e and a o dable o d i e s o o o ganise pub-
lic anspo in as uc u e in a mo e a ac i e way han using ca s.
21.5 Making Values A ac i e. Ra ional Pe suasion
In his s udy, a ional pe suasion means o in luence wi hou coe cion and
decep ion. Si ua ionis s, by c i icising legalis ic me hods o mo al educa ion,
68 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
sugges ha MM should use only such pe suasion. Al hough he si ua ion-
is s did no de elop me hods o his pe suasion, hey ha e al eady been
o mula ed. This sec ion p esen s exempla y ac ics o a ional pe suasion,
which i he si ua ionis idea o MM.
21.5.1 Knowledge o Make Mo al P e e ences
When people lack he in o ma ion needed o make a a ional choice, MM
may p o ide hem wi h his knowledge. MM can help people unde s and
and accep he ull consequences o hei choices by highligh ing indi ec and
long- e m e ec s. MM can play his ole by a ious me hods, such as educa-
ional campaigns o wo kshops, which aise awa eness abou u he conse-
quences o human ac i i ies o he implica ions o hei choices. Fo example:
• One can implemen a heal h p omo ion ini ia i e by dissemina ing em-
pi ical da a ega ding he ad an ages o a well- ounded die and he
haza ds associa ed wi h bad ea ing p ac ices. This app oach upholds in-
di iduals’ libe y while equipping hem wi h in o ma ion o make well-
in o med choices on hei die a y habi s.
• One can o ganise wo kshops and p o ide ma e ials o enligh en he
gene al public on p uden expendi u e, sa ing and in es men me hod-
ologies. This app oach upholds he au onomy o indi iduals in making
inancial decisions while equipping hem wi h esou ces and in o ma-
ion ha may s ee hem owa ds adop ing mo e conscien ious inancial
beha iou s.
• One can o ganise semina s and wo kshops o educa o s and pa en s,
emphasising he signi icance o digi al li e acy in con empo a y socie y
and i s in eg a ion wi h he o e a ching objec i e o holis ic educa ion.
21.5.2 Raising Sel -Awa eness
Si ua ion e hics and psychoanalysis de eloped a he same ime. Al hough
di ec connec ions be ween hese schools a e no e lec ed in hei w i ings,
hese lines o hough sha e some common ideas o mo i a ion unc ions,
which psychoanalysis used in he apy and si ua ion e hics may use in MM
(Ba decki, 1957).
As E ich F omm, Ka l Gus a Jung and Ka en Ho ney show, he apeu-
ic me hods may acili a e de eloping awa eness o he meaning o alue
p e e ences. Simila ly, si ua ionis s assign he didac ic ole o e hics, s a ing
om wha is known and leading o he disco e y o p econdi ions o alues
and implica ions o alue p e e ences.
Soc a es o iginally speci ied hese didac ic oles. In his iew, he elenc-
ic me hods cu e agen s o inconsis en belie s, and maieu ic me hods help
Th ee Tac ics o Mo ali y Managemen 69
agen s o make independen disco e ies, which in mo al ma e s may con-
ce n consequences o alue p e e ences ha agen s o iginally did no ac-
cep . Fo example:
• People app ecia e hei sa e y bu a e eluc an o espec o he people’s
undamen al igh s in some espec s. In his case, MM may show how
os e ing mu ual espec be ween people is easonable because i sa e-
gua ds hei sa e y.
• Socie y membe s ind no appeal o espec ing he li es o some g oups.
Howe e , membe s o his socie y highly app ecia e hei li e. In he p o-
cess o MM, one can show how uni e sally espec ing he undamen al
igh o li e sa egua ds he li e o each membe o socie y.
• A socie y app ecia es peace bu does no espec cul u al di e si ies. MM
may show how espec ing a common se o undamen al human igh s
can assis di e se cul u es and socie ies o coexis peace ully.
21.5.3 S eng hening Mo al Mo i a ion
MM can s eng hen mo al mo i a ion wi hou changing i . Fo example:
• One can enhance dedica ion o upholding mo al p inciples by os e -
ing ac i i ies ha p omp indi iduals o con empla e hei alue p e e -
ences and in en new possibili ies by aligning wi h hese p e e ences.
Educa ional campaigns and pa icipa ing in wo kshops o cou ses o-
cused on e hical hough and decision-making migh assis indi iduals in
ha monising hei e e yday beha iou s wi h hei mo al p inciples. Fo
example, an awa eness campaign ocused on esponsible inno a ion can
educa e he communi y on success ul social esponsibili y p ac ices o
indi iduals who al eady p io i ise his.
• Cul i a ing en i onmen s ha p omo e and os e he mani es a ion o
alue p e e ences may en ail es ablishing pla o ms, o ums o communi-
ies whe e indi iduals wi h simila p e e ences can exchange ideas and
coope a e on e hical endea ou s. Fo ins ance, educa ional ins i u ions
o o ganisa ions can c ea e clubs o commi ees p omo ing social e-
sponsibili y. These g oups would o e assis ance and esou ces o ini ia-
i es ha align wi h hese p inciples.
In some ci cums ances, hese ini ia i es can gene a e manipula ion.
Howe e , one can p e en i by applying some ac ics. Fo example:
• T anspa ency: Ini ia i es can p o ide explici de ails ega ding hei aims,
echniques and he sou ces o hei in o ma ion. One should ensu e ha
pa icipan s comp ehensi ely unde s and he pu pose and con ex o he

70 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
campaign o wo kshop in which hey a e in ol ed. T anspa ency is a
p ecau ion agains concealed mo i es ha may seek o manipula e he
pa icipan s.
• Volun a y pa icipa ion: Ini ia i es ha pe mi indi iduals o eely selec
hei le el o in ol emen uphold he pa icipan ’s au onomy, a oiding
coe ci e me hods ha could al e hei mo al inclina ion.
• C i ical engagemen : Encou aging c i ical engagemen ensu es ha in-
di iduals a e no me ely ecei ing knowledge passi ely bu ac i ely en-
cou aged o ques ion, analyse and in e ac wi h he ma e ial. This c i ical
pe spec i e enables indi iduals o de elop hei well-in o med iewpoin s
ins ead o being in luenced by possibly manipula i e speech.
• F eedom o speech: P omo ing in e ac i e con e sa ion ins ead o one-
sided in o ma ion sha ing cul i a es an a mosphe e p io i ising exchang-
ing ideas, hough ul con empla ion and mu ual ega d. Indi iduals can
del e in o e hical in icacies by engaging in discou se while e aining
hei au onomy and abili y o engage in easoning.
No es
1 Al hough si ua ionis s do no in es iga e hese cases, hey a e wo h men ioning
as hey depic he u ili y o codi ica ion in minimising isks:
• Pilo s and c ew s ic ly adhe e o speci ic ope a ional p o ocols and checklis s
o o dina y ligh s and eme gencies. The key o sa e y is o ollow hese ules.
• The legalis ic app oach c ea es a p ecise amewo k o accoun abili y. I e e-
yone plays by he ules, i will be easie o iden i y when and whe e de ia ions
occu , making i easie o hold people o o ganisa ions accoun able o hei
ac ions.
• S ong sa e y s anda ds in some sec o s, including pha maceu ics, chemical
manu ac u e, nuclea ene gy and cons uc ion, mus be s ic ly ollowed.
• Following de ined s anda ds and guidelines enables decision-make s o e-
duce he impac o subjec i e judgemen s, eelings o a bi a y a iables, os-
e ing ai e decisions in ci cums ances whe e objec i i y is impo an .
• In some companies o bu eauc acies, p ecise, codi ied ules expedi e decision-
making by enabling decision-make s o e e o he es ablished ules, esul ing
in quicke decisions wi hou ex ensi e conside a ion o each ci cums ance.
2 Si ua ionis s do no p esen an in-dep h analysis o he legalis concep ion o he
ule o law. Howe e , he e is li e a u e ha expands on his opic in a way ha
aligns wi h he a gumen a ion o si ua ionis s, wi hou e e ing o si ua ionism
(Dyzenhaus, 2008, 2021; Raz, 1970; Sen, 2010).
3 Acco ding o he posi ion o no ma i e egoism, “I mo ally ough o pe o m
some ac ion i and only i , and because, pe o ming ha ac ion maximizes my
sel -in e es ” (Sha e , 2019). E hical egoism “…holds ha one is always o do
wha will p omo e his own g ea es good ─ ha an ac o ule o ac ion is igh i
and only i i p omo es a leas as g ea a balance o good o e e il o him in he
long un as any al e na i e would, and w ong i i does no ” (F ankena, 1973b,
p. 14).
Th ee Tac ics o Mo ali y Managemen 71
4 “Si ua ion e hics welcomes law o lo e's sake some imes, all depending. This
is why ana chism is a allacious social idealism and why Tols oy was w ong. I
ecognizes he need o lo e bu ails o see he need o o de . I sees he im-
po ance o olun a y o de bu is oo myopic owa d he eali y o sin o see he
need o a lo ing use o o ce o p o ec he innocen and o make ‘ igh s’ p ac i-
cable …. We ough no o hesi a e o b eak a law ha is in all conscience unjus ,
ha is o say, unlo ing. Pe haps also we should be o e o pa i passu do wha we
can o ge i ein e p e ed in he cou s o h own ou on some g ound such as
cons i u ionali y, using legisla i e machine y o co ec i . Bu nei he he s a e
no i s laws is boss o he si ua ionis ; when he e is a con lic , he decides o
he highe law o lo e. He has o weigh immedia e and emo e consequences as
well as local and b oade in e es s, bu i he scales go agains law, so does he”
(Fle che , 1966b, pp. 100–101).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003250623-6
This chap e has been made a ailable unde a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Me ae hical Dilemmas
This chap e e e s o he mo ali y managemen (MM) pa adox (p esen ed
in he In oduc ion) by add essing ques ions ha si ua ion e hics p o okes
bu does no di ec ly o mula e and answe . These ques ions a e he ollow-
ing: Whose in e es s should MM os e ? (Sec ion 22), Wha goods and alues
should MM p omo e? (Sec ion 23), Wha a e he sou ces o mo al knowledge?
(Sec ion 24), Whose p e e ences se alues? (Sec ion 26), Wha a e he goals
and me hods o MM? (Sec ions 25, 27 and 28) and Who should manage mo-
ali y? (Sec ion 29).
22 The Me ae hical Dilemma o Economics. S akeholde s
o Mo ali y?
Acco ding o he op imisa ion p inciple o si ua ion e hics, MM should os-
e he mos socially use ul code o mo al conduc . To ope a ionalise his
p inciple, one mus answe he ques ion: Whose bene i cons i u es social u il-
i y? This ques ion add esses s akeholde s o mo ali y and MM. This sec ion
p esen s h ee canonical esponses o his ques ion om he pe spec i es o
e hical egoism, uni e salism and indi idualism.
22.1 E hical Egoism
Acco ding o desc ip i e egoism, many o all agen s ac ou egois ic
mo i es – hey p ima ily os e hei own (indi idual egoism) o hei
g oup’s (g oup egoism) in e es s and place hem abo e hose o o he s.
This s ance should be dis inguished om no ma i e (e hical) egoism,
which speci ies he mo al du y o ac ou egois ic mo i es (Hu chin-
son, 2001; Sha e , 1999, 2019; Tullbe g, 2006). In his iew, answe s
o he ques ion abou he s akeholde s o mo ali y mus be ela i e:
As indi iduals and g oups compe e o os e hei in e es s, hey con-
side hemsel es s akeholde s o MM. Consequen ly, egois s conside
hemsel es he main s akeholde s o MM as hey expec any change o
V
Me ae hical Dilemmas 73
mo ali y os e ed o bene i hem. Moo e and Kan ou line a canoni-
cal philosophical c i ique o his s ance, while manage ial in es iga ions
show ha i may jus i y injus ice and disc imina ion (Hill, 2007, 2007;
Hu chinson, 2001; Kan , 2010; Moo e, 1903; Rea h, 2012; Sha e ,
1999, 2019; Tullbe g, 2006).
Si ua ionis s do no discuss he mode a e heo ies o a ional egoism,
which p esume ha a ional egois s os e social in e es s h ough a ional
decisions. C i ics o his posi ion show ha a ional egois s may ac socially
des uc i ely o a long pe iod and ha e no egois ic eason o change he
cou se o hei ac ions (McMahon, 1981; Sen, 2017; S igli z, 2003).
Si ua ionis s do no oppose egoism o al uism. They belie e a ce ain
amoun o sel -lo e is equi ed o lo e o he s. Howe e , sel -lo e wi hou
lo ing o he s is immo al in his iew. Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, lo e
emb aces all pe sons, including i s subjec . In his iew, all people a e s ake-
holde s o MM; he agen should ake ca e o he lo e and in end o op i-
mise lo e in o he s – in he uni e se. In his way, si ua ion e hics akes he
s ance o e hical uni e salism.
22.2 E hical Uni e salism
I can be assumed ha all people a e s akeholde s in MM. This app oach
can be explained by he s ance o uni e salism in e hics:
[…] E hical uni e salism, o wha is usually called u ili a ianism,
akes he posi ion ha he ul ima e end is he g ea es gene al good --
ha an ac o ule o ac ion is igh i and only i i is, o p obably is,
he posi ion ha he ul ima e end is he g ea es gene al good - ha
an ac o ule o ac ion is igh i and only i i is, o p obably is, con-
duci e o a leas as g ea a balance o good o e e il in he uni e se as
a whole as an al e na i e would be, ye w ong i i is no , and obliga-
o y i i is o p obably is conduci e o he g ea es possible balance o
good o e e il in he uni e se. (F ankena, 1973, pp. 15–16)
Acco ding o his s ance, all humankind, bo h p esen and u u e, is he
s akeholde o mo ali y. In his iew, indi idual in e es s should be subo -
dina ed o he common good, unde s ood as he sum o he in e es s o
all people. C i ics o his s ance no ice ha many indi iduals o g oups’
in e es s compe e wi h hose o o he s; hus, sa is ying he in e es s o all
implies p io i ising he in e es s o majo i ies and ma ginalising he in e es s
o some. The e o e, his s ance can jus i y disc imina ion agains indi iduals
and mino i ies i i is p o i able o he majo i y (Dwo kin, 1990; Fleu baey,
2014, 2016; Sha e , 1999, 2019).
80 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
should p omo e espec o hese alues and os e p e e ences ha con ib-
u e o in insic alues in p ac ice. Fo example, i human eedom, digni y o
well-being is he p incipal alue, MM should p ima ily p omo e app ecia-
ion o his alue.
The main ad an age o no ma i e absolu ism (an i- ela i ism) in me a-
e hics a e as ollows:
• This s ance opens he pe spec i e o in es iga ing in e subjec i e c i e ia
o e alua ions.
• This s ance o e s a se o alues ha can se e as an e hical amewo k
in MM.
• This p emise can gua an ee he sa egua ding o undamen al human
igh s and alues, such as digni y, eedom and well-being, no wi hs and-
ing u ili a ian conce ns.
• The s ance o no ma i e absolu ism os e s a sense o esponsibili y and
accoun abili y among mo ali y manage s owa ds socie al and e hical ob-
liga ions by upholding unwa e ing alues.
Howe e , limi s o knowledge expose his s ance o some isks:
• No ma i e absolu ism may os e imposing uni e sal p inciples agains
local adi ions in he p ocess o MM.
• One can abuse his me a heo y o impose some a bi a y iews unde he
guise o no ma i e absolu ism, p esen ing hem as undispu able wi hou
adequa e eason. This p ac ice can gene a e supe s i ions.
• De e mining which alues a e p incipal and in insic is con en ious, e-
sul ing in con o e sies wi hin and be ween g oups.
• Rigo ous adhe ence o igid p inciples may impede changes.
• This a i ude may lead o o e simpli ying in ica e e hical p oblems ha
necessi a e nuanced, con ex -speci ic esolu ions.
Di e gen heo ies ha adop no ma i e an i- ela i ism conside he
abo e isks. Some au ho s p esen i as he amewo k o in es iga ion ha
is opposed o bad legalism, ana icism o ideological impe ialism in e hics
(Ch ous & Osbo n, 1942; MacIn y e, 1985, 2007; Uh , 2015).
23.3.2 No ma i e Rela i ism?
Acco ding o no ma i e ela i ism, espec o alues means espec ing some
alue p e e ences. In his iew, MM is in luencing some people’s alue p e -
e ences acco ding o he alue p e e ences o o he people, who a e con-
side ed au ho i ies o some eason. In his p ac ice, he appeal o au ho i y
(La . a gumen um ad auc o i a em) plays a c ucial ole. This au ho i y can

Me ae hical Dilemmas 81
be he whole socie y, i s eli e, indi idual o o ganisa ion, as Sec ion 26 will
show. The main ad an ages o his s ance in MM a e as ollows:
• No ma i e ela i ism o e s e ec i e me hods o iden i y e alua ion c i e-
ia in human p e e ences. Fo example, one can in es iga e hem h ough
in e iews, ques ionnai es and su eys.
• This s ance may os e ole ance and di e si y in conside ing and espec -
ing di e gen alue p e e ences o socie ies and o ganisa ions.
• By ecognising he signi icance o indi idual and collec i e p e e ences,
his s ance p omo es a comp ehensi e app oach o including s akehold-
e s’ p e e ences in MM.
• No ma i e ela i ism may os e open discussion and con empla ion e-
ga ding di e gen mo al p e e ences.
Howe e , his s ance also poses some isks o MM, which a e as ollows:
• The lack o uni e sally accep ed p inciples can esul in mo al unce ain y,
complica ing he es ablishmen o consis en e hical ules o ac ion.
• Implemen ing his s ance may in ensi y ensions be ween a ious g oups’
alues, making i mo e di icul o each a consensus.
• Mul iple e hical amewo ks migh complica e he decision-making
p ocess.
• P io i ising indi idual o g oup p e e ences may impede he abili y o
hold mo ali y manage s esponsible o adhe ing o uni e sally accep ed
e hical p inciples.
No ma i e ela i ism, no less han no ma i e absolu ism, is a isk o bad
legalism. Unde ela i ism, his isk is highe as he ul ima e s ance o e alu-
a ion is in he alue p e e ences o some au ho i y. This s ance may impede
e hical in es iga ion by os e ing obedience, when opinions o a alue c ea-
o a e p esen ed as beyond discussion.
23.3.3 The P agma ic Balance?
Si ua ion e hics p esen s a conund um be ween no ma i e absolu ism and
ela i ism. Acco ding o si ua ionis u ili a ianism, one should weigh heo-
ies’ bene i s, d awbacks and isks o selec he leas haza dous and mos
ad an ageous ideologies ha speci y in insic alues. Howe e , his me hod
canno ope a e wi hou an idea o in insic goods. Consequen ly, he choice
be ween no ma i e absolu ism and ela i ism logically p ecedes he ele-
ological me hod.
Si ua ionis s ma ginalise he on ological issue abou in insic goods by
claiming ha humans ha e sou ces o knowledge ha a e su icien o know
82 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
wha is igh and w ong. The ollowing sec ion p esen s hese sou ces o
knowledge.
24 Epis emological Dilemmas. Sou ces o Mo al Knowledge?
24.1 Ac -in ui ionism?
Acco ding o Fle che , mo al knowledge abou in insic alues is in ui i e.
In ui ion in his ex e e s o he ac and capaci y o ga he o syn hesise
in o ma ion in o new in o ma ion wi hou easoning. Some hinke s (in-
cluding G. E. Moo e, W. D. Ross and Michael Hueme ) p esume ha in-
ui ion is eliable o he only sou ce o undamen al mo al knowledge. This
assump ion cons i u es he s ance o e hical in ui ionism. Phenomenology
p esen s he possibili y o me hodically using his sou ce o knowledge in
e hical in es iga ion, which explo es mo al expe ience.1
One should dis inguish mo al in ui ion (disco e ing mo al p inciples)
as p esen ed abo e om ac -in ui ion in inding mo al solu ions wi hou
easoning. Si ua ionis s name his in ui ion p udence and insigh in o mo al
impe a i es (Fle che , 1966b, pp. 143, 158; Fle che , 1979, pp. 222–225;
Gus a son, 1965, p. 184; Rhymes, 1966, p. 173). Acco ding o si ua ion
e hics, people ind mo al solu ions guided solely by ac -in ui ion. This
s ance is called ac -in ui ionism in his ex .
In ui ionism may be ei he eli a ian o egali a ian. Acco ding o mo al
eli ism, some people ha e g ea e ac -in ui ion han o he s. Mo al expe s
ha e de eloped his in ui ion a a high le el, while non-expe s a e dep i ed
o i o ha e no su icien ly de eloped i . In his iew, he e may be a con-
inuous di e ence be ween mo al igno ance (lack o mo al in ui ion) and
pe ec mo al compe ence (o mo al expe s).
In he eli a ian e sion o his s ance, he e a e limi s o communica ing
mo al expe s’ decisions o hose dep i ed o mo al in ui ion. In his iew,
non-expe s canno ully unde s and he in ui i e a ionale behind expe s’
mo al e alua ions o decisions. Consequen ly, non-expe s mus some imes
o e en always ag ee o disag ee wi h mo al expe s blindly – wi hou un-
de s anding hei in ui i e mo al iews.
Acco ding o e hical egali a ianism, each pe son is a mo al expe o
a leas has su icien mo al in ui ion o know wha is igh and w ong.
Howe e , disag eemen s among bene olen people ega ding mo al ma -
e s alsi y his s ance. To explain his disag eemen , p oponen s o his
posi ion mus ei he p esume e hical eli ism o assume ha con adic o y
mo al judgemen s a e equally ue. In he la e case, e hical egali a ianism
mus p esume ha each pe son has a unique pe spec i e o mo al pe cep-
ion, which has i s mo al u h ha may con adic he u h om ano he
pe spec i e.
Me ae hical Dilemmas 83
Consequen ly, i si ua ionis s p esume no ex a-in ui i e sou ces o mo al
knowledge, his s ance may os e wo opposi e p ac ices, which ange om
ex eme ole ance o in ole ance. An egali a ian s ance accoun s o he as-
sump ion ha e e ybody is igh in hei mo al opinions (ex eme ole -
ance). P oponen s o he eli is e sion o his s ance should main ain ha
only mo al expe s and people who ag ee wi h hem a e igh , which leads
o in ole ance in discussing mo al ma e s.
One can a oid hese ex emes by p esuming ha mo al igh ness o
w ongness has symp oms known o non-expe s and ia non-in ui i e
knowledge. In his iew, expe s may ha e he bes mo al in ui ion bu
o he people may ha e enough common sense o no ice when mo al au-
ho i ies commi g oss e o s – o example, when hey p each nonsense,
become en angled in con adic ions o hei ac ions des oy p incipal good.
Fo example, Józe Ma ia Bocheński shows how one can in es iga e he
liabili y o mo al au ho i ies ins ead o us ing hem blindly (Bocheński,
1965a; B ożek, 2013). In his iew, non-expe s can know p e equisi es and
symp oms o lo e. Based on his knowledge, one can assess, wi hou he use
o in ui ion, whe he he ac ions o an au ho i y p omo e lo e o con ibu e
o i s des uc ion. Howe e , si ua ionis s deny any ex a-in ui i e sou ces
o mo al e alua ion. Consequen ly, mo al au ho i ies mus be us ed o
dis us ed blindly in his iew. This consequence leads owa ds he deci-
sionis ic in e p e a ion o si ua ionis ac -in ui ionism, which he ollowing
sec ion p esen s.
24.2 Decisionism?
Theo ies o mo al in ui ion ypically p esume no ma i e absolu ism and
epis emological ealism in me ae hics, which is he p emise ha agen s can
know mo al alues and du ies, which do no depend on human p e e ences.
Howe e , si ua ionis posi i ism p esen s he s ance o no ma i e ela i ism
and epis emological subjec i ism in me ae hics, which p esumes ha mo al
knowledge is abou men al ac s. Acco ding o his s ance, decisions c e-
a e he in en ional objec o ac -in ui ion (mo al alues and du ies). Thus,
ac -in ui ion is awa eness o exis en ial commi men and i s compa ibili y
o incompa ibili y wi h a pa icula decision. In his iew, ac -in ui ion is
abou he au hen ici y o inau hen ici y o decision-making. This s ance in-
oduces a bi a iness in o MM. Sec ion 30 u he discusses his iew.
25 Con ol Dilemmas
The MM o no ma i e absolu ism and ela i ism may os e simila mo al
p e e ences and solu ions. Some concep ions combine hese s ances
in a no -classi iable way acco ding o he dicho omy be ween hese
84 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
assump ions. Fo example, Ama ya Sen’s concep ion o jus ice combines
no ma i e absolu ism and ela i ism (Sen, 1990, 2010). Ne e heless,
he di e ences be ween he s ances o no ma i e absolu ism and ela-
i ism may become ema kable in he con olling unc ion o MM, es-
pecially i some hing goes w ong. Fo example, imagine he ollowing
si ua ion:
Au ho i ies in some socie ies p omo e p ac ices ha iola e undamen al
human igh s. Howe e , hese p ac ices e en ually ga ne app o al in
socie y.
The e a e his o ical cases o he abo e si ua ion. Fo example:
• Sla e y: In an iqui y and mode n imes, he sla e y sys em gained wide-
sp ead social accep ance, no only among mo al au ho i ies bu e en
among ensla ed pe sons. Thus, some mo ali y manage s a gued ha his
sys em was igh .
• Child labou : In some de eloping coun ies, child labou is a success ul
business p ac ice accep able o local au ho i ies and socie y.
• Usu y: Financial o ganisa ions can exploi disad an aged popula ions
h ough p eda o y lending p ac ices. These highly p o i able p ac ices
a e accep ed o e en encou aged by mo al au ho i ies in cul u es ha
alue consume ism.
Le us assume ha p oponen s o no ma i e absolu ism and ela i ism
espec he same undamen al human igh s and de ine hei equi emen s
simila ly. S ill, hese s ances di e gen ly iden i y he p oblem in he abo e
si ua ion.
Fo no ma i e absolu is s, he p oblem is on he side o eali y, which is
unjus ega dless o human opinion and p e e ence. Fo p oponen s o no -
ma i e ela i ism, a si ua ion is w ong because i con adic s some human
alue p e e ences. In his iew, he p oblem lies in he ela ionship be ween
he human will and eali y. I may seem a sligh on ological di e ence in
de ining alues as inhe en (in insic) o ex e nal (ex insic) o eali y. Ne -
e heless, i is an applied di e ence.
Because hese s ances di e gen ly iden i y he locus o a p oblem, hey
o e di e gen me hodologies o solu ions. Fo example, when e alua ing
usu y, p oponen s o no ma i e absolu ism and ela i ism may in es iga e
he equi emen s o jus ice. Suppose hese hinke s ollow he me hod o
consequen ialism; hey conside he u ili y o hese p ac ices o dis inguish
p eda o y usu y om mo ally accep able inancial assis ance be ween en i-
ies (e.g. by speci ying he uppe limi o he pe mi ed loan and bo owe s’
esponsibili y o epay he loan).
Me ae hical Dilemmas 85
In making he di e ence be ween p eda o y usu y and accep able inan-
cial assis ance, p oponen s o no ma i e absolu ism would sea ch o some
in e subjec i e c i e ia ha do no depend on human p e e ences. These
c i e ia may emb ace con ex -dependen , subjec i e, cul u al and legal as-
pec s o he p oblem.
The solu ion o no ma i e ela i ism may be simila , bu o di e gen
ope a ional meaning. In his case, MM should aim o manage he si ua ion
acco ding o he p e e ences o some au ho i ies. This solu ion begins wi h
iden i ying hem. He e, he appeal o au ho i y plays a c ucial ole. These
au ho i ies may di e ge in he di e en e sions o his s ance. In no ma i e
indi idualism, he e alua o conside s he sel o be his au ho i y. In col-
lec i ism, he e alua ion mus p esume he opinions o ce ain g oups. In
he iew o eli ism, au ho i ies a e indi iduals o mino i ies whose opinion
is decisi e.
Fo example, no ma i e ela i is s can p esume ha his au ho i y is
he local g oup. In his case, i he local communi y o au ho i ies app e-
cia e he si ua ion, one should p esume i is igh , acco ding o no ma-
i e ela i ism. I one p esumes ha some ex e nal g oup is he au ho i y,
hen hei opinion accoun s o he e alua ion. Fo example, when one
e alua es he si ua ion acco ding o he opinion o some expe s o legal
p o isions.
26 Value C ea o s? The Dilemma wi hin No ma i e
Rela i ism
This sec ion p esen s he ela i is ic in e p e a ion o si ua ion e hics. Unde
his p emise, in insic alues depend on human p e e ences. The s ance o
no ma i e ela i ism equi es answe ing he ques ion o whose p e e ences
de ine he in insic alues. The agen s who do so a e called alue c ea o s in
his book. They do no c ea e any hing eal by c ea ing alues. They c ea e
alues by de e mining he social pa e ns o igh pe cep ions o in insic
alues. This sec ion p esen s candida es o he posi ion o alue c ea o s.
26.1 Each Pe son? E hical Egoism
Acco ding o he posi ion o indi idual no ma i e ela i ism ( ypical o an-
inomianism), each agen se s in insic alues by he mo al p e e ences – she
is a alue c ea o o he sel . In his iew, each agen has he pe spec i e on
mo al pe cep ion, which de e mines wha in insic a e and wha he ank o
hese alues is. This s ance is compa ible wi h indi idualis ic e hical egoism,
as p esen ed in Sec ion 22.1. In his iew, each agen should conside he -
sel he alue c ea o . I mo ali y manage s p esen his iew, hey manage
mo ali y acco ding o hei pe sonal mo al p e e ences.

86 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
26.2 All Indi iduals? No ma i e Egali a ianism
The app ecia ion o he eedom o indi iduals may lead o no ma i e
egali a ianism. In his iew, all people o membe s o socie y a e alue c ea-
o s, and MM’s job is o ac acco ding o hei p e e ences. This s ance is
compa ible wi h e hical uni e salism, as p esen ed in Sec ion 22.2. F om
his pe spec i e, mo ali y manage s in MM should os e p e e ences o all
membe s o a g oup o o ganisa ion.
C i ics o his s ance a gue ha i is impossible o simul aneously sa -
is y he p e e ences o all people. Thus, MM mus a ou some p e e ences
and coun e ac o he s, which may lead o disc imina ion agains mino i-
ies and indi iduals whose mo al p e e ences a e ma ginalised o neglec ed
(Dwo kin, 1990; Fleu baey, 2014, 2016; Sha e , 1999, 2019).
26.3 Eli es? No ma i e Eli ism
Acco ding o no ma i e absolu ism, some expe s may know he p econdi-
ions o lo e and how bes o implemen lo e in social p ac ice. This con-
cep ion on mo al expe s should be dis inguished om no ma i e eli ism,
which p esumes wi h no ma i e ela i ism ha some humans (indi iduals
o g oups) c ea e in insic alues by p e e ing hem. In his iew, alue
p e e ences a e co ec when hey adhe e o he alue p e e ences o some
eli e o alue c ea o s. I is usually a g oup, bu a single pe son can be he
eli e in his sense.
Si ua ionis p agma ism p oposes a peculia compe ence ha alue c ea-
o s should possess. Namely, si ua ion e hics p esumes ha popula i y is
he ma ke o u h. F om his pe spec i e, success (de ined as popula i y)
makes ideologies ue. This s ance posi s ha a s andpoin ’s e hical alid-
i y o endo semen depends om he impac and con ol speci ic pe sons,
g oups o o ganisa ions ha e in moulding public sen imen .
Consequen ly, acco ding o si ua ionis p agma ism, en i ies wi h pe -
suasi e powe ( he mos in luen ial indi idual, g oup o o ganisa ional
agen s) a e alue c ea o s because hei p e e ences ha e he bes chance o
in luence he es o socie y. I is ha indi idual o g oup ha is su icien ly
in luen ial o make i s ideas popula . Consequen ly, his s ance can lead o
conside ing he powe o in luence as he decisi e eason o conside some-
one o a g oup as a mo al eli e o alue c ea o .
26.4 Indi idualism e sus P agma ism
The on ology o si ua ion e hics is exis en ial and indi idualis ic. I is ha dly
compossible wi h he collec i is ic, egali a ian o eli a ian pos ula e ha a
mo ali y manage should abandon he exis en ial commi men o espec
Me ae hical Dilemmas 87
someone else’s will. This on ological backg ound p esen s no mo al ea-
son o mo ali y manage s o os e o he s’ mo al p e e ences beyond hei
compa ibili y wi h he exis en ial commi men , which can happen in h ee
cases discussed in his sec ion. They a e as ollows:
a Alliances: A mo ali y manage ep esen s a g oup wi h p e e ences
simila o he s. In his case, he mo ali y manage conside s his g oup
a alue c ea o because she ag ees wi h he g oup’s collec i e mo al
p e e ences.
b Oppo unism: A mo ali y manage modi ies he mo al p e e ences o
p agma ic easons.
c In luence: A mo ali y manage in luences alue c ea o s o accommoda e
hei p e e ences o he own.
26.4.1 Alliances?
Sa e (in his la e w i ings) ou lined alliances in he p ocess o MM h ough
his idea o solida i y wi h people wi h compa ible exis en ial commi men s.
The p agma ic eason o his ac ion is ha an indi idual is oo weak o
in oduce he alue p e e ences o he public. Acco dingly, a g oup is mo e
powe ul han i s membe s (Ande son, 2002; Boileau, n.d.; B onne , 2021;
Flynn, 2013; Sealey, 2012). In his scena io, he mo ali y manage consoli-
da es wi h a g oup and conside s i a collec i e alue c ea o because his
g oup p esen s he mo al iews and gi es he impac powe o impose he
exis en ial commi men on he socie y.
26.4.2 Obedience?
The concep o alue c ea o s is no ma i e in no ma i e ela i ism. In his
iew, alue c ea o s canno be w ong abou mo al ma e s because hei
mo al p e e ences se he c i e ia o any mo al assessmen . Consequen ly,
ac ing agains hem is immo al by de ini ion.
Acco dingly, one can in e p e si ua ionis p agma ism oppo unis ically,
as i p esumes ha success ul ideologies a e igh due o hei popula i y.
F om his pe spec i e, mo ali y manage s should adop and os e he mos
popula iews o he mo al iews o he mos in luen ial social agen s.
26.4.3 Ex-Pos P agma ic Valida ion
Mo ali y manage s can in luence alue c ea o s. In his scena io, hey o igi-
nally disag eed wi h some s ance bu e en ually accep ed i , alida ing he
new mo al s anda ds. The e o e, acco ding o si ua ionis p agma ism,
some mo al p e e ences and ini ia i es may ecei e ex-pos alida ion in he
88 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
u u e p e e ences o alue c ea o s. No e he ollowing examples, assuming
ha socie y is he collec i e alue c ea o :
• Assume he go e nmen in oduced some inno a ions agains he will
o socie y; howe e , a e he e ec s o hese solu ions become appa en ,
socie y begins o app ecia e hem.
• Ini ially, esis ance may eme ge due o he pe cei ed economic bu den o
medical inno a ions. Howe e , en i onmen al quali y and public heal h
imp o emen s lead o widesp ead suppo .
• Radical social e o ms such as he aboli ion o sla e y and he ex ension
o o ing igh s ha e gained widesp ead accep ance o e ime.
In ex-pos alida ion, he mo ali y manage akes he ini ia i e o speci y
mo al s anda ds. She may p e end o espec he will o some alue c ea o s
bu akes hei ole in deciding he mo al s anda ds. Consequen ly, acco d-
ing o si ua ionis p agma ism, mo ali y manage s s a playing he ole o
alue c ea o s on he p agma ic condi ion ha hei ini ia i es a e success ul.
Unde si ua ionis p agma ism, success ul pe suasion ex-pos alida es ac-
ions o MM, as he success and popula i y o ideas a e decisi e ma ke s o
hei u h. Consequen ly, in his iew, he p ocess o MM is a game o powe
in which di e gen playe s a emp o manage mo ali y and hose who hap-
pen o be success ul become empo a y alue c ea o s. The s ance o si u-
a ionis p agma ism may p esen his game as a pe pe ual ein e p e a ion
and ec ea ion o no ma i e mo ali y.
The p agma ic s ance equi es a me hod o con ol o cu b he abuse
o powe . One such me hod may be sys emic powe di ision. This s a egy
equi es adhe ence o legal egula ions and igo ous assessmen c i e ia in
di e gen poli ical sys ems. Si ua ionis p agma ism also equi es espec o
he law. The e o e, his s ance should go hand-in-hand wi h a dose o good
legalism, which equi es playe s o espec he game’s ules.
26.5 Dilemmas o P agma ic Mo ali y Manage s
Imagine a si ua ion in which he p e e ences o alue c ea o s a e so un-
damen ally w ong and socially des uc i e ha a mo ali y manage canno
au hen ically abandon he oice o conscience. This si ua ion p esen s he
MM pa adox o no ma i e ela i ism. This iew p esumes ha alue c ea o s
canno be w ong in hei mo al p e e ences because hey se he s anda d
o co ec mo al p e e ences. To a oid his pa adox, a mo ali y manage
can p esume ha hese alue c ea o s:
a a e no alue c ea o s,
b a e igh , and she is w ong in mo al e alua ion,
c a e igh bu a e inconsis en .
Me ae hical Dilemmas 89
These op ions speci y di e gen MM ac ics. In case (a), mo ali y manage s
should ebel agains hose who p e end o be alue c ea o s o hei mo ally
w ong belie s. Fo example, in hei c i ique o bad legalism, si ua ionis s sug-
ges abandoning mo ally w ong au ho i ies and disobeying unjus legal sys ems.
In case (b), mo ali y manage s blind olded dis us hei conscience and
us he p e e ences o alue c ea o s. This solu ion can lead o bad legal-
ism and ana ic au ho i a ianism, which si ua ionis s c i icise. Howe e , his
scena io is hinkable unde si ua ionis p agma ism, which may equi e mo-
ali y manage s o adhe e o he mos in luen ial g oups’ iews.
The ypical si ua ion o MM occu s in si ua ion (c), in which alue c ea-
o s a e inconsis en – when hei p e e ences deny hei o he p e e ences
o ac s. In his case, mo ali y manage s should pe suade alue c ea o s o
a oid inconsis encies and con adic ions in he he apeu ic unc ions o
MM, which Sec ion 21.5 p esen ed. This scena io can also lead o ex-pos
alida ion, as p esen ed in Sec ion 26.4.3, whe e mo ali y manage s ake on
he ole o alue c ea o s.
27 The Goal o Mo ali y Managemen . Lo e o Success?
Success e e s o wo cha ac e is ics o an ac ion: e icacy and e iciency. Ac-
ions a e e ec i e when hey each hei goals. E iciency is achie ing he bes
possible ou come wi h minimal losses and esou ce expendi u e. Si ua ion
e hics se s he goal o MM in i s success. Howe e , his e hic p oposes wo
di e gen concep ions o success depending on whe he one assumes no ma-
i e absolu ism o ela i ism.
Acco ding o no ma i e absolu ism, success and ailu e a e a ma e o
ac . When MM’s goal is lo e, he e icacy o MM is i s unc ion o p o ec -
ing and p omo ing lo e, while e iciency is he op imal e icacy acco ding o
he si ua ionis in e p e a ion o he u ili a ian op imisa ion p inciple – he
g ea es possible lo e o he g ea es possible numbe . In his iew, p o ec -
ing and os e ing lo e ocuses on i s p econdi ions, as lo e canno exis
wi hou hem, and MM canno di ec ly cause lo e.
The me a heo ies o no ma i e absolu ism may speci y addi ional e-
qui emen s o e iciency o MM. Fo example, A is o le’s concep o eu-
daemonia, o he lou ishing o human po en ial, equi es unde s anding
human na u e and i s bes possibili ies. This pe spec i e aligns wi h na u al
law, as ou lined by Thomas Aquinas. He e, he p econdi ions o human
exis ence and de elopmen a e in insic goods ha MM should p o ec and
os e , while hei p omo ion accoun s o he e iciency o MM (A is o le,
2002; Jayapalan, 1999; K au , 2002, 2016). Analogously, some p oponen s
o undamen al human igh s p esume ha hey de ine he e iciency o ac-
ions. In his iew, MM should os e espec o hese igh s (B ems, 2001;
Keys & Bu ke, 2013; Sen, 1990, 2017).
96 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
in ui ion (i should conside all a ailable knowledge). Howe e , in ui ion is
he las s ance when e alua ing consequences, acco ding o si ua ion e h-
ics. This solu ion poses he dange o a bi a y e alua ions, as his s ance
p esen s no ex a-in ui i e and in e subjec i e me hod o con ol in ui ion
(see Sec ion 24.1).
31.3 No ma i e Decisionism
The si ua ionis s ance o epis emological decisionism p esen s ac -in ui ion
as a decision (see Sec ion 18.4). In his iew, a some s age o he in es iga-
ion, he agen decides he alue o consequences. This decision cu s sho
he endless ponde ing o consequences. Howe e , he s ance o decisionism
does no minimise he isk o a bi a iness. This posi ion only canonises his
haza d.
Acco ding o his in e p e a ion, indi iduals es ablish alues a e e y
junc u e. Al hough his solu ion p o ides an escape om he isk o ele-
ological sc upulosi y, i edi ec s he decision-making me hod owa ds an i-
nomianism, whe e he inal assessmen ega ding in insic alues e lec s he
a bi a y alue p e e ences o he agen o some alue c ea o s. In he la e
case, si ua ionis decisionism may adop no ma i e egali a ianism, eli ism
o p agma ism (see Sec ion 26). In hese op ions, he isk o eleological
sc upulosi y can eme ge when he agen is unsu e abou who he alue
c ea o s a e (see Sec ion 26) and whe he he inal calculus o consequences
will sa is y hei p e e ences.
32 Fana icism?
This sec ion p esen s a po en ial conjunc ion be ween scep icism and a-
na icism in si ua ion e hics, whe e scep icism as a s ance is canonised and
p esen ed as ue and indispu able. Si ua ionis s do no ad oca e his s ance
bu p omo e i indi ec ly unde he p emises o no ma i e ela i ism and
p agma ism, as his sec ion a gues.
32.1 No ma i e Pe spec i ism
In ui ionis ic and decisionis ic in e p e a ions o si ua ional epis emology
p esume epis emological pe spec i ism. In his iew, mo al judgemen s oc-
cu om he pe spec i e o mo al pe cep ion and a e un ela ed o any in-
e subjec i e goods o alues. Depending on he e sion o his s ance, his
pe spec i e may be indi idual, collec i e, p i a e o speci ied by he opinion
o some au ho i y ( alue c ea o ).
Pe spec i ism can be desc ip i e when i s a es ha people ha e a pe spec-
i e on mo al pe cep ion. Howe e , his s ance becomes no ma i e unde

Some Mo al Haza ds 97
he assump ion o no ma i e ela i ism. In his iew, human p e e ences se
in insic alues. This s ance’s indi idualis ic (an inomian) e sion equi es
agen s o belie e ha hei au hen ic decisions o ac -in ui ions a e au oma i-
cally o magically ue o mo ally igh only because hey au hen ically o igi-
na e om hei exis en ial commi men o lo e. Collec i e e sions o his
s ance p esume ha some collec i e will c ea es alues. In he eli is e sion o
his posi ion, i is he decisions o au ho i y ha b ing alues in o exis ence.
This posi ion can lead o ex eme ole ance, espec ing he di e si y
o mo al decisions and ideals, including he mos des uc i e and absu d.
Howe e , his s ance can also lead o ex eme in ole ance, meaning ha
agen s could dis espec any iew, excep hei own o ha o some au ho i y.
32.2 Mo al Fana icism?
Mo al ana icism e e s o he a i ude and p ac ice o ma ginalising o deny-
ing a ailable mo al knowledge when making mo al p e e ences. Si ua ion-
is s y o coun e ac mo al ana icism by demanding espec o knowledge.
Howe e , si ua ionism does no o e a me hod ha allows he p inciple o
lo e o be ope a ionalised in decision-making, he eby equi ing he e alua-
ion o mo al no ms and ules a each momen o decision-making o adhe -
ing o alue c ea o s blind olded. Consequen ly, si ua ionis pe spec i ism
p esen s discussions on mo al ma e s as ideological con lic s o a bi a y
mo al p e e ences. In his iew, alue p e e ences a e a bi a y and he eo
– indispu able. This s ance p esen s he g ound o a ious belie s and p ac-
ices ha may be called ana icism.
32.3 Aspec s o Fana icism
The e m ana icism has many meanings. In his s udy, he e m deno es a
me hodologically i a ional a i ude (as speci ied in Sec ion 8.1) ha leads
o asse ions, decisions o ac ions ha go agains he a ailable knowledge
(Le esque, 2018; Toscano, 2017).
Fana icism can occu in a ious con ex s. Fo example, in managemen ,
agen s expe iencing hub is synd ome a e unde he illusion ha he powe
hey possess o he esponsibili y hey ca y gua an ees he in allibili y o
hei p e e ences (Owen, 2008). The con ex s o ana icism may include
he ollowing:
• Co po a e leade ship: Execu i es o manage s may exhibi o e con i-
dence due o hei expe ience and posi ion wi hin a co po a ion.
• Poli ical leade ship: Elec ed o icials o go e nmen leade s may exe cise
hei pe cei ed au ho i y o make choices wi hou con empla ing he
consequences o ob aining ad ice om specialis s in pe inen domains.
98 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
• Medical p ac ice: Physicians o heal hca e adminis a o s may display an
o e con idence bias by neglec ing o seek seconda y opinions o e iew
esh esea ch when making diagnoses o ea men decisions, p esuming
ha hei expe ience alone is adequa e.
• Legal p o essions: Lawye s o judges in he legal ield may succumb o
o e con idence bias, mis akenly belie ing ha hei legal expe ience
g an s hem a comp ehensi e unde s anding o in ica e issues.
• Academic esea ch: Schola s o esea che s may become en enched in
hei heo ies o me hodologies, neglec ing o c i ically assess al e na e
pe spec i es o de eloping in o ma ion ha con adic s hei p econ-
cei ed no ions.
• Pa en hood: Pa en s may belie e ha hey know wha is bes o hei
babies wi hou ga he ing knowledge o seeking ou side ad ice.
Usually, ana icism e e s o excessi e, i a ional zeal o unc i ical en hu-
siasm, especially conce ning belie s o ideologies. Howe e , ana ics can also
be i a ionally zealous abou denying knowledge da a. Fana icism can gen-
e a e exagge a ed indi e ence owa ds in o ma ion and alues, p oducing
pa adoxical o ms o ana ic scep icism (agnos icism). In his case, ana ics
lack genuine in e es in he u h, p esuming ha endo sing some iew-
poin s, a pa icula au ho i y, o adhe ing o an ideology ende s i unneces-
sa y o sc u inise hei a ionale.
In his s udy, me hodologically i a ional belie s a e e e ed o as
p ejudices o supe s i ions. The ana icism o hese belie s lies in how
hey a e held, a he han hei con en . T ue s a emen s may become
supe s i ions when people ana ically adhe e o hem. In his case, he
agen belie es in hem wi hou any in e es in hei jus i ica ion. How-
e e , ana ic belie s a e usually sel -con adic o y o agains common
sense and a ailable knowledge (Bocheński, 1987). Fo example, Poppe
(1962, 2002) no ed ha scien i ic hypo heses migh gain biased assen .
His app oach inspi ed a his o ical e lec ion, showing how unc i ically
held iews ( ha migh be ue o no ) hinde scien i ic de elopmen
(Kuhn, 2012) and gene a e ui less ideological dispu es in science (La-
ou , 1987).
Supe s i ions consis o i a ional belie s ha deny he knowledge o
he agen o a ailable knowledge. Fana ical pe cep ions a e me hodologi-
cally i a ional asse ions agains undamen al logic ules and e idence.
Fana ic a i udes may emb ace indi e ence o a ailable knowledge, lead-
ing o abs aining om in es iga ing he a ionale unde lying belie s (Bo -
olo i, 2010).
Fana ical pe cep ion can emb ace di e gen men al a i udes. Fo exam-
ple, ideological hinking is hough lessly ollowing an ideology, supe s i-
ious a i udes consis o ea o in e io i y o es ing belie s, and ibal
Some Mo al Haza ds 99
pe cep ions deny he humani y o some people solely because hey do no
sha e ce ain belie s o belong o a g oup (Vyse, 2000).
People wi h ana ical a i udes end o dismiss o dis ega d any e idence
o easoning ha goes agains hei iews o may eac o sound eason-
ing wi h agg ession, which may inc ease p opo ionally wi h he i ness o
he a gumen s. Fana icism can mo i a e indi iduals o g oups o eel i mly
ha hei s ance is supe io , unques ionable and immune o c i icism, dis-
ega ding al e na i e iewpoin s and he wide consequences o hei ac s
(Bo olo i, 2010; G aham, Nosek, & Haid , 2012; Haid , 2012). Fana i-
cal agen s may emb ace in e io i y agains people who do no ag ee wi h
hei supe s i ions, ques ion hem o in es iga e hei a ionale (Bo olo i,
2010).
Me hodologically i a ional asse ions a e sou ces o ana icism. As Sa e
no es, his asse ion plays a cen al ole in sel -denial (bad ai h) because i
denies some hing he agen asse s (Ande son, 2002; He e , 2006; San oni,
2010; Sa e, 1956). This denial may in ol e he belie ha one pe cei es
some hing ha is no pe cei ed, as exempli ied in Ch is ian Ande sen’s ai -
y ale The Empe o ’s New Clo hes. Howe e , hese asse ions ypically in ol e
indi iduals no acknowledging wha hey know. Suppose ha an agen has
a sensual pe cep ion. She canno a ionally deny such a pe cep ion. She
can doub whe he she is in e p e ing i co ec ly. Howe e , denying he
pe cep ion is sel -denying, as i s denial p esumes ha he pe cep ion has al-
eady occu ed. Analogous denial can occu in any pe cep ion. Fo example,
a ana ic can deny he mo al expe ience.
Fana ic belie s ypically in ol e iola ing he ules o logic in in e p e -
ing aw da a om immedia e expe ience. In such a case, he ana ic may
be awa e ha he ules o logic o e eliable me hods o unde s anding
he expe iences. Howe e , she (in wish ul hinking) may p e e o iola e
hem in o de o achie e a desi ed conclusion (Bo olo i, 2010; Kahne-
man, 2011; S ano ich, Wes , & Toplak, 2016).
Gi en hese cha ac e is ics, one should dis inguish be ween s ong mo al
con ic ions and ana icism. Fana icism is he dea h o ecep i eness o
knowledge and al e na i e pe spec i es, as well as a eadiness o en o ce
mo al belie s on o he s agains hei eedom, a ailable knowledge, e i-
dence and common sense. Thus, deep ai h may no be ana ical when i is
open o a gumen s seeking he u h in a espec ul dialogue wi h o he s
(A end , 1951; Mill, 1859; Poppe , 1945, 1947).
32.4 Fana ic Pa e nalism
Mo al pa e nalism is a belie and p ac ice. As a belie , i is he assump-
ion ha one is pe mi ed o impose mo al s anda ds on socie y agains he
will o i s membe s when i is p o i able o hem. The p ac ice o mo al
100 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
pa e nalism consis s o an in luence p ocess be ween he pa e nalising and
pa e nalising pa ies. Pa e nalising pa ies in end o sa egua d he in e es s
o he pa e nalised ones by imposing speci ic mo al s anda ds.
Si ua ionis s p opose didac ic pa e nalism in educa ing people, aim-
ing o mo i a e hem (wi hou coe cion) o make mo ally good and
igh decisions (see Sec ion 21.3). In his iew, MM should mo i a e
people o make esponsible, p uden and bene olen decisions wi hou
coe cion o compulsion. As si ua ionis s sugges , educa ing people in
mo al decision-making should encompass mo e han simply eaching a
p ede ined se o alues o ideas. I should also in ol e p o iding hem
wi h he necessa y abili ies o c i ically examine, analyse and comp e-
hend he in ica e na u e o mo al dilemmas and e alua e he opinions
o mo al au ho i ies. This pa e nalism does no exclude manipula ion
(see Sec ion 28).
Suppose ha each indi idual is he c ea o o alue o he sel . Con-
sequen ly, any ype o pa e nalism is mo ally w ong. Si ua ionis s p e-
sen his line o a gumen a ion when c i icising legalis au ho i a ianism.
Howe e , his supposi ion allows o he opposi e in e p e a ion, whe e
indi iduals should in luence each o he ’s mo al p e e ences when hey
deeply belie e i is good o o he s. In his case, pa e nalism is mo ally
pe missible and, mo eo e , is he equi emen o lo e. Si ua ionis s p e-
sen his iew.
Unde he ela i is ic in e p e a ion o si ua ion e hics, he mo al igh -
ness o alue p e e ences consis s o hei consis ency wi h he alue p e -
e ence o a mo al au ho i y (i.e. a alue c ea o ). In his iew, he idea o
alue c ea o s is no ma i e because hey c ea e he s anda ds o co ec alue
p e e ences ha mo ally bind indi iduals by mo al du y.
When in es iga ing he au ho i y o alue c ea o s, one can conside hei
educa ion, p udence o posi ion wi hin he o ganisa ion i hey a e o mal
au ho i ies. Howe e , si ua ion e hics does no p esen any in e subjec i e
me hod o de e mine whe he hese en i ies’ alue p e e ences a e co ec .
Consequen ly, acco ding o his iew, alue p e e ences can be co ec o
inco ec ( igh o w ong) only ega ding he alue p e e ences o some
o he alue c ea o .
In his iew, o con ol he co ec ness o alue c ea o s’ alue p e e -
ences, one mus assess hei cohe ence wi h he alue p e e ences o o he
alue c ea o s. In u n, we can con ol hei alue p e e ences by con on -
ing hem wi h o he alue c ea o s’ p e e ences, and so on. This easoning
is ei he endless o ci cula . (Ko sgaa d, 1996; MacIn y e, 2007; Nagel,
1989)
Si ua ionis p agma ism may sugges a me hod o escape he icious ci -
cle o in ini e jus i ica ions o au ho i y by assuming ha he mos popu-
la iews a e co ec and mos in luen ial en i ies a e alue c ea o s o he
Some Mo al Haza ds 101
socie y. Howe e , his s anda d o mo al jus i ica ion has he po en ial o
a ious pi alls:
• Jus i ying injus ice: Va ious mo ally w ong ideas and unjus social p ac-
ices ha e emained popula o long pe iods h oughou his o y. Thus,
si ua ionis p agma ism would jus i y hese ideas and p ac ices i hey
each he p agma ic goal o popula i y.
• Fake au ho i ies: Wi hin his amewo k, i is possible o powe o popu-
la i y o unjus ly ake on he unc ion o epis emic au ho i y o e mo al
ma e s.
• Powe delusion: This s ance may lead o powe delusions i he in-
luen ial powe o he au ho i ies is con used wi h hei mo al co -
ec ness. In his scena io, hose in posi ions o powe o in luence
au ho i y a e assumed o possess g ea e mo al unde s anding o ex-
pe ise h ough hei achie emen s o sway. Consequen ly, he si -
ua ionis idea o didac ic pa e nalism mus become ana ical when
he eason o powe (o in luence) subs i u es he powe o eason in
mo al a gumen a ion.
Si ua ion e hics challenges legalism’s ana ical au ho i a ianism. How-
e e , his heo y mi o s his ana icism by dismissing s uc u ed con ol
me hods. This o e con idence o e looks he necessi y o a me hodology
o minimise he abo e mo al haza ds.
32.5 Appeal o Igno ance?
Any s ance can become ana ical when adop ed ana ically. The s ance o
scep icism can also be ana ical when mee ing he cha ac e is ics p esen ed
in Sec ion 32.3. Fana ical scep icism is an oxymo on, as scep ical esea ch
e ains om assuming a de ini e posi ion and aims a c i icising p ejudices.
Howe e , his e m e e s o eal p ac ices ha o igina e in scep ical e-
sea ch bu lead o adical posi ions o he scep ical s ance.
A hu Schopenhaue no es a ious allacies ha may lead o o jus i y
ana icism, whe e some logical e o subs i u es he sea ch o u h (Scho-
penhaue , 2019). The ypical allacy ha scep ical esea che s challenge is
he e o o de i ing knowledge o ce ain y om igno ance. This e o is
named (La .) a gumen um ad igno an iam o appeal o igno ance in ea-
soning. The misconcep ion es s on he pa adoxical assump ion ha igno-
ance is he knowledge o some hing (Wal on, 1996). This allacy occu s in
wo ypical cases:
a A p oposi ion is asse ed o be alse because i has no p oo .
b The lack o e idence o a claim se es as e idence o i s coun e hesis.

102 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
Ve sions o his allacy ep esen a ious easonings ha he ollowing
s uc u e can adop : I X has no p oo , X is ce ainly alse, and i s opposi e ( he
nega ion o X) is ce ainly ue.
Si ua ionis s do no o mula e he appeal o igno ance in one sen ence.
Howe e , hey sequen ially build hei a gumen agains he in en ional
p e equisi es o lo e acco ding o he ollowing schema: They ha e no p oo ;
he e o e, lo e has no p econdi ions.
Si ua ionis s do no di ec ly a ack he in en ional p econdi ions o
lo e. These hinke s ques ion he uni e sal p ohibi ions ha ope a ionalise
he idea o he p econdi ions. In his case, he abo e o mula is as ollows:
One canno p o e uni e sal p ohibi ions; he e o e, hey a e no uni e sal.
This easoning has some in a ian s in si ua ion e hics. He e a e some ex-
amples whe e X designa es he hesis ha hese p ohibi ions a e uni e sal
( alid in all si ua ions), and ¬X signi ies he coun e hesis ( ha hey a e no
uni e sal):
a The e is cul u al di e si y and disag eemen ega ding uni e sal p ohibi-
ions. The e o e, one canno jus i y hem h ough a social consensus.
The e o e ¬X.
b The e a e excep ions o applying uni e sal mo al no ms and ules in a
mo ally igh way in si ua ions o mo al dilemma. The e o e, one canno
jus i y hem by enume a i e induc ion. The e o e ¬X.
c In some si ua ions, adhe ing o hese p ohibi ions is less p o i able
han b eaking hem. The e o e, one canno jus i y hem by conse-
quen ialism (showing hei social u ili y). The e o e, ¬X.
These p emises o he abo e easonings (a–c) a e ue bu do no jus i y
hesis ¬X. A gumen a would be a sound eason o ¬X, assuming ha a
b oad o ull consensus is a ypical o necessa y ma ke o ue s a emen s.
Howe e , his assump ion is alse. The e is a ely uni e sal ag eemen on
s a emen s equi ing high expe ise, as exempli ied by disag eemen s e-
ga ding heliocen ism be o e mode n imes.
Si ua ionis s exempli y a gumen b h ough mo al dilemmas in which
one canno simul aneously sa is y all p econdi ions o lo e. Fo example,
in si ua ions whe e espec ing human eedom means isking human li e,
whe eas by escuing human li e, one dis espec s human eedom. In such
si ua ions, one mus b eak one p ohibi ion o espec ano he p ohibi ion.
Howe e , a gumen b does no shake he assump ion abou uni e sal p o-
hibi ions bu only shows ha in some si ua ions, hey canno be simul a-
neously espec ed. Mo eo e , as he heo y o double e ec shows, hese
p ohibi ions apply o solu ions o hese dilemmas (Anscombe, 1982; Dwo -
kin, 1990; Hills, 2003; McIn y e, 2014).
Some Mo al Haza ds 103
A gumen c en ails a has y gene alisa ion (ex apola ion) when si ua ion-
is s p esen a ypical si ua ions and p esume ha hey a e ypical. A ypical
si ua ions a e excep ions, and excep ions do no cons i u e a ule.
32.6 Fundamen alis An i undamen alism?
Si ua ionism con e ges wi h he an i undamen alis mo emen in e hics; i.e.
h ough scep ical esea ch, i unde mines he possibili y o iden i ying un-
changing mo al no ms and ules. The si ua ionis c i ique o legalism con-
ce ns a a ian o his posi ion called undamen alism. Howe e , di e gen
ypes o undamen alism and an i undamen alism mus be dis inguished o
iden i y he si ua ionis app oach.
The discussion o undamen alism and an i undamen alism in e hics
highligh s he complex con lic be ween unwa e ing ideals and he need o
lexibili y and ecep i eness. Fundamen alism is cha ac e ised by a s ead as
belie in speci ic ideas, mani es ed in wo main o ms: a ional (me hodo-
logical) and i a ional ( ana ical).
Ra ional undamen alism uses a me hodical echnique o selec basic e-
sea ch p inciples in science o e hics. This me hod is dedica ed o esea ch
and discussion, a willingness o accep c i icism and he de elopmen o e h-
ical ideas based on he mos solid ounda ions a ailable (see Sec ion 39.2).
In con as , ana ical undamen alism demons a es me hodological i -
a ionali y by selec ing p inciples wi hou ounda ion in esea ch and logical
easoning. This app oach weakens he basis o e hical hinking and de ia es
om he ques o u h and comp ehension o e hical discussions.
An i undamen alism p omo es a lexible e hical app oach ha does no
unc i ically adhe e o con en ional doc ines. Si ua ion e hics joins his an-
i undamen alis mo emen in c i iquing legalism.
An i undamen alism, simila o undamen alism, anges om esea ch
o obsessi e igidi y. Ra ional an i undamen alism is associa ed wi h scep i-
cal esea ch. I in ol es esea ch, dialogue and he explo a ion o e hical
pe spec i es.
Fana ical an i undamen alism is dogma ic, imi a ing he in lexibili y i
aims o comba by supp essing di e ing iews and claiming he mo al su-
pe io i y o he scep ical s ance abo e o he iews. This s ance in ol es he
ou igh ejec ion o applicable uni e sal p inciples and gene al knowledge.
By p io i ising no el y o nega e es ablished e hical hough , an i undamen-
alism isks c ea ing a acuum in which c i ical e hical insigh s a e los o
unde alued (Haid , 2012).
Al hough si ua ion e hics p esumes he p inciple o lo e, his esea ch
p esen s ana ical an i undamen alism in igno ing he in en ional p e-
equisi es o lo e and denying uni e sal p ohibi ions, which can p o ide
104 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
a no ma i e minimum o his e hics. Si ua ionis s end o p esen all
iews as bad legalism when hey ad oca e o uni e sal mo al no ms
and ules.
32.7 In ole an Tole ance?
The concep o ole ance, championed by Enligh enmen hinke s, was un-
damen ally oo ed in he aspi a ion o mi iga e con lic s and wa s spa ked
by di e gen belie s, pa icula ly hose abou eligion, which elude de ini-
i e human comp ehension. This idea posi ed ole ance as a passi e i ue
and a p oac i e s a egy o cul i a ing peace and unde s anding amids he
di e se belie s ha anscend he bounds o empi ical e i ica ion. Howe e ,
his noble pu sui encoun e s a pa adoxical challenge when con on ed wi h
ana ical an i undamen alism. Poppe (1945, 1947), o example, p esen s
he pa adoxical p ac ices o in ole an ole ance, o e ing examples o iews
classi ied as in ole an solely because hey p esen undamen als o hinking
o mo ali y.
Si ua ion e hics, which pu s ole ance on a pedes al o social p io i ies,
gene a es he isk o in ole ance when mo ali y manage s ake si ua ionis
no ma i e pe spec i ism se iously and silence any iews ha sea ch o he
undamen s o ole ance in some uni e sal mo al no ms o ules. In e hi-
cal in es iga ions, his p ac ice can ake he o m o sel -censo ship when
esea che s deny o igno e hei esea ch da a, which opposes he scep ical
s ance (B acken, 1994; Duignan, 1995; Ke sch, 2003; Lukiano , 2014;
Magee, 2002). Si ua ionis s p esen his p ac ice when ma ginalising he
in en ional p econdi ions o lo e, p obably ou o ea o hei no ma i e
conclusions.
33 Powe gaming?
E ec i e MM equi es some deg ee o powe . Powe is necessa y o e -
ec i ely implemen ing he pe suasi e and o ganisa ional unc ions o MM.
The e o e, ega dless o hei exis en ial commi men , mo ali y manage s
should ob ain and main ain a modicum o powe o manage mo ali y i hey
a e o do i e ec i ely. Powe e e s o he capaci y o e ec i e ac ion. This
can include he powe s o coe cion o pe suasion. Howe e , si ua ion e hics
p io i ises he powe o pe suasion, as his e hics is agains coe cion, while
si ua ionis p agma ism se s success as he goal o e hics.
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, he powe o pe suasion is MM’s means
a he han i s aim. Howe e , as his sec ion a gues, he eason o powe
may subs i u e he powe o eason in e hical dispu es when success is con-
side ed he main goal o e hics. This si ua ion is named powe gaming in
his s udy.
Some Mo al Haza ds 105
The psychology o ole-playing games speci ies a si ua ion called powe -
gaming, in which he s a egic sub-goal o gaining an ad an age o e o he
playe s abso bs he playe s’ a en ion so much ha he means become he
main goal in he pe cep ion o playe s.2 Powe gaming may occu in a ious
si ua ions; o example, when he condi ions o enjoying li e consume he
a en ion o a pe son o a deg ee ha hey ne e ha e he ime o enjoy
li e. This si ua ion can occu in poli ics and business when agen s since ely
decla e noble goals bu a e mo e conce ned wi h ob aining powe a he
han achie ing said goals. In hese cases, he means subs i u e he goals o
ac ion. Fo example:
• Co po a e s a egy: Execu i es may pe pe ually p io i ise enhancing he
o ganisa ion’s posi ion o gua an ee ope a ional e iciency and pos pone
o he goals o an unde ined u u e.
• Co po a e social esponsibili y: A manage migh ag ee wi h he p inci-
ples o co po a e social esponsibili y bu con inuously delay in eg a ing
hese p ac ices in o business ope a ions, pe pe ually p io i ising gaining
powe .
Sys emic powe gaming akes place when he ules o a game make pow-
e gaming he bes s a egy (Bowman, 2010; Bu ak & Pa ke , 2017; Jacko,
2018a; Juul, 2003; Sica , 2005, 2011; Tekinbas & Zimme man, 2003).
Li e si ua ions can be examples o such games. Fo example:
• Jus ice: Some o ganisa ions may decla e hei goal o os e ing jus-
ice, bu hei in e nal ules g a i y playe s who iola e he s anda ds o
jus ice.
• E iciency e alua ion: Hen y Min zbe g (1982) highligh s he isk o im-
posing only quan i a i e measu es o e iciency in o ganisa ions. As he
shows, hese measu es p io i ise he p o i s o o ganisa ions and ma gin-
alise social alues ha a e no quan i a i ely measu able.
• Co po a e go e nance: O ganisa ions decla e hei goal o os e ing
social well-being and secu i y. Howe e , hei g a i ica ion sys em and
di usion o esponsibili y may allow manage s o p io i ise sho - e m
p o i maximisa ion, which is isky o socie y in he long e m. This
si ua ion can p omo e he p ac ice o manipula ing he sys em by p i-
o i ising ac ics ha inc ease s ock p ices in he immedia e e m, e en
i hey a e isky in he long e m o he in e es s o s akeholde s.
Fo example, he 2008 global inancial c isis exempli ies his mo al
haza d, as banks engaged in isky lending and in es men p ac ices
d i en by incen i e s uc u es ha ewa ded sho - e m p o i s. These
ac ions con ibu ed o he housing bubble and inancial ins abili y,
wi h banks and employees bene i ing om immedia e gains wi hou
112 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
• Focus on mo al au onomy: Si ua ion e hics acknowledges and upholds
indi iduals’ mo al au onomy in decision-making, acknowledging hei
abili y o make e hical judgemen s based on hei bes knowledge and
e alua ion o he si ua ion.
• Capaci y o esol e con lic s: Si ua ion e hics o e s a me hod o esol e
mo al con lic s o legal con adic ions by p io i ising he solu ions ha max-
imise lo e and social u ili y. This me hod can be pa icula ly ad an ageous
in in ica e e hical en i onmen s whe e nume ous alues a e jeopa dised.
• Adap abili y: As socie al no ms and alues change, si ua ion e hics ena-
bles mo al easoning’s p ope adap a ion o he cul u al and si ua ional
con ex o MM.
Al hough si ua ion e hics has hese posi i e quali ies, Chap e VI elu-
cida es he main haza d in applied MM: adop ing he me a heo y o si u-
a ion e hics o jus i y a bi a iness, ana icism, manipula ion, egoism and
powe gaming in MM. The e alua ion o hese isks is a ma e o alue
p e e ences and no ma i e assump ions ha his s udy akes om si ua ion
e hics, which a gues o he e alua ion o mo al heo ies in e ms o hei
social u ili y. O ganisa ions ha o e see e hical conduc ha e long engaged
in p ac ices ha minimise he isks men ioned abo e. These p ac ices can
be desc ibed as ollows:
• E hical guidelines: O ganisa ions can o mula e and espec some p inci-
pal alues ha p o ide a amewo k o decision-making. Howe e , hey
should be adap able o he equi emen s o he si ua ion.
• Checks and balances: Mo ali y manage s could in oduce checks and bal-
ances in o hei decision-making p ocess, which would p esuppose he
exis ence o c i e ia o e alua ing MM’s ou comes. This p ocess could
in ol e e hical e iew boa ds, s akeholde consul a ions and mechanisms
o in es iga e MM’s consequences.
• Ha m p e en ion: Al hough lexibili y is impo an , MM decision-mak-
e s should es ablish p ocedu es o p e en ha m.
• Moni o ing and e hical audi ing: Regula ly moni o ing he ou comes o
decisions and conduc ing e hical audi s helps iden i y unexpec ed conse-
quences o MM and allows o cou se co ec ion when necessa y.
By implemen ing hese ac ics, o ganisa ions can u ilise he ad an ages o
si ua ion e hics, such as lexibili y and con ex ual awa eness, o mi iga e he
a o emen ioned haza ds. Howe e , unde he me a heo y o si ua ionism,
hese p ac ices can emain ulne able o he p oblem o a bi a iness, which
hey a e supposed o p e en . Consequen ly, a me iculous e inemen o he
no ma i e assump ions unde lying si ua ion e hics is equi ed o subs an i-
a e hese me hods.

Some Pe spec i es o Resea ch on Mo ali y Managemen 113
37 S akeholde s o Mo ali y
37.1 A Dose o No ma i e Absolu ism
As Sec ion 23 a gues, mo ali y manage s mus make a me ae hical choice
be ween os e ing he alue p e e ences o some alue c ea o s and p o ec -
ing in insic alues – i.e. hose ha a e p ecious ega dless o human p e e -
ences. Al hough hese op ions a e no exclusi e, his choice is una oidable
in MM whene e he au ho i ies deny o igno e in insic alues.
Suppose ha alue c ea o s accep some o ms o disc imina ion. Fo
example, he e ha e been poin s in his o y when he au ho i ies ha e com-
monly accep ed sla e y and conside ed i good o socie y and he ensla ed.
In his case, some me hodology is needed o de e mine whe he alue c ea-
o s a e co ec . Wi hou his me hodology, any social mo emen agains
disc imina ion may easily u n in o ano he o m o disc imina ion when
g oups luc ua e in hei posi ions as alue c ea o s and pe pe ually os e
disc imina ion agains o he g oups. In his case, any poli ical s uggle is
iewed as a clash o in e es s and p e e ences, disc e ely in oducing ano he
o m o disc imina ion acco ding o he ac ics o implici goals speci ied
in Sec ion 35.2. Ac ions in ended o disman le exis ing powe s uc u es
and inequali ies migh inad e en ly es ablish new ones, he eby pe pe ua -
ing cycles o exclusion and ma ginalisa ion, albei unde new guises. This
ou come is pa icula ly conce ning in mo emen s and e o s in which igi-
lance agains such possibili ies is no main ained. Fo example, e olu ions
ypically aim o in oduce jus ice; howe e , in he p ocess o implemen ing
e olu iona y e o ms, such as land edis ibu ion and social eo ganisa ion,
new o ms o disc imina ion and opp ession may eme ge (Pa e son, 1991).
Suppose ha lo e is he p incipal good and is unde s ood as he will o
do good o o he s, as si ua ionis s p esume. Fo mula ing an i-disc imina-
ion e hics in his con ex necessi a es speci ying ce ain equi emen s o
lo e ha a e no a ma e o human p e e ence. In his case, si ua ionis
esea ch should in es iga e human na u e o unde s and wha is good o
people and he in en ional p e equisi es o lo e. This equi es a dose o
no ma i e an i- ela i ism, which mus no be a philosophically o mula ed
s ance o ex ensi e codi ica ion. This implies he assump ion o belie ha
some p incipal alues a e p ecious ega dless o human p e e ences. The ol-
lowing sec ion p esen s he me aphysical amewo k o such esea ch. This
posi ion is named no ma i e indi idualism in his chap e .
37.2 No ma i e Indi idualism
Economic me a heo ies a emp o minimise he isk o disc imina ion
by pos ula ing s anda ds o e iciency ha emb ace indi iduals’ (includ-
ing mino i ies) in e es s. Fo example, Vil edo Pa e o’s (2014) alloca i e
114 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
e iciency p inciple in oduces his idea o e iciency in o economic calcula-
ion. This e iciency occu s when a leas one pe son imp o es and no one
wo sens.
Howe e , ew o no ac ions sa is y his p inciple. By p omo ing he in-
e es s o one indi idual o g oup, one always ac s agains he in e es s o
ano he when i conce ns compe i i e goods; by gi ing such goods o some
people, one dep i es o he s o he oppo uni y o ha e hem. Mo eo e , in
si ua ions o injus ice, e iciency s anda ds may engende injus ice. Ama ya
Sen iden i ies his as ollows:
An economy can be op imal in [ he Pa e o] sense e en when some
people a e olling in luxu y, and o he s a e nea s a a ion as long as
he s a e s canno be made be e o wi hou cu ing in o he pleas-
u es o he ich. … In sho , a socie y o an economy can be Pa e o-
op imal and s ill be pe ec ly disgus ing. (Sen, 2017, pp. 68–69)
Kaldo -Hick’s e iciency es aims o make Pa e o’s p inciple applicable o
eal si ua ions. This equi es ha hose who a e made be e o compensa e
hose who a e made wo se o and ec ea e a Pa e o-e icien ou come. This
s anda d equi es in e en ion poli ics when hose who p o i do no wan
o ec ea e e icien si ua ions. Howe e , Kaldo -Hick’s e iciency es can-
no wo k wi hou p esuming in e subjec i e measu es o p o i s and losses.
O he wise, hey emain bound o a bi a y opinions (Wigh , 2017).
I all s anda ds o jus ice we e me ely a p oduc o human p e e ences,
he di e en ia ion be ween jus ice and injus ice is a clash o compe ing p e -
e ences. O he wise, one should assume ha he p e e ences should mee
some s anda ds o be jus . This s ance equi es a dose o an i- ela i ism,
which in ol es sea ching o undamen als o jus ice ha a e no a p oduc
o human p e e ences. Fo example, A is o le p o ides his dose o an i-
ela i ism by speci ying s anda ds o dis ibu i e and co ec i e jus ice. Sen
(1992) desc ibes his dose ia he capabili y app oach, which ocuses on
p o iding indi iduals wi h equal oppo uni ies.
These s ances can concep ualise hei me aphysical p inciples o jus ice in
he idea o some p incipal good, which is no only good o pe sons (which
pe sons can possess) bu also good o pe sons ( ha en ich human exis -
ence), and p esume ha s anda ds o jus ice should p omo e and p o ec
he p incipal good in each pe son (Sen, 1990; Wigh , 2015; Williams &
Beng sson, 2016). In his iew, each pe son (as opposed o e e yone) is a
s akeholde in MM. This posi ion p esumes ha mo ali y manage s should
design mo ali y guidelines ha bes os e he p incipal good o each pe -
son. I call his posi ion no ma i e indi idualism.
Some Pe spec i es o Resea ch on Mo ali y Managemen 115
This pe spec i e is open o di e gen on ological and epis emological
in e p e a ions. Fo example, A is o le (and he e hics o eudaemonism, ini-
ia ed by him) iden i ies he p incipal good wi h human de elopmen – he
ul ilmen (eudaemonia) o he mos p ecious possibili ies o humans, i.e.
hei capaci y o unde s and eali y and c ea e bonds o iendship (B ink,
2014; C isp, 2016; K au , 2016). E hical libe alism in me ae hics assumes
ha he p incipal good is he indi idual’s eedom (Kelly, 2005). Some pe -
sonalis concep ions make no ma i e assump ions abou e e y pe son’s in-
insic alue (digni y), which ansla es in o undamen al human igh s in
he language o p ac ice (B ems, 2001; Keys & Bu ke, 2013; Sen, 1990;
Williams & Beng sson, 2016). Si ua ion e hics p esen s he p incipal good
as lo e and p esen s i o be he p inciple o jus ice.
No ma i e indi idualism accen ua es he indi iduali y o pe sons, which
p esumes a dose o deon ological heo y in o he eleological me hod. In
his iew, he consequences accoun o e alua ing ac ions bu ac ions de-
s uc i e o he p incipal good a e w ong (ine icien ) ega dless o hei
consequences and any calcula ion o p o i (Sen, 1990; Wigh , 2017;
Williams & Beng sson, 2016).
In no ma i e indi idualism, he decisi e mo al eason agains disc imi-
na ion is ha i dep i es indi iduals o access o he p incipal good. I he
p incipal good is lo e, as si ua ionis s main ain, disc imina ion is mo -
ally w ong, p ima ily because i co up s he in en ional p e equisi es o
lo e.
37.3 The Common Good
Economics adi ionally cen es on compe i i e p oduc s, whe ein each
indi idual’s consump ion di ec ly diminishes said good’s a ailabili y o
o he s, he eby esul ing in esou ce compe i ion. This idea se es as he
ounda ion o nume ous economic heo ies and models, emphasising he
concep o goods ha become inaccessible o o he s once hey ha e been
acqui ed by one pa y. Ne e heless, no all goods a e compe i i e. The
common good is one example. I is he p incipal good o each pe son.
A is o le o iginally ou lined his idea o he common good. Fo he S a-
gi i e, he common good is happiness, which is he ul ilmen o a pe son’s
bes possibili ies. As he shows, i is no some hing ha people ha e in com-
mon, such as a p ope y. The common good comp ises wha hey a e in
common. P o iding his good o o he s inc eases i o he dono . When-
e e his goodness appea s in one pe son, e e yone bene i s; by p o ec ing
i in one pe son, one p o ec s i o each pe son (B ink, 2014; C isp, 2016;
K au , 2016).
The idea o he common good can ha e di e gen in e p e a ions depend-
ing on he philosophical con ex . Thomas Aquinas and Thomis s ou line his
116 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
idea om he pe spec i e o na u al law (Finnis, 1979). P oponen s o pe -
sonalism may de ine he common good in e ms o human digni y and un-
damen al human igh s (Gueye, 2011). Libe al e hics speci ies he common
good in e ms o he p econdi ions o human eedom (Chappell, 2009;
Sch oede , 2012; Zimme man, 2001). Si ua ionis s assume ha goodwill
(lo e) is he p incipal good in e e yone. Respec o he common good
has a ious names: solida i y (Aku, 2012; Bu iglione, 2012), compassion
(Nussbaum, 2013) o a ional compassion (Bloom, 2016).
Al hough he idea o he common good is no a concep ual monoli h, i
p esen s he di ec ion o MM, which is as ollows: MM is no expec ed o
sa is y all in e es s, which a e usually compe i i e and i econcilable. This
os e s he alue p e e ences ha bes p o ec and p omo e he common
good.
38 In insic Goods
Acco ding o he si ua ionis app oach, he common good is lo e, and in-
insic alues a e ins ances o lo e ha a e unde s ood as peculia in en ions
and decisions. Si ua ionis s p opose a eleological me hod ha in ol es as-
sessing he alue o ac ions and solu ions in e ms o hei unc ion o p o-
mo ing lo e in ela ionships. This me hod canno wo k wi hou iden i ying
p obabili y o hese alues in he u u e-o ien ed MM. This sec ion p esen s
an abduc i e easoning ha can suppo he eleological me hod o si ua-
ion e hics in p edic ing he consequences o MM in e ms o p o ec ing
and p omo ing lo e.1
38.1 Abduc i e Reasoning
Acco ding o si ua ion e hics, lo e is he in en ion and ac ion aimed a hu-
man well-being. F om his pe spec i e, he capaci y o lo e is he mos p e-
cious po en iali y o human beings. This po en ial has p econdi ions. Fo
example, one canno lo e wi hou exis ence, eedom and access o in o -
ma ion. They a e essen ial human needs which compose human well-being
as hey a e p econdi ions o he human capaci y o lo e.
Si ua ionis s a e igh ha p edic ions abou lo e a e unce ain, as symp-
oms o lo e may occu wi hou he in en ions o lo e. One s a es hem ia
abduc i e (s a ing a phenomenon’s consequences o p esume i s exis ence)
easoning. In his easoning, one no ices some ypical symp oms o lo e and
p esupposes ha in en ions o lo e cause hem. This easoning is allible as
o he causes can cause hese symp oms. Consequen ly, his easoning may
no su ice o e alua e ac ions mo ally.
Howe e , his easoning gains some knowledge abou he p obabili y o
lo e occu ence. This me hod can iden i y endencies – ypical symp oms o
Some Pe spec i es o Resea ch on Mo ali y Managemen 117
lo e and ci cums ances ha a ou o hinde he c ea ion o a ious ypes o
ela ionships, including ela ionships o lo e. As si ua ionis s poin ou , his
me hod should ake in o accoun he ci cums ances which may de e mine
a ypicali y and excep ions.
The e is a disp opo ion in he le el o p edic abili y ha an ac ion has
and does no ha e he in en ion o lo e based on i s ou comes. In he o -
me case, he easoning is highly unce ain as one can easily imi a e lo e
wi hou ha ing he in en ion o lo e. Fo example, legalis ic mo i a ions
may no be lo ing, al hough hey may os e some p econdi ions o lo e,
as si ua ionis s show.
The mo e ce ain (bu s ill allible) easoning eme ges when he p econ-
di ions o lo e a e absen . Fo example, when someone o u es people, i
is highly implausible ha she lo es hem when no ex ao dina y condi ions
occu . In some un ypical si ua ions, one may cause pain wi h bene olen
in en ion, o example, when human heal h equi es a pain ul medical p o-
cedu e. Case analysis may acili a e he iden i ica ion o hese ex ao dina y
ci cums ances. Howe e , wi hou such ci cums ances, some ypes o ac ions
a e indica i e o he absence o lo e.
The same easoning applies o in es iga ing consequences on a b oade
scale, which MM deals wi h. Fo example, one can p esume wi h a high
p obabili y ha os e ing p econdi ions o lo e in he p ocesses o MM
os e s and ha coun e ac ing hese p econdi ions is no conduci e
o lo e.
Consequen ly, MM can use he abduc i e me hod o se good p ac-
ices, which inc ease he p obabili y o lo e. Howe e , si ua ionis s ha e
e e sed hese ules and excep ions. Si ua ionis s conside o dina y and
ypical case excep ions. F om his pe spec i e, each si ua ion is ex ao -
dina y. The e o e, si ua ionis s ejec p obabilis ic knowledge’s u ili y o
MM. This s ance leads o he ea men o mo al s anda ds as highly suspi-
cious in e e y case.
38.2 Codes o Mo al Conduc
The e is a dispa i y be ween he symp oms o and p econdi ions o lo e.
The symp oms o lo e may eme ge wi hou lo e. The e o e, he easoning
om symp oms o in en ions o lo e is bu dened by a high deg ee o unce -
ain y. Symp oms o lo e such as a ec iona e ges u es o emo ional a ach-
men can occu wi hou lo e being p esen . Howe e , he p econdi ions o
lo e allow o a highe deg ee o ce ain y in knowing wha in en ions and
ac ions con adic lo e. The same applies o mo al codes.
Suppose ha some mo al codes and hei implemen a ion coincided wi h
he inc eased mu ual espec be ween ci izens in socie ies in he pas . This
his o ical knowledge does no assu e us ha his pa e n will emain ue

118 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
in he u u e, as a mino con ex ual peculia i y may engende a si ua ion in
which a p ac ice ha was good in he pas is w ong in he p esen . Howe e ,
suppose mo al codes des oy he p econdi ions o lo e (e.g. mo al codes
equi e o pe mi he iola ion o human igh s o eedom, li e o in o ma-
ion access). In his case, hey a e highly likely o be des uc i e o lo e in
in e human ela ionships.
In es iga ing he p econdi ions o lo e mus no lead o he legalis ic
p ac ice o codi ying lo e. Such esea ch could emb ace he peculia i y and
di e gence o cul u al codes ha speci y lo e ela ionships and si ua ional
ci cums ances. Howe e , he case analysis o conc e e si ua ions should
no di e esea che s’ a en ion om he p econdi ions o lo e ha hese
cases exempli y. The e o e, esea che s should be open o he possibili y
ha some local no ms and ules a e so des uc i e o social bonds ha hey
should be classi ied as unlo ing ega dless o he ci cums ances and in en-
ions o alue c ea o s.
38.3 Resea ch on In insic Values
Si ua ionis s igh ly wa n mo ali y manage s agains os e ing mo al no ms
and ules wi hou i s in es iga ing hei social u ili y. Thus, he si ua ionis
c i ique o bad legalism is e e ele an . Howe e , MM should no ake his
wa ning in he an inomian way ha si ua ionis s c i icise, igh ing agains
all mo al no ms, ules and egula ions. To minimise he isks o ana icism
speci ied in Sec ion 32, MM should ocus on os e ing espec o he p e-
equisi es o lo e and hen de ise me hods o a oid bad p ac ices o ma -
ginalising hem. This ac ic equi es mo ali y manage s o i s iden i y he
p e equisi es o lo e h ough igo ous and unbiased esea ch. Only hen
can he eleological me hods o MM ha e he da a o in es iga e he social
u ili y o mo al no ms and ules in hei ole o os e ing lo e. In each case,
he esea ch should emb ace he s udy o cul u al con ex o minimise he
isk o biased s e eo ypes.
Case s udies can help iden i y p e equisi es and symp oms o lo e. This has
he po en ial o p o ide aluable insigh s in o he p obabilis ic unde s anding
o he conc e isa ions o p e equisi es o lo e in gi en cul u al con ex .
Consequen ly, mo ali y manage s should in es iga e he pas p ac ices o
MM and conduc empi ical esea ch ha allows o p edic ing (wi h some
p obabili y and wi hou ce ain y) whe he a speci ic solu ion o MM will
os e o hinde he p e equisi es o lo e. Scien i ic in es iga ions can ac-
company MM in sea ch o he bes me hod o sa egua d he p econdi ions
o lo e. This esea ch should in es iga e he consequences o he solu ions
o e ed by MM. In addi ion o empi ical knowledge, phenomenological
s udies may p o ide insigh s in o b oade pa e ns and a ia ions high-
ligh ed in cul u al an h opology.
Some Pe spec i es o Resea ch on Mo ali y Managemen 119
As he p econdi ions o lo e may gain in e p e a ion and conc e isa ion
in speci ic se s o socio-cul u al ci cums ances, he s udy o he use ulness o
no ms and ules o conduc should ake hese ci cums ances in o accoun .
The in e p e a ion da a should be con olled o minimise he isk o o e -
in e p e a ion and biased ex apola ion. The e o e, one should a oid ex-
apola ing he s e eo ypes o one cul u e o in e p e meaning in ano he .
Wi hin his amewo k, social and legal sys ems can be examined o as-
sess he in luence o di e en deg ees o libe y on social connec ions and
a ec ion. This in ol es compa ing socie ies wi h a ying le els o pe sonal
eedom and analysing hei e ec s on social connec ions and collec i i y.
Fo example, one can apply empi ical psychology and s a is ical me hods
o in es iga e how s anda ds ega ding cou ship and ma iage ela e o
he quali y o ela ionships in e ms o sa is ying p econdi ions o lo e.
This app oach may also be use ul in u u e-o ien ed MM by in es iga ing
whe he he p ojec s o mo ali y ha e a good chance o os e espec o
hese p econdi ions.
Si ua ionis s a e igh in asse ing ha mo al no ms and ules can only
judge he ex e nal ou look o ac ions, while in en ions may signi ican ly di -
e om hei exp essions. The e o e, mo al no ms and ules should be
ca e ully used when judging in en ions. Howe e , si ua ionis s a e w ong in
assuming ha knowledge o he p e equisi es o lo e is useless in designing
mo ali y and con olling MM.
39 Designing and Con olling Mo ali y
As si ua ionis s no ice, lo e is a ee s ance and one canno di ec ly cause i
in ano he pe son. I lo e is a sel -de e mina ion o he will, i can eme ge
o disappea wi hou de e mina ion. The e is no e icien causali y be ween
he codes o mo al conduc and he in en ions o lo e. Consequen ly, he
p econdi ions o lo e a e necessa y bu insu icien o lo e o occu . These
p e equisi es do no p edes ine anyone o lo e – hey only acili a e he pos-
sibili y o lo e. MM, which p o ec s and os e s lo e in people, canno do so
di ec ly. Fo cing people o lo e one ano he is coun e p oduc i e. MM can
only p o ec and os e he p e equisi es o lo e. In de ining his ask, one
may d aw upon A is o le’s ecommenda ions.
A is o le no iced he ole o he s a e in acili a ing he ci cums ances
ha p o ec and p omo e iendship a he mic o- and mac o-le els o social
bonds. The S agi i e obse ed ha he s a e canno impose iendships, as
hese canno be o ced. Ne e heless, he held ha i is incumben on he
go e nmen o es ablish he ci cums ances ha os e and sus ain iendships
wi hin in ima e in e pe sonal connec ions and wide socie al ne wo ks. The
s a e’s unc ion encompasses he es ablishmen o legal amewo ks, ins i u-
ions and socie al con en ions ha os e us , collabo a ion and ecip oci y
120 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
among indi iduals wi hin a socie y. The s a e enhances he o e all well-be-
ing and s abili y o socie y by c ea ing a a ou able a mosphe e o iend-
ship. Fu he mo e, A is o le emphasised he signi icance o iendship as a
means o a aining sha ed objec i es and augmen ing he o e all s anda d o
li ing o all o socie y. Hence, al hough he s a e lacks he au ho i y o en-
o ce iendship, i assumes a pi o al unc ion in os e ing he ci cums ances
equi ed o iendships o h i e (A is o le, 2002; K au , 2002; Swanson,
1992). The e o e, i is challenging o MM o design a mo al code ha
os e s lo e ( iendship) be ween people. Howe e , MM can design such
ci cums ances ha p o ide he bes chances o lo e o occu .
39.1 No ma i e Mo ali y and Uni e sal P ohibi ions
Si ua ionis s p esume ha no ma i e mo ali y consis s o unique impe a i es
o lo e. While his is ue, i is no he whole u h, as hese impe a i es a e
conc e ised h ough in en ional p e equisi es o lo e (see Sec ion 23.2).
T adi ionally, he p econdi ions o lo e ha e been iden i ied by uni e sal
p ohibi ions, which speci y he cha ac e is ics o decisions ha canno be
bene olen (i.e. lo ing) because hey deny he in en ional p e equisi es o
lo e. Si ua ionis s a e igh o posi ha uni e sal p ohibi ions en ol mo al
dilemmas, whe e one canno espec all p ohibi ions ha apply o he si ua-
ion. Howe e , mo al dilemmas may alsi y uni e sal p ohibi ions only unde
he assump ion o p ac ical idealism, which is he belie ha one can pe ec ly
mee all he equi emen s o lo e in each si ua ion. P ac ical ealism is he
s ance ha acknowledges si ua ions in which one canno uphold all in insic
alues and he e o e mus sac i ice some o p o ec o he s. Consequen ly,
Fle che is igh o poin ou ha , in some cases, one mus iola e some p o-
hibi ions in mo al dilemmas. Howe e , his obse a ion only desc ibes he
peculia i y o hese si ua ions and does no alsi y uni e sal p ohibi ions. The
eason o uni e sal p ohibi ions is no ha one can always mee hem pe -
ec ly. The eason is ha hese p ohibi ions speci y in en ional p e equisi es
o lo e. As he heo y o double e ec shows, he main pu pose o uni e sal
p ohibi ions is p o ec ing he p incipal good a he han imposing hei li -
e al meaning. Fo example, he p ohibi ion “do no kill” means ha mu de
is no he igh way o p oblem-sol ing o lo ing people. This p ohibi ion
may apply di e en ly bo h daily and du ing wa s.
Consequen ly, si ua ionis s a e igh in c i icising bad legalism o igno -
ing he a i ma i e sense (o p o ec ing in insic alues) o p ohibi ions and
p esen ing only hei li e al meaning (in impugning some ypes o ac ion).
Fo example, some in e p e e s o Kan show ha his posi ion abou lying is
misleading wi hou aking in o accoun he undamen al alue o u h ulness,
which ela es o human digni y in his heo y. In his in e p e a ion, he mean-
ing o he p ohibi ion agains lying is a i ma i e and goes beyond i s li e al
Some Pe spec i es o Resea ch on Mo ali y Managemen 121
sense. I ega ds u h ulness in communica ion, which may no necessi a e
answe ing all ques ions, sa is ying he cu iosi y o whoe e poses he ques ion
o elling he whole u h one knows. To explain he posi i e meaning o his
p ohibi ion, one mus ake in o accoun he complex na u e o communica ion
and language, which allows o he decep i e use o logically ue sen ences and
elling he u h using me apho s (Kucha ski, 2014; Va den, 2010).
Si ua ionis s a e igh in s essing he cul u al aspec s o language when
o mula ing mo al no ms and ules. Howe e , si ua ionis s a e w ong in
main aining ha e u ing uni e sal p ohibi ions is necessa y o os e ing
lo e. On he con a y, i ingly o mula ed p ohibi ions can help ope a ion-
alise he p inciple o lo e and, his way, speci y some gene al di ec ions o
MM. Mo eo e , hese p ohibi ions may play a i al ole in educa ing people
abou he in en ional p e equisi es o lo e.
As si ua ionis s co ec ly no ice, uni e sal p ohibi ions a e allible when
e alua ing in en ions and ac ions. Howe e , hese no ms and ules can se e
as wo king c i e ia o e alua ing social endencies. Fo example, adhe ing o
some p ohibi ions may be essen ial o p e en ing he dehumanisa ion and
mis ea men o indi iduals o g oups, which can occu unde zealous e-
gimes o ideologies ha ejec hese co e mo al p inciples (Nussbaum, 2001,
2013). Respec o accep ed no ms and ules can s eng hen social uni y and
encou age coope a ion among indi iduals om di e gen mo al backg ounds
(Sen, 2010). Ra ional communica ion equi es espec o ag eed-upon lan-
guage ules ha help people unde s and each o he . No ms and ules can
help people unde s and he ou comes o hei ac ions and de elop a sense o
esponsibili y and empa hy owa ds o he s (Habe mas, 1984, 1990).
P ohibi ions should be i ing in ha hey minimise he isk o igno ing
cul u al and si ua ional ci cums ances o ac ion in p ac ice. Consequen ly,
legal sys ems inco po a e special s anda ds ha p o ide excep ions o legal
conduc . Howe e , hese excep ions ha e eason in some uni e sal no ms o
ules, which hie a chise he applicabili y o p ohibi ions in p ac ice, which
he p inciple o double e ec s anda dises. Fo example:
• Necessi y: Some legal doc ines g an people he au ho i y o iola e he
law when i is impe a i e o a e subs an ial ha m. An example is en e -
ing a building wi hou pe mission o sa e someone om a i e. Al hough
his ac ion is ypically conside ed as espassing o causing p ope y dam-
age, i can be legally jus i ied based on necessi y. The eason o his
excep ion is in he gene al no m o p o ec human li e.
• Sel -de ence: Legisla ion equen ly allows indi iduals o employ jus i i-
able o ce o p o ec hemsel es o o he s om ha m, e en i such ac-
ions a e o dina ily unlaw ul. Fo ins ance, employing physical coe cion
agains an assailan may be deemed legal i i is indispensable o p o ec -
ing onesel . The eason o his ype o excep ion is he gene al no m
128 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
o he conc e e ela ionship and si ua ions. Consequen ly, si ua ion e h-
ics can p ese e i s app ecia ion o he c ea i i y o human eedom and
he uniqueness o si ua ions wi hou p esuming he adical s ance ha he
agen c ea es all equi emen s o lo e by i s exis en ial commi men . In his
in e p e a ion, exis en ial commi men is he sou ce o mo al obliga ions.
Howe e , only when i is sea ching and espec ing some u h ha is no a
p oduc o his commi men .
Va ious heo ies p esen he idea o me hodologically a ional exis en ial
commi men . Fo example, Kan used a p io i analysis o speci y he mo al
p inciple o he ca ego ical impe a i e, which is he p e equisi e o a ional
alue p e e ences in his iew (Dean, 2006; Do ien, 2020; Hill, 2007, 2014;
Kan , 2010; Rea h, 2012). Some analy ical philosophe s show how e hical
p inciples can be selec ed in a me hodologically a ional way as g ounded
in mo al expe ience (Ko a biński, 1958; Szos ek, 1971; Woleński, 2006).
Me a heo ies do no need o p esume any sou ces o knowledge abou
alues o pos ula e ha alue choices can be me hodologically a ional o
i a ional. Fo example, Da id Hume and Adam Smi h p esen he uni e sal
dimensions o a ional emo ions (sen imen s) o speci y he condi ions o
mo al decisions (Cohon, 2018; Hume, 1739; Mo is & B own, 2016).
The idea o me hodologically a ional alue p e e ences does no ha e o
ep esen he na u alis ic allacy ( i s no ed by Da id Hume). This s ance
does no assume ha me hodologically a ional exis en ial commi men s
(exp essed in ough o s a emen s) logically ollow om knowledge abou
ac s (exp essed in is s a emen s). The equi emen o he me hodological
a ionali y o alue p e e ences e e s o he easoning, in which alue p e e -
ences should no con adic a ailable knowledge. Mo eo e , as some hink-
e s ha e a gued, exis en ial commi men s p esen g adual compa ibili y o
incompa ibili y wi h a ailable knowledge. Consequen ly, me hodologically
and alue- a ional agen s abandon exis en ial commi men s ha a e in con-
adic ion wi h and p e e commi men s ha a e bes compa ible wi h a aila-
ble knowledge, wi h hei li e o mo al expe ience, o example (Ko a biński,
1958; Szos ek, 2016; Woleński, 2006). This equi emen con adic s he
adical s ance o scep icism, which equi es he abandonmen o belie s ha
do no ha e p oo (see Sec ion 32.5). Acco ding o he ideal o me hodo-
logically a ional alue p e e ences, mo ali y manage s should esea ch he
p incipal good and make decisions acco ding o hei bes knowledge.
41.3 Applied Conjunc ion Be ween No ma i e Rela i ism
and Absolu ism
This s udy has highligh ed nume ous di e ences be ween no ma i e ela-
i ism and absolu ism in he unde s anding o MM. Howe e , hese di-
e gences end o diminish in a ionalis a ian s o hese posi ions. F om

Some Pe spec i es o Resea ch on Mo ali y Managemen 129
his pe spec i e, mo ali y manage s in es iga e no ma i e assump ions and
p e e hose ha a e mos compa ible wi h he a ailable knowledge. Thei
in es iga ion can adop all eliable (scien i ic, analy ical and phenomeno-
logical) me hods o in es iga ion.
The p emise o no ma i e absolu ism equi es ha he alue p e e ences
o exis en ial commi men e lec in insic alues ha a e p ecious and in-
dependen o human e alua ion. Using his app oach, one can in es iga e
and discuss alue choices in e ms o hei compa ibili y wi h he a ailable
knowledge (B and , 1967, pp. 75–76; Ga ne , 1944; Gowans, 2012; Hol-
lis & Lukes, 1982; Ja ie, 1983; Joyce, 2015; Ro y, 1991; Swoye , 2014).
Some phenomenologis s show how mo al expe ience can p o ide a com-
mon g ound o discussing mo al issues when oo ed in a sha ed mo al
expe ience (Lé inas, 1996; Zank & B ai e man, 2014).
Howe e , unde he assump ion o no ma i e ela i ism, he equi e-
men o me hodological a ionali y ega ding mo al p e e ences may be
simila in p ac ice. Al hough hese heo ies deny any alues ha a e p ecious
ega dless o human p e e ences, hese s ances also may pos ula e he adop-
ion o mo al p e e ences o he a ailable knowledge.
P oponen s o he a ionalis ic wings o no ma i e ela i ism and an i-
ela i ism ad oca e o c i ical hinking, espec o logic, open-mindedness
and dedica ion o easoned communica ion among people and collec i es
when engaging wi h mo al dilemmas, ins ead o unques ioningly adhe ing
o adi ion o au ho i y. Consequen ly, hey equi e MM o ocus on shap-
ing me hodologically a ional a i udes in socie y (Habe mas, 1984, 1990;
Nussbaum, 2011, 2013; Sa e, 2004; Suns ein, 2009).
No es
1 Abduc i e easoning ( om ac s o hei causes) in he con ex o p obabilis ic
amewo ks en ails de e mining he bes easible explana ion o a se o ob-
se ed occu ences. In p obabilis ic e ms, his en ails assessing he likelihood
o hypo heses based on a ailable e idence and picking he hypo hesis wi h he
highes p obabili y (Dou en, 2021; Ghah amani, 2015; Hájek, 2012; Joseph-
son & Josephson, 1994; Lake e al., 2017; Su on & Ba o, 2018).
2 Spaemann p esen s se e al meanings o undamen alism (Spaemann, n.d., We
is ein Fundamen alis ?):
1 His o ical meaning: O iginally, he e m e e ed o ce ain P o es an g oups
in he Uni ed S a es in he ea ly 20 h cen u y. These g oups adhe ed o a li e al
in e p e a ion o he Bible and ejec ed scien i ic heo ies such as e olu ion,
insis ing on a adi ional and conse a i e app oach o Ch is ian doc ine.
2 Fundamen alism as a e o ma ion mo emen : Spaemann no es ha he Re -
o ma ion i sel ini ially had a undamen alis cha ac e , seeking o e u n o
he “ ounda ions” o he Ch is ian ai h. The mo o “sola sc ip u a” (sc ip-
u e alone) encapsula ed his e u n o he o iginal biblical sou ces as he sole
au ho i y in Ch is iani y. Si ua ionis s name his s ance Sc ip u alism.
130 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
3 Fundamen alism as a pejo a i e label: In con empo a y usage, “ undamen al-
is ” o en se es as a de oga o y e m o disc edi g oups pe cei ed as unable
o adap o he mode n wo ld, in ole an o di e ing iews and desi ing sim-
plici y and con o mi y in a complex wo ld.
4 Fundamen alism as a p e equisi e o ole ance: Spaemann a gues ha hold-
ing deep eligious con ic ions and adhe ing o he ounda ions o one’s ai h
does no necessa ily equa e wi h in ole ance. He emphasises he possibili y
o main aining s ong eligious belie s while being open o scien i ic unde -
s anding and di e se pe spec i es.
5 Fundamen alism as a synonym o o hodoxy: The ex also sugges s ha i
undamen alism is unde s ood as a synonym o o hodoxy and adhe ence o
he co e p inciples o Ch is iani y, i could be seen in a posi i e ligh .
DOI: 10.4324/9781003250623-9
This chap e has been made a ailable unde a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Concluding Rema ks
The s udy assumes a dis inc ion be ween e hics and mo ali y managemen
(MM). E hics is he in es iga ion o wha is mo ally good and igh , while
MM is an ac i i y ha aims o p o ec and p omo e wha is good and igh .
Si ua ion e hics iden i ies e hics wi h MM, p esen ing e hics as MM h ough
philosophising. In his app oach, e hical heses and heo ies a e conside ed
ue in he p agma ic sense – when hey p oduce socially use ul e ec s. This
s udy p esen s he me a heo y o his app oach.
Some cen al e hical issues a e ma ginal o MM, and some ma ginal
e hical p oblems become essen ial o MM. Fo example, he p ac ice o
mo ally e alua ing human ac ions is ma ginal in MM; i ocuses on enden-
cies and p obabili ies in os e ing desi able decisions. Howe e , he issue o
in insic goods is cen al o e hics and MM. Si ua ion e hics iden i ies hese
goods wi h lo e.
This s udy dis inguishes be ween he in en ional p e equisi es o bene -
olence (lo e) and he objec i es o lo e i sel . This dis inc ion becomes pa -
icula ly e iden when compa ing he objec i es o law wi h hose o MM.
The ask o legal sys ems (in he u ili a ian app oach adop ed by si u-
a ionis s) is o p o ec in insic alues while p omo ing social secu i y and
well-being. Fo example, legal sys ems can be designed o p o ec human
eedom, a ionali y and li e, p e en ha m and ensu e jus ice, all o which
a e conside ed co e o p incipal alues. In con as , he ask o MM is o
os e espec o hese in insic alues wi hin a communi y o socie y.
The e o e, MM does no me ely p o ec in insic alues hemsel es bu
aims o shape a i udes and social s anda ds in a way ha encou ages indi-
iduals and g oups o ecognise, espec and uphold hese alues in hei
e e yday li es. MM is abou c ea ing an en i onmen whe e he impo ance
o in insic alues is acknowledged and in eg a ed in o he ab ic o social
in e ac ion and decision-making.
This monog aph is abou he me a heo y (me ae hics) o MM om he
pe spec i e o si ua ion e hics. Consequen ly, his in es iga ion did no p o-
pose any speci ic heo y o MM, and applied MM p oblems appea only
132 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
ma ginally as illus a ions wi hin his monog aph. These a e limi a ions de-
e mined by he goal o his in es iga ion. Howe e , his s udy goes beyond
his pe spec i e o discuss some undamen al p oblems o MM. The mos
impo an gene al indings abou MM a e as ollows: This s udy:
a P esen s he p e equisi es o bene olence, which any MM should p o-
mo e and p o ec ,
b Discusses he ole o uni e sal p ohibi ions in sa egua ding MM om
a bi a iness, ana icism and manipula ion,
c P esen s, wi hin he amewo k o si ua ion e hics, a ac ic o a oid bad
legalism in MM.
As lo e canno be di ec ly caused, one should no expec a mo al code o
au oma ically e oke lo e in people. The ask o MM is di e en : I is o c e-
a e a no ma i e niche ha p o ides he bes chances o lo e o occu . Since
no ma i e egula ions a e una oidable in he social sphe e, he p ima y ask
o MM is o a oid and coun e ac egula ions and p ac ices ha h ea en
he in en ional p e equisi es o lo e. This ask is nega i e in he sense ha i
in ol es abs aining om and p o ec ing socie y om p ac ices and no ma-
i e egula ions ha a e des uc i e o hese p e equisi es. I hese p e eq-
uisi es a e espec o human eedom, eason and li e, MM should p o ec
and os e hem. Howe e , his does no mean ha MM should be educed
o a pe suasion o legal campaign o hese p e equisi es. Ra he , he job o
MM is o c ea e he niche men ioned abo e, which equi es conside ing a
mo e complex eali y han jus a simple cause-e ec ela ionship be ween
pe suasion o legal es ic ions and hei immedia e esul .
This s udy, in line wi h si ua ion e hics, wa ns agains simplis ic and le-
galis ic iews ha educe he planning unc ion o MM o commands and
p ohibi ions in he hope ha hey will su ice o change social eali y in he
expec ed di ec ion. This s udy ecognises ha manipula ion and ep ession
a e coun e p oduc i e in achie ing he abo e goal o MM. Lo e is a ee
s ance wi h in en ional p econdi ions. Viola ing hem is des uc i e o his
objec i e. The e o e, he means o MM can be a ional pe suasion (o ole -
an pa e nalism). Howe e , his may no lead o he desi ed e ec when so-
cie y is unin e es ed in changing i s egois ic li es yle o when he s uc u es
o o ganisa ions (including s a es) os e powe gaming (see Sec ion 33).
The ole o MM is b oade , po en ially equi ing he edesign o o ganisa-
ional s uc u es o achie e i s goal. Fo example, o os e he eedom o
wo ke s in some o ganisa ions, MM can sugges educing he numbe o
hie a chical laye s i i does no hinde he o ganisa ion’s e iciency. How-
e e , he ole o MM is usually mo e modes and consis s o coun e ac ing
changes in he o ganisa ion ha pose a h ea o he in en ional p e equi-
si es o bene olence as speci ied in Sec ion 23.2.
Concluding Rema ks 133
As he s udy a gues, MM does no need o mul iply uni e sal p ohi-
bi ions o p o ec and p omo e bene olence in socie y. The e should be
nei he mo e no ewe no ma i e egula ions han necessa y. The mos
impo an hing is ha hey a e a uned o he in en ional eali y o lo e
(i s in en ional p econdi ions) and he con ex in which hey ope a e. This
equi es cons an philosophical and scien i ic esea ch o design a code o
mo al conduc ha bes p omo es he p e equisi es o bene olence.
This monog aph akes a c i ical look a si ua ion e hics, highligh ing he
signi icance o p ecise no ma i e assump ions in e hical heo y and p ac ice.
The s udy p o ides a de ailed analysis o he issues aced by ambiguous no -
ma i e p emises o si ua ion e hics, u ging o a mo e delibe a e and hones
engagemen wi h he e hical ounda ions o MM. By discussing pi alls o
si ua ion e hics, his s udy ad oca es o a enewed commi men o e hical
cla i y and ope a ionalisa ion o concep s.
The monog aph’s examina ion in o si ua ion e hics e eals he compli-
ca ed dance be ween he model o eali y and p ac ice, emphasising he ne-
cessi y o i ing no ma i e assump ions in di ec ing MM’s goals and mo al
bounda ies. I emphasises he impo ance o mo ali y manage s being awa e
o hei no ma i e belie s in o de o e ec i ely app aise oppo uni ies and
dange s e ec i ely, hence a oiding implici alue p io i isa ion, which can
lead o inad e en mo al manipula ions. De ailed esea ch e eals ha he
lack o anspa ency in hese assump ions migh cloud MM’s ac ions, e-
sul ing in coun e p oduc i e solu ions ha lead o p ac ices agains hei
o iginal in en ions. This s udy ad oca es o he a icula ion o no ma i e
p inciples in o de o es ablish a ounda ional con e sa ion and nego ia ion
owa ds mo al consensus in public mo ali y.
The in es iga ion calls in o ques ion he adical s ance o no ma i e
ela i ism and absolu ism, emphasising he dange s o limi ing he discus-
sion o some assump ions ha a e p esen ed as indispu able, which could
unin en ionally os e a bi a iness, mo al ana icism and p ejudices. This
monog aph calls o esea ch and a dialogic app oach in MM, demanding
a mo e e lec i e esea ch and engagemen wi h he undamen al p emises
o mo al heo ies.
This s udy highligh s he heu is ic u ili y o si ua ion e hics in guiding
pe sons ac oss he eno mous landscape o e hical heo ies. Howe e , he
s udy cau ions agains he dange s o si ua ion e hics, emphasising he need
o a mo e consis en amewo k o ope a ionalise he in en ional equi e-
men s o bene olence.
As his s udy demons a es, si ua ion e hics’ mos signi ican applied
con ibu ions a e in p omo ing me ae hical educa ion and anspa ency.
Me ae hical educa ion is mo ali y manage s’ aining ha p omo es un-
de s anding and sensi i i y o e hical p inciples. This educa ion may in-
ol e in es iga ing di e se e hical ideas, emphasising c i ical hinking and

134 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
de eloping a e lec i e a i ude o e hics. Me ae hical anspa ency is he
cul u e o communica ing no ma i e assump ions behind solu ions and de-
ba ing hei explana ions. This openness p o ides o di e en pe spec i es
and minimises he chance o making decisions based on limi ed o sel -
se ing in e p e a ions.
The monog aph a gues o he ope a ionalisa ion o mo al p inciples o
he le el equi ed o guide e hical decision-making while a oiding he aps
o o e -gene alisa ion and o e simpli ica ion. I emphasises he need o c e-
a e and uphold uni e sal p ohibi ions ha de ine he bounda ies o mo al
conduc , a oiding he dange s o bad legalism.
The monog aph ad oca es o u he esea ch in o he in en ional p e-
condi ions o bene olence (lo e) in a way ha espec s he complexi ies o
mo al quanda ies, cul u al and si ua ional con ex s while acili a ing a ional
deba e. Fu u e s udies should look in o al e na i e e hical amewo ks ha
answe he monog aph’s c i iques, no ably in e ms o ope a ionalising e hi-
cal p inciples.
Pe haps he mos sound pa o si ua ion e hics is i s c i ique o bad legal-
ism. This c i ique is e e ac ual when mo ali y manage s has ily gene alise
some mo al obse a ions o impose hei a bi a y mo al iews on o he s. I
would be aluable o apply he si ua ionis c i ique o o he ins ances o bad
legalism beyond hose heo e ical amewo ks discussed by si ua ionis s.
The monog aph concludes wi h a call o e hical ac ion, pushing indi id-
uals and socie y o del e deepe in o s udying he e hical g ounds o hei
decisions. I emphasises he signi icance o c i ical hough on no ma i e
assump ions, as well as he ques o e hical cla i y, in es iga ion and co-
he ence in na iga ing oday’s mo al di icul ies. Doing so p omo es e hical
in es iga ions in a dialogic app oach o MM.
This s udy does no aim o p o ide eady- o-use solu ions o MM ac-
ions. Howe e , i ou lines hei di ec ion: o p o ec and os e he p e eq-
uisi es o bene olence.
San Juan, 9 Ap il 2024
Li e a u e
Aku, E. (2012). Solida i y, subsidia i y and common good: Fundamen al p inciples
o communi y and social cohesion. Blooming on: Xlib is Co po a ion.
Allison, H. E. (1990). Kan ’s heo y o eedom. New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y
P ess.
Ande son, C. (1997). Values-based managemen . Jou nal o Business E hics, 50, 97–103.
Ande son, T. C. (2002). Beyond Sa e’s e hics o au hen ici y. Jou nal o he B i ish
Socie y o Phenomenology, 33, 138–154.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). In en ion (2nd ed.). Camb idge, MA; London: Ha -
a d Uni e si y P ess.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1982). Ac ion, in en ion, and ‘Double E ec ’. P oceedings o
he Ame ican Ca holic Philosophical Associa ion, 12–25.
Aquinas, S. T. (2014). The summa heologica: Comple e edi ion (C. W. Publishing,
T ans.). New Yo k: Ca holic Way Publishing.
A end , H. (1951). The o igins o o ali a ianism. New Yo k: Ha cou , B ace,
Jo ano ich.
A gy ous, G. (2009). E idence o policy and decision-making: A p ac ical guide.
Sydney: UNSW P ess.
A is o le. (2002). Nicomachean E hics. (J. Sachs, T ans.). Newbu ypo , MA:
Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co.
A an, M. (2020). De i a ion o mo ali y om p udence. In Neu o unc ional p u-
dence and mo ali y: A philosophical heo y (pp. 60–94). New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Aus in, D. (2019). G eenwish: The wish ul hinking unde mining he ambi ion o
sus ainable business. Re ie ed om h ps://p e en ablesu p ises.com/wp-
con en /uploads/2019/07/2019-07-19-G eenwish-Essay.pd
Ban jes, J. M. (1980). Mo als and medicine, he mo al p oblems o : The pa ien ’s
igh o know he u h, con acep ion, a i icial insemina ion, s e iliza ion, eu ha-
nasia by Joseph Fle che . Jou nal o he Ame ican Academy o Religion, 48, 307.
Ba decki, A. (1957). E yka sy uacyjna. Znak, 40, 412–420.
Ba na d, L. (1980). Man in he exposi o y mode. Book 5 by Joseph Fle che . The
English Jou nal, 69, 79.
Ba ne , T., Bass, K., & B own, G. (1994). E hical ideology and e hical judgmen
ega ding e hical issues in business. Jou nal o Business E hics, 13, 469–480.
Bass, M. S. (1955). Mo als and medicine Joseph Fle che . Social P oblems, 3, 54–55.
Ba es, M. J. (2005). An in oduc ion o me a heo ies, heo ies, and models. In K.
E. Fishe , S. E delez & L. McKechnie (Eds.), Theo ies o in o ma ion beha io
(pp. 1–25). Med o d, NJ: Published o he Ame ican Socie y o In o ma ion
Science and Technology by In o ma ion Today.
136 Mo ali y Managemen and Si ua ion E hics
Beauchamp, T. L. (2009). Rela i ism, mul icul u alism, and uni e sal no ms: Thei
ole in business e hics. In G. G. B enke (Ed.), The Ox o d handbook o business
e hics. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Begon, J. (2016). Pa e nalism. Analysis, 76, 355–373.
Benne , E. (2009). Machia elli’s e hics. Ox o d: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Be n hal, W. F. (1962). Value pe spec i es in managemen decisions. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal, 5, 190–196.
Be olini, S. (2019). Roman Inga den: Phenomenology, esponsibili y and he on-
ological ounda ions o mo ali y. Miscellanea An h opologica e Sociologica, 20,
82–97.
Biesaga, T. (2008). Sy uacjonizm e yczny. In Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozo iczna
(Vol. 9, pp. 291–286). Lublin: Polskie Towa zys wo Tomasza z Akwinu.
Blackbu n, S. (2008). S uc u alism. In The Ox o d dic iona y o philosophy. Ox o d:
Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Bloom, P. (2016). Agains empa hy: The case o a ional compassion. London: Penguin.
Bocheński, J. M. (1965a). Analysis o au ho i y. In The logic o eligion (pp. 162–
173). New Yo k: New Yo k Uni e si y P ess.
Bocheński, J. M. (1965b). The logic o eligion. Jou nal o Symbolic Logic, 33,
312–313.
Bocheński, J. M. (1987). S o zabobonów: K ó ki ilozo iczny słownik zabobonów.
Pa yż: Ins y u Li e acki.
Bockmühl, K. (1975). Go im Exil?: A heismus in d. Ch is enhei , An ech ung u.
Übe windung: Zu K i ik d. ‘Neuen Mo al’. Wuppe al: Aussaa -Ve lag.
Bo olo i, L. (2010). Delusions and o he i a ional belie s. Ox o d, New Yo k:
OUP Ox o d.
Bowman, S. L. (2010). The unc ions o ole-playing games: How pa icipan s c ea e
communi y, sol e p oblems and explo e iden i y. Je e son, NC: McFa land.
B acken, H. M. (1994). F eedom o speech: Wo ds a e no deeds. London: G eenwood
Publishing G oup.
B ady, F. N. (1999). A sys ema ic app oach eaching e hics in business. Jou nal o
Business E hics, 19, 309–318.
B and , R. B. (1967). E hical ela i ism. In P. Edwa ds (Ed.), The encyclopedia o
philosophy (Vol. 3–4, pp. 75–78). New Yo k: McMillan.
B ems, E. (2001). Human igh s: Uni e sali y and di e si y. The Hague, Bos on,
MA; London: Ma inus Nijho Publishe s.
B en ano, F. (1973). Psychology om an empi ical s andpoin . London: Rou ledge
and Kegan Paul.
B igley, S. (1995). Business e hics wi h in con ex : Resea ching wi h case s udies.
Jou nal o Business E hics, 14, 219–226.
B ink, D. O. (2014). A is o elian na u alism in he his o y o e hics. Jou nal o he
His o y o Philosophy, 52, 813–833.
B onne , S. E. (2021). Exis en ialism, au hen ici y, solida i y. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
B ożek, A. (2013). Bocheński on au ho i y. S udies in Eas Eu opean Though , 65,
115–133.
Bugdol, M. (2013). Selec ed p oposals and possibili ies o us de elopmen wi hin
he TQM concep . The TQM Jou nal, 25, 75–88.
Bu ak, A., & Pa ke , L. (2017). Powe play: How ideo games can sa e he wo ld.
New Yo k: S . Ma in’s Publishing G oup.
Bu iglione, R. (2012). F ee ma ke s and he common good: A ew me hodological
ema ks. In M. Schlag & J. A. Me cado (Eds.), F ee ma ke s and he cul u e o
common good (pp. 121–125). Do d ech : Sp inge Ne he lands.
Li e a u e 137
Cahyandi o, M. (2012). Coupling co po a e social esponsibili y in o millennium
de elopmen goals is a Me e wish ul hinking? Jou nal o Managemen and Sus-
ainabili y, 2, p. 67.
Cai ney, P. (2016). The poli ics o e idence-based policy making. Cham: Sp inge .
Callahan, G. (2007). Reconciling Webe and Mises on unde s anding human ac-
ion. Ame ican Jou nal o Economics and Sociology, 66, 889–899.
Campbell, R. (2015). Mo al epis emology. In E. N. Zal a (Ed.), The S an o d en-
cyclopedia o philosophy (Win e 2015). Me aphysics Resea ch Lab, S an o d Uni-
e si y. Re ie ed om h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/win2015/en ies/
mo al-epis emology/
Capps, J. (2019). The p agma ic heo y o u h. In E. N. Zal a (Ed.), The S an-
o d encyclopedia o philosophy (Summe 2019). Me aphysics Resea ch Lab, S an-
o d Uni e si y. Re ie ed om h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/sum2019/
en ies/ u h-p agma ic/
Ca chidi, V. J. (2020). The na u e o mo als: How uni e sal mo al g amma p o-
ides he concep ual basis o he uni e sal decla a ion o human igh s. Human
Righ s Re iew, 21, 65–92.
Ca oll, A. B. (2001). Models o managemen mo ali y o he new millennium.
Business E hics Qua e ly, 11, 365–371.
Ca oll, A. B. (2008). A his o y o co po a e social esponsibili y. In A. C ane, D.
Ma en, A. McWilliams, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Ox o d handbook o
co po a e social esponsibili y. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Ca oll, A. B., & Meeks, M. (2002). Models o managemen mo ali y: Eu opean
applica ions and implica ions. Business E hics: A Eu opean Re iew, 8, 108–116.
Chak abo y, R. (2009). Managing public mo ali y: The poli ics o public policy in
India. The Indian Jou nal o Poli ical Science, 70, 1099–1108.
Chalme s, A. F. (1999). Wha is his hing called science? (3 d ed.). Indianapolis, IN:
Hacke Pub.
Chappell, T. (2009). E hics and expe ience: Li e beyond mo al heo y. Du ham: Acu-
men Publishing. Camb idge Co e.
Child ess, J. F. (1992). Some e lec ions on Joseph Fle che ’s wo k. Has ings Cen e
Repo , 22, 12.
Ch ous , A.-H., & Osbo n, D. L. (1942). A is o le’s concep ion o jus ice. No e
Dame Law Re iew, 17, 129–143.
Cialdini, R. B. (1988). In luence: Science and p ac ice. Glen iew, IL: Sco Fo esman.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). In luence: The psychology o pe suasion. New Yo k:
Ha pe Collins.
Ciulla, J. B. (2003). The e hics o leade ship. Belmon : Thomson/Wadswo h.
Cohon, R. (2018). Hume’s mo al philosophy. In E. N. Zal a (Ed.), The S an o d
encyclopedia o philosophy (Fall 2018). Me aphysics Resea ch Lab, S an o d Uni-
e si y. Re ie ed om h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/ all2018/en ies/
hume-mo al/
Colman, A. M. (2015). Pa adox. In Ox o d dic iona y o psychology (4 h ed., p. 545).
Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Comesaña, J., & Klein, P. (2019). Skep icism. In E. N. Zal a (Ed.), The S an o d ency-
clopedia o philosophy (Win e 2019). Me aphysics Resea ch Lab, S an o d Uni e si y.
Re ie ed om h ps://pla o.s an o d.edu/a chi es/win2019/en ies/skep icism/
Conne y, J. R. (1954). No es on mo al heology. Cu en Theology, 4, 594–626.
Coons, C., & Webe , M. (Eds.). (2014). Manipula ion: Theo y and p ac ice. Re-
ie ed om h p://www.ox o dschola ship.com/ iew/10.1093/acp o :oso/
9780199338207.001.0001/acp o -9780199338207