moral 和ethic这两个构念的区别和联系是什么? - 知乎首页知乎知学堂发现等你来答切换模式登录/注册学术界moral 和ethic这两个构念的区别和联系是什么?看文章的过程中经常被这二者混淆,关注者19被浏览43,241关注问题写回答邀请回答好问题添加评论分享4 个回答默认排序yiting shi 关注"Morals
define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those
morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of
behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be
national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a person’s moral code is
usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent."发布于 2015-05-18 18:14赞同 564 条评论分享收藏喜欢收起ChrislaraIS Phd/徒步登山爱好者/爱自由/爱折腾 关注泻药……楼上第一赞的答案的定义已经很好了简单来说就是moral是个人自身的道德准则ethics是身处环境下的伦理标准发布于 2016-11-25 10:05赞同 91 条评论分享收藏喜欢收起
What Are Ethical Values in Business?Leaders.comSearch for:
SearchBusinessLeadershipWealthMaster ClassesBusinessEntrepreneursExecutivesMarketing and SalesSocial MediaInnovationWomen in BusinessLeadershipPersonal GrowthCompany CulturePublic SpeakingProductivityHiringSocial IssuesLeadersWealthInvestingCryptocurrencyRetirementVenture CapitalLoans and BorrowingTaxesMarketsReal EstateMaster ClassesCompany Culture Morsa Images / Getty ImagesBy
Colin Baker
Leaders StaffColin BakerLeadership and Business WriterColin Baker is a business writer for Leaders Media. He has a background in as a television journalism, working as...Full bioLearn about our editorial policyUpdated Sep 7, 2022What Are Ethical Values in Business?Guiding businesses with ethical values is becoming increasingly important to those within the workforce. A recent survey from Global Tolerance showed that 42 percent of employees would rather work for companies that have a positive impact on their communities and strong ethical values. In fact, ethics matter more to them than even earning a high salary. The difference is even more pronounced among millennials, with 64 percent saying they won’t work for a company that doesn’t show strong social responsibility practices.Businesses that don’t lead with ethical practices and a code of ethics risk the inability to recruit talented team members, experience poor employee performance, struggle with employee retention, and are subject to increased public scrutiny (especially in the age of social media). Additionally, organizations need to foster moral values not just to help their companies but simply because it’s the right thing to do.Table of ContentsWhat Are Ethical Values?8 Ethical Values to Guide Your BusinessHow to Promote Ethical Values at Your CompanyAn Ethical Business is a Successful BusinessIn this article, read more about the answer to, “What are ethical values in business?” examples of what that entails, and tips for how you can promote those values in your business.What Are Ethical Values?Ethical values are a set of moral guiding principles that determine how a company conducts business. These principles seek to serve and protect others above the organization’s self-interest. Beyond fulfilling legal obligations, ethical values in business show strong moral character from leaders and employees.While there are many out there, the following represent some of the core values and ethics those in the business world should adopt:IntegrityFairnessLeadershipHonestyAccountabilityTeamworkCharity/KindnessLoyalty8 Ethical Values to Guide Your Business1. IntegrityThe value of integrity often informs ethical decision-making. In other words, companies that display integrity make ethical decisions even if experiencing tremendous pressure to go a different way. For example, this might look like holding fast to core beliefs and taking the high ground rather than the easy road. As media mogul Oprah Winfrey explains, “Real integrity is doing the right thing, knowing that nobody’s going to know whether you did it or not.”In addition to making ethically sound decisions, people who demonstrate integrity are transparent in their business operations. One company that has shown integrity and transparency is Asana. Instead of keeping high-level board meetings a secret, executives routinely release detailed notes to their employees about their discussions and the decisions they’ve made. This keeps workers in the loop on all that is happening inside the company. Executives show they value integrity by being open with all their employees and not hiding things from them.2. FairnessEthical behavior and ethical decisions in business should also include fairness. This means treating each individual as an equal, no matter a person’s position within the company. An organization that champions fairness promotes workplace diversity, encouraging people of different backgrounds and points of view to influence how the company operates.Fairness in the workplace can be something as simple as not showing favoritism. The company Arbeit is one business that promotes fairness throughout its organization. Greg Jones, a customer research analyst for the company, says that fairness means “trying to be a blank page and giving everyone the same pen with which to write their story. It means all opportunities, advancement, and recognition being offered in equal measure to all qualified parties.”3. LeadershipAll companies have bosses and managers, but that doesn’t mean they have leaders who follow ethical standards and ethical principles. Ethical business practices are easier to follow when one of the core values is leadership. Just because someone is in a position of power does not mean they’re a leader. True leadership displays all the ethical values of an organization, setting an example for everyone to follow. They cultivate an environment where people want to adopt these values for themselves.One of the most effective ways to show personal ethics is through servant leadership. Servant leaders place their team’s, community’s, and customers’ needs above their own. They listen, empathize with those around them, and put themselves in others’ shoes to see things from their viewpoint. In addition to this, they resolve workplace conflict issues and hold themselves accountable for their actions. Fulfilling ethical behavior and principles is the primary focus of servant leaders, making it one of the key ways executives guide teams in a manner where morals matter most.4. HonestyHonesty and integrity are closely related to personal ethical standards. This means leading with the intention of not deceiving or misleading others. Oftentimes, this means avoiding overstatements and misrepresentations. Additionally, being honest also involves dealing with employees and customers in a way that is sincere and earnest. One way honesty can manifest in business is through advertising. A fascinating case of this comes from a Dutch hotel company called the Hans Brinker Budget Hotel. This business is well-known for offering an unapologetically poor customer experience. Their hilariously straightforward ad campaigns have made them world-renowned for being terrible. One campaign featured posters with phrases like, “Sorry for being excellent at losing your luggage” and “Sorry for being the best at ignoring your complaints.” This brutal honesty attracts budget-minded people looking for a place to rest their heads. By setting the right expectations, people also feel like they know exactly what they’re getting into when they book a room here. 5. AccountabilityAnother one of the core ethical standards for behavior is accountability. Stories of companies and executives doing everything they can to avoid accountability are all too common. From Enron to WorldCom, businesses like these show the opposite of what organizations should do when crises occur. However, companies that practice self-accountability hold themselves responsible for when things go wrong. They admit mistakes and do their best to correct them, which is more admirable than shifting blame onto others.As Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.” Too many companies try and refocus attention on why they shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. Yet, organizations with accountable leaders play by a different set of ethics. By taking personal responsibility at all times, they learn from their mistakes and grow. Executives that don’t practice self-accountability, on the other hand, will more than likely make the same mistakes in the future.6. TeamworkThe ethical core value of teamwork doesn’t just entail people working toward a common goal. It deals with respect and concern for other group members. Strong teams brainstorm with each other, collaborate, and support one another in achieving goals, which leads to greater ethics, productivity, progress, and innovation. In other words, team members make each other and the companies they work for better. One example of teamwork in action involves multiple teams from Ford who needed to find ways to maintain the high quality of the Ford F-150 while improving it with better fuel efficiency. As the story goes, team members at the company worked closely together for a year and a half to hammer out ways to accomplish the task. The team effort grew to encompass more than a thousand people including designers, logistics experts, industry experts, and engineers. The result was 1.9 billion dollars in third-quarter earnings—a major increase from the previous year’s sales. Without teamwork, this accomplishment wouldn’t have been possible.7. Charity/KindnessCompanies can also demonstrate their commitment to ethical standards and morals through their charity work. Charity shows kindness to the community and the world at large. It also shows dedication to a cause bigger than the organization itself. Charity involves more than just devoting time and money. It encapsulates what ethics a company values and holds dear.Many companies combine their charitable work with their code of ethics. The clothing company Ivory Ella, for example, gives up to 50 percent of its net profits every year toward the goal of helping elephants throughout the world. In fact, the whole identity of the business revolves around the causes and ethics they support, which include national parks and saving the oceans. Thanks to their efforts, they’ve donated two million dollars to charities aimed at making the world a better place.8. LoyaltyLoyal companies act to earn customer loyalty through great ethics every day. That usually means providing high-quality products and excellent customer service. At a time when cybersecurity concerns grow by the day, it also means showing they can protect personal information from those with ill intent.Businesses that are loyal to their customers usually receive that loyalty back. Many know Apple fans as loyal buyers, and this is no coincidence. This loyalty comes from sharing common values and beliefs with their customers. By encouraging their target audience to be innovative creators, Apple inspires and motivates people to build a greater future together. This vision establishes an emotional connection between the company and its buyers. Additionally, the organization is well-known for never compromising the quality of its products. As a result, Apple bridges the gap between company loyalty, customer loyalty, and ethics.How to Promote Ethical Values at Your CompanyHave a code of ethics and morals you abide by.Don’t keep executive discussions a secret.Treat everyone fairly and equally.Foster leadership qualities that encourage business ethics.Be honest with coworkers and customers.Hold everyone accountable, including yourself.Build teams that work well together.Spend time and resources on a charitable cause.Build loyalty with your customers by being loyal to them.An Ethical Business is a Successful BusinessRecent studies show more companies realize the importance of moral values in the workplace. In a 2021 Global Business Ethics Survey, one in every five employees said their companies had a strong ethical culture. 20 years ago, this number was only one in 10. While this illustrates businesses are on the right track, these statistics reveal more work is still needed. To do this, have a personal code of ethics and promote ethical values. This makes people act as better leaders who are capable of guiding their organizations toward a sustainable, impactful future. For business owners and executives looking to increase their leadership skills while also growing their businesses, this is a win-win situation. Want to learn more about team building and ethics? Check out the following articles:Teamwork Quotes to Motivate and Inspire CollaborationThe Ideal Team Player: How to Grow an Effective TeamTeam Culture Guide: Building Bonds at WorkSourcesLeaders Media has established sourcing guidelines and relies on relevant, and credible sources for the data, facts, and expert insights and analysis we reference. You can learn more about our mission, ethics, and how we cite sources in our editorial policy.Jenkin, M. (2015, May 18). Millennials want to work for employers committed to values and ethics. The Guardian. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/05/millennials-employment-employers-values-ethics-jobs2016 Cone Communications Millennial Employee Engagement Study – Cone. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://conecomm.com/2016-millennial-employee-engagement-study/10 bold examples of transparency in the workplace. (2021, October 13). Front. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://front.com/blog/10-bold-examples-of-transparency-in-the-workplace5 Inspiring Companies That Rely on Teamwork to Be Successful. (2016, February 16). Success. https://www.success.com/5-inspiring-companies-that-rely-on-teamwork-to-be-successful/Ella, I. (n.d.). Mission. Ivory Ella. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://ivoryella.com/pages/our-missionEthics and Compliance Initiative. (2022, May 25). 2021 Global Business Ethics Survey. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://www.ethics.org/global-business-ethics-survey/Home / Articles / What Are Ethical Values in Business?ShareFacebookTweetEmailLinkedInRelated ArticlesLearn the Winning Answers to the Most Common Phone Interview QuestionsThe phone interview—it’s one of the most critical steps in the hiring process in part because it’s often the first...Read moreWhat is a Sabbatical? Your Ticket to Restful Growth and MeaningSeven out of ten employees say that their company doesn’t do enough to alleviate work burnout, with 21% admitting that...Read moreThe Importance of a Strong Work Ethic and 5 Ways to Improve YoursIf you’ve ever faked being sick to get out of going to work, you’re not alone. One survey found that...Read more23 Character Traits: A List of The Good and Bad Traits You See at WorkAre you born a leader? Is anyone? Data suggests that leadership traits could be in your genetics, with 30%-60% of...Read moreShould You Sign a Non-Compete Agreement? The Benefits and Controversies of NCAsGetting a job at a prestigious company like Microsoft would normally be a cause for someone to celebrate, but when...Read moreHow to Write a Professional Bio that Best Represents YouIf you want a guaranteed recipe for writer's block, try writing a professional bio—between being taunted by a blinking cursor...Read moreWant Your Team to Excel? Try One of These 20 Employee Incentive ProgramsOne of the most persistent problems for companies all over the world is the lack of employee engagement. According to...Read moreEveryone Hates Bad Icebreaker Questions. Here Are 60 That Actually Work.It’s an all too familiar situation. You sit down to have a team meeting only for the manager to begin...Read moreRecent ArticlesHiringNov 1, 2023Learn the Winning Answers to the Most Common Phone Interview QuestionsCome to your next phone interview fully preparedPersonal GrowthOct 30, 202385 Quotes on Self-Love to Boost Your Self-EsteemDon’t fall into the trap of harsh self-criticismCompany CultureOct 27, 2023What is a Sabbatical? Your Ticket to Restful Growth and MeaningSabbaticals can benefits both employees and businessesBusinessLeadershipWealthJoin the Leaders CommunityGet exclusive tools and resources you need to grow as a leader and scale a purpose-driven business.EmailSubscribing indicates your consent to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Leaders.comPrivacy PolicyAboutCareersCookie PolicyTermsDisclosuresEditorial PolicyMember Login© 2024 Leaders.com - All rights reserved.Search Leaders.comSearch for:
Sear
Core Values: How to Lead Ethically and Why It Matters | Stanford Graduate School of Business
Skip to main content
Menu
Executive Education
Programs for Individuals
Programs by Topic
Accounting
Corporate Governance
Design Thinking
Entrepreneurship
Finance
General Management
Innovation
Marketing
Negotiation
Nonprofit
Organizational Leadership
Personal Leadership
Social Impact
Strategy
Technology & Operations
Featured Programs
Stanford Executive Program
Stanford LEAD
See All Programs by Date
See All Online Programs
Programs for Organizations
Custom Programs
Program Formats
Developing a Program
Catalyst Programs
Diversity & Inclusion for Strategic Impact
Strategic Transformation in Times of Disruption
Program Experience
Contact Client Services
The Difference
Teaching
Academic Experience
Life & Learning
In-Person Programs
On-Demand Online Courses
Live Online Programs
Community
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Alumni Voices
Admission
Eligibility
Payment & Cancellation
FAQ
Application Process
International Participants
Apply Online
Enter the terms you wish to search for.
The Difference
In This Section
Academic Experience
Campus Experience
Live Online Experience
Silicon Valley & Bay Area
Digital Credentials
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Voices
Academics
On Campus & In Person
Live Online
Faculty
Participants
Voices
Executive Education
The Difference
Core Values: How to Lead Ethically and Why It Matters
Core Values: How to Lead Ethically and Why It Matters
Understanding your core values and how to incorporate them into your business can improve company culture and accountability.
May 02, 2023
Image
Illustration by: iStock/tolgart
Ethics and values are as much a part of your business as your product, operations, or customers. Stakeholders want to know where you stand on any number of issues, and employees deserve a workplace where they feel safe and respected. So how can you incorporate your ethics into your business? And how do you stay true to them, especially while leading others whose values may be different?
Two Stanford Graduate School of Business faculty members who also teach in Executive Education programs addressed these often challenging issues in a recent book. Ken Shotts, the David S. and Ann M. Barlow Professor of Political Economy, and Neil Malhotra, the Edith M. Cornell Professor of Political Economy, are the authors of “Leading With Values: Strategies for Making Ethical Decisions in Business and Life.” See their tips for testing your ethics to become a more effective leader — and some best practices for making your workplace reflective of your values — below.
Establish Your Core Values
Are you clear about what your ethical standards are? Core values are shaped by an individual’s cultural and religious traditions, personal history, experiences, and expectations. Take time to consider the standards and ethics that are important to you, such as integrity, diligence, compassion, or accountability. Then, give team members time to reflect on theirs as well.
“Importantly,” says Shotts, “don’t assume that everyone in your organization shares your own values.” More likely, there’s a mix of people whose values do and don’t align with yours. Your job isn’t to try to change their values, it’s to foster an environment that allows for differences of opinion, where people feel safe to express themselves and to civilly disagree with others.
Determine If You’re Acting Ethically
There are various methods to help you determine if your behavior is ethical. One of the most common is The New York Times Test, which asks if you would act the same way if you knew the paper of record was reporting on it. But it’s unlikely that your day-to-day activities and decisions are that newsworthy, making this an abstract and ineffective guardrail to keep you on a path that aligns with your ethics.
Quote
Would you be comfortable telling your friends and family about your actions?
Attribution
Neil Malhotra
Malhotra suggests a better way: “Would you be comfortable telling your friends and family about your actions and decisions? Or are you withholding information because it’s inconsistent with your value structure?” The Friends and Family Test is an effective reminder of where your ethical boundaries lie. Establishing a trusted network of people who will give you honest feedback and hold you accountable makes this test even more helpful.
Handling Ethically Challenging Situations
Be proactive. If you plan ahead for situations you may encounter in your business — and think through how you’ll act if they occur — you’re more likely to stick to your values than if you’re reacting spontaneously to circumstances for which you’re not prepared.
If you do find yourself in a situation that doesn’t align with your ethics, Shotts says the best thing you can do is to temporarily remove yourself, both physically and emotionally. That gives you a chance to consider your options and realign yourself with your values before taking action.
Put Ethics to Work
Here are some best practices for making values an integral part of your company:
Provide time and space for team members, including leaders, to reflect on and write down their values.
Cultivate an environment of encouragement and respect so that team members feel comfortable sharing their opinions and disagreeing with others.
Remember the Friends and Family Test. Encourage employees to build networks of colleagues who will help them stay aligned with their values.
Ask your team to think about the types of situations they might encounter at work and how they plan to react. Role-playing potential scenarios with co-workers may help them prepare for unexpected situations.
Let employees know that if they find themselves in an unethical situation, physically and emotionally distancing themselves temporarily will help them reestablish their ethical boundaries.
As a leader, it’s important to understand and stay true to your own values. But it’s equally important to understand that every employee has their own values shaped by their unique experiences. Fostering an environment of respect and empathy for these differences, while communicating your own values clearly, allows for greater collaboration and a more productive team.
Explore More Stories
February 08, 2024
Written
Giving Ex-Offenders a Second Chance at Life
Singapore Prison Service official Matthew Wee Yik Keong is transforming how the system rehabilitates inmates and ex-offenders — with the goal of creating a safer, more inclusive society.
August 31, 2023
Written
Bringing Home U.S. Military Veterans Missing in Action
Retired Major Derek Abbey, USMC, is on a mission to repatriate the remains of soldiers lost in war. Project Recover searches by land and sea to find and honor American heroes.
June 14, 2023
Written
Think — and Communicate — like an Entrepreneur: Tips to Spur Business Success
Startups offer plenty of lessons on how to tip the scales in favor of optimal business outcomes, even for established companies.
Explore Programs
Stay in Touch
Related
Related
Ken Shotts
Professor, Political Economy
Neil Malhotra
Professor, Political Economy
Book
Leading with Values
Neil Malhotra
Ken Shotts
Insights
March 14, 2022
Leadership and Ethics: How to Communicate Your Core Values
On this podcast episode, we discuss the keys to making ethical decisions in your professional and personal life.
Think Fast, Talk Smart: The Podcast
Executive Education
Stanford Graduate School of Business
Call Us (8am – 5pm Pacific Time): +1 (650) 723-3341
655 Knight Way
Stanford, CA 94305
USA
Footer Contact Us
Contact Us
Directions & Parking
FAQ
Footer: Executive Education
Follow Executive Education on LinkedIn
Follow Stanford Business
Subscribe to Stanford Executive Report
© Stanford Graduate School of Business
Footer legal links
Accessibility
Non-Discrimination Policy
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Stanford University
The Experience
About Us
The Leadership
The Dean
Updates
Advisory Council
Members
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
DEI Updates
See the Current DEI Report
Supporting Data
Research & Insights
Voices
Share Your Thoughts
Centers & Institutes
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
Research
Search Funds
Search Fund Primer
Teaching & Curriculum
Faculty & Staff
Affiliated Faculty
Faculty Advisors
Contact
Louis W. Foster Resource Center
Center for Social Innovation
Defining Social Innovation
Impact Compass
Global Health Innovation Insights
Faculty & Staff
Faculty Affiliates
Contact
School Profile
Student Awards & Certificates
Our Alumni
School News & History
Changemakers
Our History
Stanford GSB Deans
Dean Jonathan Levin
Dean Garth Saloner
Dean Robert Joss
Dean Michael Spence
Dean Robert Jaedicke
Dean Rene McPherson
Dean Arjay Miller
Dean Ernest Arbuckle
Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
Dean Willard Hotchkiss
Faculty in Memoriam
Stanford GSB Firsts
Commencement
Program
Candidates
Certificate & Award Recipients
Dean’s Remarks
Keynote Address
Learning at Stanford GSB
Faculty
Teaching Approach
Experiential Learning
Action Learning Program
Analysis and Measurement of Impact
The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
Data-Driven Impact
Designing Experiments for Impact
Digital Business Transformation
The Founder’s Right Hand
Marketing for Measurable Change
Product Management
Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
Real-Time Analysis and Investment Lab
Lab Features
Curricular Integration
Faculty
Contact
Guest Speakers
View From The Top
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship Courses
Formation of New Ventures
Managing Growing Enterprises
Startup Garage
Beyond the Classroom
Explore Beyond the Classroom
Stanford Venture Studio
Summer Program
Botha Chan Innovation Program
Awardees
Workshops & Events
The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
Leadership
Leadership Labs
Executive Challenge
Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
Interpersonal Dynamics
Facilitation Training Program
2024–25 Program
Selection Process
Training Schedule
Time Commitment
Learning Expectations
Post-Training Opportunities
Faculty
Who Should Apply
Introductory T-Groups
Contact
Leadership for Society Program
Social Innovation
Curriculum
Certificate
Fellowships
Impact Design Immersion Fellowship
2023 Awardees
2022 Awardees
2021 Awardees
2020 Awardees
2019 Awardees
2018 Awardees
Social Management Immersion Fund
Post-Graduate Career Fellowships
Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
Experiential Learning
Social Entrepreneurship
Stanford GSB Impact Fund
Impact Journeys
Economic Development
Education
Energy & Environment
Healthcare
Communication
Life at Stanford GSB
Collaborative Environment
Activities & Organizations
Student Services
Housing Options
Stanford GSB Residences
International Students
Our Campus
Environmental Leadership
Stanford GSB Artwork
A Closer Look
California & the Bay Area
Voices of Stanford GSB
Business, Government & Society Initiative
Our Approach
Research
Priority Issues
Business & Beneficial Technology
Business & Sustainability
Business & Free Markets
News & Insights
Events
Business, Government, and Society Forum
Get Involved
The Programs
MBA Program
Why Stanford MBA
Academic Experience
Curriculum
First Year
Second Year
Global Experiences
Faculty
Joint & Dual Degrees
JD/MBA Joint Degree
MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
MD/MBA Dual Degree
MPP/MBA Joint Degree
MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
Academic Calendar
Student Life & Community
Clubs & Activities
Diversity
Conferences
International Students
LGBTQ+ Students
Military Veterans
Minorities & People of Color
Partners & Families
Students with Disabilities
Women
Student Support
Residential Life
Student Voices
Alumni Community
MBA Alumni Voices
A Week in the Life
Career Impact
Career Support
Employment Outcomes
Tuition & Financial Aid
Cost of Attendance
Types of Aid
Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
Yellow Ribbon Program
BOLD Fellows Fund
Application Process
Loan Forgiveness
Contact the Financial Aid Office
Admission
Evaluation Criteria
Deadlines
Application
Education
Test Scores
GMAT & GRE
English Language Proficiency
Personal Information, Activities & Awards
Professional Experience
Letters of Recommendation
Essays
Optional Short Answer Questions
Application Fee
Reapplication
Interviews
Deferred Enrollment
Joint & Dual Degrees
Entering Class Profile
Admission Events
Event Schedule
Ambassadors
New & Noteworthy
Contact
Ask a Question
MSx Program
Why Stanford MSx
See Why Stanford MSx
Is MSx Right for You?
Career Impact
Career Support
Alumni Voices
MSx Stories
Curriculum
Leadership Development
Career Advancement
Entrepreneurship
Career Change
How You Will Learn
Academic Calendar
Admission
Admission Events
Evaluation Criteria
Application Requirements
Personal Information
Education
Professional Experience
Reference Letters
Information for Recommenders
Graduate Tests
GMAT, GRE & EA
English Proficiency Tests
Essays
Interviews
After You’re Admitted
Entering Class Profile
Student & Family Life
Student Life
Activities & Organizations
Voices
Partners & Families
Housing
Daycare, Schools & Camps
Diversity
Tuition & Financial Aid
Cost of Attendance
U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
International Students
Application Process
Loan Forgiveness
Contact
PhD Program
Fields of Study
Accounting
Requirements
Economic Analysis & Policy
Requirements
Finance
Requirements
Marketing
Requirements: Behavioral
Requirements: Quantitative
Operations, Information & Technology
Requirements
Organizational Behavior
Requirements: Macro
Requirements: Micro
Political Economics
Requirements
Academic Experience
Degree Requirements
Coursework
Annual Evaluations
Field Examination
Research Activities
Research Papers
Candidacy
Dissertation
Oral Examination
Faculty
Current Students
Research Resources
Admission
What We Look For
Entering Class Profile
Application Materials
Education & CV
GMAT & GRE
International Applicants
Statement of Purpose
Letters of Recommendation
Reapplicants
Application Fee Waiver
Deadline & Decisions
Admission Events
IDDEAS
Financial Aid
Student Life
Voices
Placement
Job Market Candidates
Academic Placements
Contact the PhD Program
Stay in Touch
Research Fellows
Research Community
Faculty Mentors
Current Fellows
Alumni
Academic Experience
Standard Track
Dedicated Track
Projects
Fellowship & Benefits
Admission
International Applicants
Contact
Executive Education
Programs for Individuals
On-Demand Online Courses
Group Enrollment
Programs for Organizations
Custom Programs
Program Formats
Developing a Program
Catalyst Online Programs
Diversity & Inclusion
Strategic Transformation
Program Experience
Contact Client Services
The Difference
Academic Experience
Faculty
Campus Experience
Live Online Experience
Silicon Valley & Bay Area
Digital Credentials
Faculty Spotlights
Participant Spotlights
Voices
Admission
Eligibility
International Participants
Application Process
Stanford Executive Program
Stanford Ignite
Stanford LEAD
Payment & Cancellation
Discounts
Frequently Asked Questions
Contact
Faculty & Research
Faculty
Academic Areas
Accounting
Economics
Finance
Marketing
Operations, Information & Technology
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Awards & Honors
Seminars
Accounting
Classical Liberalism
Economics
The Eddie Lunch
Finance
IOPLUS
Marketing
Operations, Information & Technology
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Conferences
Accounting Summer Camp
Big-Data Initiative in Intl. Macro-Finance
Agenda
Faculty
Videos, Code & Data
California Econometrics Conference
California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
California School Conference
China India Insights Conference
Homo economicus, Evolving
Initiative on Business and Environmental Sustainability
Political Economics (2023–24)
Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
Adaptation and Innovation
Changing Climate
Civil Society
Climate Impact Summit
Climate Science
Corporate Carbon Disclosures
Earth’s Seafloor
Environmental Justice
Finance
Marketing
Operations and Information Technology
Organizations
Sustainability Reporting and Control
Taking the Pulse of the Planet
Urban Infrastructure
Watershed Restoration
Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
Ken Singleton Celebration
Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
Rising Scholars Conference
Agenda
Presentations
Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
Voices
Publications
Books
Working Papers
Case Studies
Research Labs & Initiatives
Cities, Housing & Society Lab
Corporate Governance Research Initiative
Research
Stanford Closer Look Series
Quick Guides
Core Concepts
Surveys
Books
Journal Articles
Working Papers
Case Studies
Glossary of Terms
Executive Education
Faculty & Staff
Contact
Corporations and Society Initiative
Golub Capital Social Impact Lab
Who We Are
Researchers & Students
Funders
Our Research
Research Approach
Publications
Domain Areas
Charitable Giving
Education
Financial Health
Government Services
Health
Workers & Careers
Methods
AI & Machine Learning
Short Course
Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
Incentive Design
Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
Bandit Experiment Application
Conferences & Events
Get Involved
Contact
Policy and Innovation Initiative
Reading Materials
Courses
Events
Contact
Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
Research
Teaching & Curriculum
Energy Entrepreneurship
Faculty & Affiliates
Contact
Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
SOLE Report
Research
Subscribe
Value Chain Innovation Initiative
Research
Books
Case Studies
Publications
Responsible Supply Chains
Faculty & Staff
Events
Contact
Subscribe
Venture Capital Initiative
Contact
Behavioral Lab
Conduct Research
Current Study Usage
Pre-Registration Information
Participate in a Study
Faculty
Publications
Lab Staff
Contact
Data, Analytics & Research Computing
Stanford Seed
About Seed
Leadership
Founding Donors
Contact
Location Information
Stanford Seed Programs
Seed Transformation Program
Curriculum
Faculty
Participant Profile
Network Membership
Program Impact
Voices
Admission
Aspire Program
Curriculum
Participant Profile
Seed Spark Program
Curriculum
Faculty
Participant Profile
Collaborators
Companies & Leaders
Meet Seed Entrepreneurs
Entrepreneur Profiles
Company Spotlights
Seed Transformation Network
Get Involved
Coach
Responsibilities
Current Coaches
How to Apply
Consult
Meet the Consultants
How to Apply
Intern
Meet the Interns
Intern Profiles
How to Apply
Collaborate
Give
Discover Impact
Research & Studies
Research Library
News & Insights
Program Contacts
Library
Research Resources
Databases & Datasets
Research Guides
Journals
Books
Working Papers
Case Studies
Research Support
Research Guides
Consultations
Research Workshops
Career Research
Ask Us
Services
Research Data Services
Course Support
Course Reserves
Course Research Guides
Borrow, Renew, Return
Material Loan Periods
Fines & Other Charges
Document Delivery
Interlibrary Loan
Equipment Checkout
Print & Scan
MBA & MSx Students
PhD Students
Other Stanford Students
Faculty
Faculty Assistants
Research Assistants
Stanford GSB Alumni
Stanford GSB Archive
Telling Our Story
About Us
Staff Directory
Hours
Library Spaces
By Floor
Visit
History
Alumni
Alumni Site Help
Site Login
Site Registration
Alumni Directory
Alumni Email
Privacy Settings & My Profile
Communities
Digital Communities & Tools
Women’s Programs
Women’s Circles
Success Stories
The Story of Circles
Support Women’s Circles
Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
Alumnae Spotlights
Insights & Research
Regional Chapters
Identity Chapters
Interest Groups
Industry & Professional
Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
Recent Alumni
News
Class Notes
Alumni Voices
Books
Reunions
Alumni Day
Half-Century Club
Plan Your Visit
Fall Reunions
Spring Reunions
MBA 25th Reunion
Half-Century Club Reunion
Reunion Highlights
Faculty Lectures
Events
Award Events
Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
ENCORE Award
Excellence in Leadership Award
John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
Tapestry Award
Student & Alumni Events
Career Resources
Job Search Resources
Executive Recruiters
Interviewing
Job Boards
Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
Negotiating
Networking
Elevator Pitch
Email Best Practices
Resumes & Cover Letters
Self-Assessment
Career Coaching
Long-Term Career & Executive Coaches
Whitney Birdwell Ball
Margaret Brooks
Bryn Panee Burkhart
Margaret Chan
Ricki Frankel
Peter Gandolfo
Cindy W. Greig
Natalie Guillen
Carly Janson
Sloan Klein
Sherri Appel Lassila
Agnes Le
Stuart Meyer
Tanisha Parrish
Virginia Roberson
Philippe Taieb
Michael Takagawa
Terra Winston
Johanna Wise
Debbie Wolter
Jung Yoo
Rebecca Zucker
Complimentary Coaching
Career & Life Transitions
New Grads
Changing Careers
Work-Life Integration
Career Breaks
Flexible Work
Encore Careers
Programs
Career Video Library
Contact
Alumni Education
Research Resources
Library Databases
D&B Hoovers
Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
EBSCO Business Source
Firsthand (Vault)
Global Newsstream
Market Share Reporter
ProQuest One Business
Volunteering
Academics & Student Life
Student Clubs
Entrepreneurial Students
Admissions
Advisory Boards
Stanford GSB Trust
Alumni Community
Alumni Consulting Team Volunteers
Volunteering Opportunities
How to Volunteer
Springboard Sessions
Consulting Projects
Leadership
Volunteers by Class Year
2020 – 2029
2010 – 2019
2000 – 2009
1990 – 1999
1980 – 1989
1970 – 1979
1960 – 1969
1950 – 1959
1940 – 1949
Past Projects
Service Areas
Stories & History
ACT History
ACT Awards Celebration
Leadership
ACT Governance Structure
Building Leadership for ACT
Individual Leadership Positions
Leadership Role Overview
Purpose of the ACT Management Board
Contact ACT
Business & Nonprofit Communities
Reunion Volunteers
Giving
Impact of Giving
Why Give
Ways to Give
Business School Fund
Fiscal Year Report
Business School Fund Leadership Council
Planned Giving
Planned Giving Options
Planned Giving Benefits
Planned Gifts and Reunions
Legacy Partners
Strategic Initiatives
Donor Recognition
Giving News & Stories
How to Make a Gift
Giving Deadlines
Contact the Development Office
Development Staff
Contact
Staff Directory
Submit Class Notes
Class Secretaries
Stanford GSB Alumni Association
Membership
Board of Directors
Insights
Accounting
Big Data
Career & Success
Corporate Governance
Culture & Society
Economics
Education
Entrepreneurship
Finance & Investing
Government
Health Care
Innovation
Leadership & Management
Marketing
Nonprofit
Operations & Logistics
Operations, Information & Technology
Opinion & Analysis
Opportunity & Access
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Social Impact
Sustainability
Class Takeaways
Subscribe
Contact
Stanford Business Podcasts
All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
Grit & Growth
Leadership for Society
Think Fast, Talk Smart
View From The Top
Stanford Business Magazine
All Issues
Spring 2022
Spring 2021
Fall 2021
Autumn 2020
Summer 2020
Winter 2020
Shift
Catalyst
Value
Newsroom
In the Media
Press Kit
For Journalists
Events
Stanford Community Resources
Non-GSB Registration
Home
Stanford Students
Exams
Forms
Grades
DCI Fellows
Other Auditors
Academic Calendar & Deadlines
Attendance
Course Materials
Frequently Asked Questions
Entrepreneurial Resources
Plan an Event
Venues
Campus Drive Grove
Campus Drive Lawn
CEMEX Auditorium
King Community Court
Seawell Family Boardroom
Stanford GSB Bowl
Stanford Investors Common
Town Square
Vidalakis Courtyard
Vidalakis Dining Hall
Catering Services
Policies & Guidelines
Reservations
Jobs
Faculty Recruiting
Accounting
Economics
Finance
Marketing
Operations, Information & Technology
Organizational Behavior
Political Economy
Contact Faculty Recruiting
Lecturer Positions
Postdoctoral Positions
Visit Us
Dining
Accommodations
Contact Us
Stay in Touch
Follow Us
Companies, Organizations, & Recruiters
Recruit Stanford GSB Talent
Post Jobs
Interview Candidates
CMC-Managed Interviews
Recruiter-Managed Interviews
Virtual Interviews
Host Events
Campus & Virtual
Off-Campus
Search for Candidates
Strategies & Resources
Think Globally
Recruiting Calendar
Recruiting Policies
Employment Reports
Full-Time Employment
Entrepreneurship
Summer Employment
Contact
Leverage Stanford GSB Expertise
Internships & Experiential Programs
Entrepreneurial Summer Program
Global Management Immersion Experience
Social-Purpose Summer Internships
Alumni Consulting Team for Nonprofits
Consulting Projects
Springboard Sessions
Clients
Working with ACT
Process Overview
Project Types
Client Eligibility Criteria
Client Screening
Application Process
Contact ACT
ACT Leadership
Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
Develop Your Organization’s Talent
Invest in Stanford GSB
Centers & Initiatives
Student Fellowships
Strategic Initiatives
Ethical Values and Personal Integrity | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Advertisement
Log in
Menu
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Search
Cart
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance pp 4191–4199Cite as
Home
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance
Reference work entry
Ethical Values and Personal Integrity
James L. Cook2
Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2023
57 Accesses
Synonyms
Integrity: character; Value: belief, principle
Definition
Ethical values are beliefs that provide guidelines for acting rightly in specific roles or for living morally in general. Personal integrity is consistently sound moral character.
Introduction
In addition to defining key terms, an account of ethical values and personal integrity must explain where ethical values can exist and where they originate; question whether values are ephemeral or enduring, and explain why some values endure while others do not; examine whether there is one greatest ethical value or if there are many values of equal importance; suggest how to resolve conflicts among ethical values; inquire whether values are relative or universal; clarify the relationship between ethical values and personal integrity; and point out obstacles to developing ethical values and personal integrity. This article sketches ways to approach each of these tasks by appealing to ancient and modern philosophy and moral...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
ReferencesAriely D (2010) Predictably irrational, revised and expanded edition: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Perennial, New York
Google Scholar
Aristotle (1934) Nicomachean ethics. Aristotle in 23 volumes, vol 19 (trans: Rackham H). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd, Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0054Berlin I (1958) Two concepts of liberty, inaugural lecture. University of Oxford. Reproduced in Berlin, Isaiah, Liberty, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002
Google Scholar
Capaldi N (1996) What philosophy can and cannot contribute to business ethics. J Priv Enterp 22(2):68–86
Google Scholar
Doris J (2005) Lack of character: personality and moral behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Haidt J (2012) The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books, New York
Google Scholar
Haidt J (2014, January 13) Can you teach businessmen to be ethical? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/13/can-you-teach-businessmen-to-be-ethical/MacDonald B (2008/2009) Values-based leadership. Speech transcript. https://www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/company/purpose_people/values_based_leadership.pdf. See also “Values-Based Leadership”. Video presentation. http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/executive_team/values_based_leadership.shtmlPlato (1966) The apology. Plato in twelve volumes, vol 1 (trans: Fowler HN; Introduction: Lamb WRM). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D38aPlato (1967) Meno. Plato in twelve volumes, vol 3 (trans: Lamb WRM). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DMenoPlato (1969) Republic. Plato. Plato in twelve volumes, vols 5 and 6 (trans: Shorey P). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0168Rimington S (1994) Security and democracy: is there a conflict? Richard Dimble by Lecture. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/news/security-and-democracy-is-there-a-conflictRoss WD (1930) The right and the good. British moral philosophers series. Clarendon Press, Gloucestershire 2003. Part II, “What makes right acts right?” Reproduced at http://www.ditext.com/ross/right2.htmlWilson EO (2000) Sociobiology. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA
Google Scholar
Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsUS Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USAJames L. CookAuthorsJames L. CookView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
James L. Cook .Editor informationEditors and AffiliationsFlorida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USAAli Farazmand Rights and permissionsReprints and permissionsCopyright information© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AGAbout this entryCite this entryCook, J.L. (2022). Ethical Values and Personal Integrity.
In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_914Download citation.RIS.ENW.BIBDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_914Published: 06 April 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66251-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66252-3eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social SciencesShare this entryAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Publish with usPolicies and ethics
Access via your institution
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Search
Search by keyword or author
Search
Navigation
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Discover content
Journals A-Z
Books A-Z
Publish with us
Publish your research
Open access publishing
Products and services
Our products
Librarians
Societies
Partners and advertisers
Our imprints
Springer
Nature Portfolio
BMC
Palgrave Macmillan
Apress
Your privacy choices/Manage cookies
Your US state privacy rights
Accessibility statement
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Help and support
49.157.13.121
Not affiliated
© 2024 Springer Nature
Ethical Values Every Professional Should Adopt
Just announced! Explore the agenda for Uplift 2024 | April 10–11 in SF
EN - US
English US
Deutsch
English GB
Français
For Business
How it works
Platform Overview
Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.
Integrations
Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.
Powered by AI
We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.
Products
BetterUp Lead
Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.
BetterUp Manage™
Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.
BetterUp Care™
Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.
Solutions
Sales Performance
Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.
Executive
Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.
Diversity & Inclusion
Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.
Government
Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.
Customers
Case Studies
See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.
Why BetterUp?
Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.
A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.
For Individuals
What is coaching?
About Coaching
Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.
Find your Coach
Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.
Types of Coaching
Career Coaching
Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.
Communications Coaching
Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.
Life Coaching
Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.
Discover your perfect match: Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.
Resources
Library
Guides & Reports
Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.
Events
View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.
Blog
BetterUp Blog
The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.
BetterUp Briefing
BetterUp Briefing
The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.
Research
BetterUp Labs
Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.
Center for Purpose & Performance
Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance
About
About Us
We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.
Careers
Join us and create impactful change.
News & Press
Read the buzz about BetterUp.
Leadership Team
Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.
Login
EN - US
EN - US
English US
Deutsch
English GB
Français
For Business
For Business
How it works
Platform Overview
Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.
Integrations
Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.
Powered by AI
We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.
Products
BetterUp Lead
Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.
BetterUp Manage™
Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.
BetterUp Care™
Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.
Solutions
Sales Performance
Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.
Executive
Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.
Diversity & Inclusion
Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.
Government
Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.
Customers
Case Studies
See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.
Why BetterUp?
Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.
For Individuals
For Individuals
What is coaching?
About Coaching
Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.
Find your Coach
Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.
Types of Coaching
Career Coaching
Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.
Communications Coaching
Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.
Life Coaching
Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.
Resources
Resources
Library
Guides & Reports
Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.
Events
View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.
Blog
BetterUp Blog
The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.
BetterUp Briefing
BetterUp Briefing
The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.
Research
BetterUp Labs
Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.
Center for Purpose & Performance
Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance
About
About
About Us
We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.
Careers
Join us and create impactful change.
News & Press
Read the buzz about BetterUp.
Leadership Team
Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.
Login
Blog
Professional Development
8 ethical values every professional should adopt
By Elizabeth Perry
June 2, 2023
- 16 min read
Share this article
Understand Yourself Better:
Big 5 Personality Test
Learn how to leverage your natural strengths to determine your next steps and meet your goals faster.
Take quiz
Understand Yourself Better:
Big 5 Personality Test
Learn how to leverage your natural strengths to determine your next steps and meet your goals faster.
Take quiz
Invest in yourself today
Jump to section
What are ethical values, and why are they important?
8 ethical value examples all professionals should adopt
8 benefits of ethical values in the workplace
Embrace your ethics
Your coworker asks you to cover up an oversight they made on a project that could potentially harm a client's reputation. A friend urges you to hire them over other contractors. You catch a well-liked colleague bullying their assistant.
When you think about moral problems, you might have an idealized view of how you’d respond. But upholding ethical values in the workplace involves more than taking the high road in difficult situations.
Your sense of values plays an integral role in guiding your most important decisions, from hiring staff to announcing layoffs and all the decision-making, policy-building, and goal setting in-between.
When an organization places ethics at the core of the business, it creates a culture of respect and transparency in the workplace. And when everyone commits to these high standards and holds themselves accountable for their actions, it positively impacts the organization and the ecosystem surrounding it.
What are ethical values, and why are they important?
Ethical values are an individual’s moral compass, guiding their actions and behaviors. The ethics one’s drawn toward are typically affected by their community, upbringing, and culture. In some cultures, it’s disrespectful to put your elbows on the table, and some societies are individualistic while others are community-oriented.
For a company, work ethics are guiding principles designed to serve the well-being of others over self-interest. You use these workplace ethics to inform your response to difficult, stressful, or potentially damaging situations.
A company’s ethical standards help leaders answer important questions like:
What sort of products and services can I sell?
What information must I reveal about my business?
Whose interests should my organization serve, and who should manage them?
What does an organization owe its workforce, and what do employees owe their employers?
Do businesses have a social responsibility to consumers and communities?
How can I best support my employees?
Ethical principles weren't always a part of the business equation. Traditionally, most businesses cared about hitting profits and considered themselves outside moral high grounds. But business ethics principles entered the conversation as a field of academic study, originating from moral philosophy in the 1970–80s, and slowly merged into more traditional business studies.
A code of ethics is foundational to running a successful company in today's business world. According to a 2022 survey by Deloitte, ethical issues like climate change, inequality, and work-life balance are among the top concerns of millennial and Gen Z workers.
According to the same study, 37% of Gen Z and 36% of millennial workers rejected a job or assignment because it didn't align with their personal values.
As both generations take up a larger share of the workforce, businesses and their employees must express their values to potential hires to showcase a company culture that respects workers' ethical behavior standards.
8 ethical value examples all professionals should adopt
Whether you want to self-reflect on your personal code of conduct, develop your skills as an ethical leader and lead by example, or audit your team’s ethical business practices, here are eight ethical values to consider.
1. Honesty
When you’re honest, you actively work to not deceive or mislead people — whether it's your coworkers, clients, or consumers. You avoid making promises you can't keep, don’t misrepresent your capabilities, and are sincere about your shortcomings.
Honesty is a core value of great leaders and team members, as it's foundational to how you communicate with others. You can use honest and transparent communication to provide constructive feedback that helps your coworkers grow, build rapport with colleagues and clients, and make ethical decisions that align with consumer values.
2. Integrity
Expressing integrity means you're committed to doing what's right, even if nobody credits you for it or people dislike it. This might mean avoiding a conflict of interest that could personally benefit you, complying with policies and regulations, and being consistent in your behavior and decision-making.
Imagine a company that bases all its decisions on its sustainability and environmental health commitments. Acting with integrity might include a business leader accepting higher operational costs for recyclable materials despite a lower bottom line or an employee biking to work as often as possible.
3. Charity
Companies and employees can express their commitment to ethical issues and core values by donating their money or time to charity. This shows kindness and support for a local community or global cause and that the organization cares about more than itself.
Charity also encourages employees to practice self-reflection, hold themselves accountable, and stimulate collaborative action. And giving back to the community pays it forward in happiness. People who volunteer their time report increased happiness levels, which can have a snowball effect on the organization.
4. Accountability
Accountability reflects self-awareness that your decisions and behaviors carry weight. Being accountable isn't just about accepting fault for adverse consequences. It also encourages you to contemplate how a potential decision affects others to guide you toward more ethical decision-making.
Being accountable also means taking ownership of your work and understanding where you fit into your team and employer’s overall success. When you hold yourself accountable, you strive to meet commitments, deliver on promises, and remain transparent about your progress and results.
Acting responsibly lets people know they can rely on you and your word, creating more powerful human connections based on mutual trust.
5. Respect
Mutual respect means showing coworkers you value and appreciate their work and including employees in decisions that impact them.
Respectfulness also means treating people with kindness and compassion, understanding that everyone comes from distinct backgrounds and perspectives, and being willing to learn from others' knowledge and experience.
Your ability to be respectful of others requires you to develop several interpersonal skills, like active listening, open-mindedness, and showing gratitude.
6. Fairness
Healthy workplaces promote level playing fields for everyone, regardless of their background or place in the company hierarchy. When fairness is a central pillar, you treat everyone with respect and offer them equal opportunities to succeed and advance in their career.
A few ways to stimulate fairness at work are clearly communicating decision-making processes like internal hiring or performance evaluations, developing objective conflict resolution policies, and encouraging your teammates to voice their opinions.
7. Courage
Standing up for what’s right isn't always easy, even when the correct answer is clear. It takes great courage to prioritize ethics when a decision is unpopular or backlash is strong.
This might include admitting you were wrong about something (even if it could result in disciplinary action), prioritizing ethical best practices over profits, or speaking up against discrimination, gender inequality, and hostile work environments.
Even if the decisions are tough, when you take a stand for what's right, you build a strong reputation for your ethical leadership values and encourage others to stand up for their principles, in turn promoting positive changes throughout your team.
8. Excellence
Striving for excellence means promoting a culture of learning and continuous development. Nobody’s perfect — we all make mistakes and have room to grow.
A couple of ways to create a culture of excellence in your workplace are hosting workshops to break down cognitive dissonance and learning about different types of innovation you can foster to help your company succeed.
8 benefits of ethical values in the workplace
Embracing high ethical values requires work and sacrifice, but it pays off. Here are eight benefits of implementing ethical values in the workplace:
Better decision-making: When you clearly understand your ethical code, making challenging decisions is easier. Knowing what you believe is right and wrong will help you depend on yourself rather than following others.
A greater sense of community: Workers want to feel a sense of belonging and connection to their work and coworkers. You can create this by expressing values concurrent with theirs so they feel connected to a shared vision.
Stronger self-esteem: Acting with integrity even when your decision is unpopular or unnoticed shows confidence and self-esteem. You’re expressing confidence in your ability to persevere on your own terms, even if ethical decisions don’t benefit you.
Fewer worries: When you make ethically-right decisions, you can rest easy knowing you have nothing to hide and that your work is positively impacting your community and setting the right example for other companies.
Increased trustworthiness: When you express high moral standards, your clients and colleagues respect you. This helps you connect with loyal consumers or collaborators who share your values and strive toward the same goals.
Sets the right tone: If you're a manager, your attitude, moral principles, and decision-making style show your workers how to operate. And if you're an employee, your devotion to your moral values inspires others to stand up for what's right and positively impact the organization.
Increased talent retention: Satisfied employees feel respected, included, and cared about. Expressing values that show you treat their well-being with the same importance as your bottom line makes workers more likely to stick around.
More purpose and meaning: It's not always easy to live an ethical life, especially in a conflicted world where many cultures encourage individualism and bad behavior.
But sticking to your values gives you a sense of meaning and purpose that can increase your mental and physical health and stimulate continuous learning. Sticking to your ethical principles makes you feel you’re a part of something bigger and contributing to the good of the whole.
Embrace your ethics
Behind every great person is a guiding light that allows them to move through their decisions with clarity and intention. Finding your ethical values helps you move toward your goals with purpose.
Upholding your principles won’t always be easy. Challenges that test your values are inevitable. But moving through the world with intention and meaning is worth it. You’ll feel more confident, develop a stronger sense of self, and act for the greater good.
And you’ll rest assured that your decisions positively impact you, your community, and the world at large.
Professional Development
Published June 2, 2023
Elizabeth Perry Content Marketing Manager, ACC
Read Next
Professional Development
14 min read
| November 7, 2022
What is job crafting, why does it matter, and how can you do it?
Dive into what job crafting is and why it does matter if you want to boost your work engagement and feel like your job connects more with your work values.
Read More
Leadership & Management
15 min read
| June 8, 2023
Use the relational leadership model for well-rounded leadership
The relational leadership model has five components: inclusivity, empowerment, purpose, ethical behavior, and process orientation. Here’s how to apply it.
Read More
Professional Development
11 min read
| October 19, 2022
How to make yourself indispensable at work: Pro tips
Being an indispensable employee is about more than doing a good job. Add value to your team and contribute to your company with these tips and strategies.
Read More
Leadership & Management
16 min read
| April 9, 2021
The importance of being an ethical leader and how to become one
What is the make or break factor of organizational success? Learn the importance of being an ethical leader and how you can become one.
Read More
Research & Insights
17 min read
| July 25, 2022
Innovations in coaching: Growth through connection for an evolving world of work
We sat down with coaching industry experts to discuss where the industry is headed, the impact of technology, and the role ethics play as the field matures.
Read More
Well-being
15 min read
| June 19, 2023
Key values in a relationship: Why are they important?
Learning about your partner’s values in a relationship can help determine whether you’re compatible enough to establish a happy and loving partnership.
Read More
Professional Development
13 min read
| December 21, 2023
Use thoughtful work anniversary messages to wish your coworkers well
Sending your coworkers work anniversary messages shows that you value their contribution to the team and encourages them to continue contributing great work.
Read More
Professional Development
18 min read
| May 21, 2021
What are work values? Identify yours and learn what they mean
Discover what work values are and why they matter for your career and your employer. Learn how to identify yours to plan a successful career.
Read More
Professional Development
18 min read
| February 15, 2024
17 essential transferable skills to boost your job search
Transferable skills are in high-demand no matter what role or industry you’re after. Learn how they can help you succeed and which employers value most.
Read More
Similar Articles
Well-being
45 company core values examples and steps to identify yours
Professional Development
10 examples of principles that can guide your approach to work
Leadership & Management
The importance of being an ethical leader and how to become one
Well-being
How are personal values formed? Discover the joy of a life aligned
Hiring
What are professional skills, and which should you add to your resume?
Leadership & Management
What's integrity in the workplace and why is it important? (+examples)
Leadership & Management
Work ethics: 5 tips for managers to develop strong teams
Leadership & Management
7 key leadership behaviors you must have
Well-being
'We are the champions' plus other qualities every good friend should have
Stay connected with BetterUp
Get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research.
3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702
For Business
How it works
Platform Overview
Integrations
Powered by AI
Products
BetterUp Lead
BetterUp Manage™
BetterUp Care™
Solutions
Sales Performance
Executive
Diversity & Inclusion
Government
Customers
Case Studies
Why BetterUp?
For Individuals
What is coaching?
About Coaching
Find your Coach
Types of Coaching
Career Coaching
Communication Coaching
Life Coaching
Company
News and Press
Careers
Leadership Team
Become a BetterUp Coach
Resources
Blog
BetterUp Labs
BetterUp Briefing
Center for Purpose & Performance
What is coaching?
Leadership Training
Business Coaching
Contact Us
Contact Support
Contact Sales
Legal Hub
Privacy Policy
Acceptable Use Policy
Trust & Security
Cookie Preferences
© 2024 BetterUp. All rights reserved
Ethical Values and Personal Integrity | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Advertisement
Log in
Menu
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Search
Cart
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance pp 4191–4199Cite as
Home
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance
Reference work entry
Ethical Values and Personal Integrity
James L. Cook2
Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2023
57 Accesses
Synonyms
Integrity: character; Value: belief, principle
Definition
Ethical values are beliefs that provide guidelines for acting rightly in specific roles or for living morally in general. Personal integrity is consistently sound moral character.
Introduction
In addition to defining key terms, an account of ethical values and personal integrity must explain where ethical values can exist and where they originate; question whether values are ephemeral or enduring, and explain why some values endure while others do not; examine whether there is one greatest ethical value or if there are many values of equal importance; suggest how to resolve conflicts among ethical values; inquire whether values are relative or universal; clarify the relationship between ethical values and personal integrity; and point out obstacles to developing ethical values and personal integrity. This article sketches ways to approach each of these tasks by appealing to ancient and modern philosophy and moral...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
ReferencesAriely D (2010) Predictably irrational, revised and expanded edition: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Perennial, New York
Google Scholar
Aristotle (1934) Nicomachean ethics. Aristotle in 23 volumes, vol 19 (trans: Rackham H). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd, Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0054Berlin I (1958) Two concepts of liberty, inaugural lecture. University of Oxford. Reproduced in Berlin, Isaiah, Liberty, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002
Google Scholar
Capaldi N (1996) What philosophy can and cannot contribute to business ethics. J Priv Enterp 22(2):68–86
Google Scholar
Doris J (2005) Lack of character: personality and moral behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Haidt J (2012) The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books, New York
Google Scholar
Haidt J (2014, January 13) Can you teach businessmen to be ethical? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/13/can-you-teach-businessmen-to-be-ethical/MacDonald B (2008/2009) Values-based leadership. Speech transcript. https://www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/company/purpose_people/values_based_leadership.pdf. See also “Values-Based Leadership”. Video presentation. http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/executive_team/values_based_leadership.shtmlPlato (1966) The apology. Plato in twelve volumes, vol 1 (trans: Fowler HN; Introduction: Lamb WRM). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D38aPlato (1967) Meno. Plato in twelve volumes, vol 3 (trans: Lamb WRM). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DMenoPlato (1969) Republic. Plato. Plato in twelve volumes, vols 5 and 6 (trans: Shorey P). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0168Rimington S (1994) Security and democracy: is there a conflict? Richard Dimble by Lecture. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/news/security-and-democracy-is-there-a-conflictRoss WD (1930) The right and the good. British moral philosophers series. Clarendon Press, Gloucestershire 2003. Part II, “What makes right acts right?” Reproduced at http://www.ditext.com/ross/right2.htmlWilson EO (2000) Sociobiology. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA
Google Scholar
Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsUS Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USAJames L. CookAuthorsJames L. CookView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
James L. Cook .Editor informationEditors and AffiliationsFlorida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USAAli Farazmand Rights and permissionsReprints and permissionsCopyright information© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AGAbout this entryCite this entryCook, J.L. (2022). Ethical Values and Personal Integrity.
In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_914Download citation.RIS.ENW.BIBDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_914Published: 06 April 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66251-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66252-3eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social SciencesShare this entryAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Publish with usPolicies and ethics
Access via your institution
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Search
Search by keyword or author
Search
Navigation
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Discover content
Journals A-Z
Books A-Z
Publish with us
Publish your research
Open access publishing
Products and services
Our products
Librarians
Societies
Partners and advertisers
Our imprints
Springer
Nature Portfolio
BMC
Palgrave Macmillan
Apress
Your privacy choices/Manage cookies
Your US state privacy rights
Accessibility statement
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Help and support
49.157.13.121
Not affiliated
© 2024 Springer Nature
What Are Ethical Values in Business?Leaders.comSearch for:
SearchBusinessLeadershipWealthMaster ClassesBusinessEntrepreneursExecutivesMarketing and SalesSocial MediaInnovationWomen in BusinessLeadershipPersonal GrowthCompany CulturePublic SpeakingProductivityHiringSocial IssuesLeadersWealthInvestingCryptocurrencyRetirementVenture CapitalLoans and BorrowingTaxesMarketsReal EstateMaster ClassesCompany Culture Morsa Images / Getty ImagesBy
Colin Baker
Leaders StaffColin BakerLeadership and Business WriterColin Baker is a business writer for Leaders Media. He has a background in as a television journalism, working as...Full bioLearn about our editorial policyUpdated Sep 7, 2022What Are Ethical Values in Business?Guiding businesses with ethical values is becoming increasingly important to those within the workforce. A recent survey from Global Tolerance showed that 42 percent of employees would rather work for companies that have a positive impact on their communities and strong ethical values. In fact, ethics matter more to them than even earning a high salary. The difference is even more pronounced among millennials, with 64 percent saying they won’t work for a company that doesn’t show strong social responsibility practices.Businesses that don’t lead with ethical practices and a code of ethics risk the inability to recruit talented team members, experience poor employee performance, struggle with employee retention, and are subject to increased public scrutiny (especially in the age of social media). Additionally, organizations need to foster moral values not just to help their companies but simply because it’s the right thing to do.Table of ContentsWhat Are Ethical Values?8 Ethical Values to Guide Your BusinessHow to Promote Ethical Values at Your CompanyAn Ethical Business is a Successful BusinessIn this article, read more about the answer to, “What are ethical values in business?” examples of what that entails, and tips for how you can promote those values in your business.What Are Ethical Values?Ethical values are a set of moral guiding principles that determine how a company conducts business. These principles seek to serve and protect others above the organization’s self-interest. Beyond fulfilling legal obligations, ethical values in business show strong moral character from leaders and employees.While there are many out there, the following represent some of the core values and ethics those in the business world should adopt:IntegrityFairnessLeadershipHonestyAccountabilityTeamworkCharity/KindnessLoyalty8 Ethical Values to Guide Your Business1. IntegrityThe value of integrity often informs ethical decision-making. In other words, companies that display integrity make ethical decisions even if experiencing tremendous pressure to go a different way. For example, this might look like holding fast to core beliefs and taking the high ground rather than the easy road. As media mogul Oprah Winfrey explains, “Real integrity is doing the right thing, knowing that nobody’s going to know whether you did it or not.”In addition to making ethically sound decisions, people who demonstrate integrity are transparent in their business operations. One company that has shown integrity and transparency is Asana. Instead of keeping high-level board meetings a secret, executives routinely release detailed notes to their employees about their discussions and the decisions they’ve made. This keeps workers in the loop on all that is happening inside the company. Executives show they value integrity by being open with all their employees and not hiding things from them.2. FairnessEthical behavior and ethical decisions in business should also include fairness. This means treating each individual as an equal, no matter a person’s position within the company. An organization that champions fairness promotes workplace diversity, encouraging people of different backgrounds and points of view to influence how the company operates.Fairness in the workplace can be something as simple as not showing favoritism. The company Arbeit is one business that promotes fairness throughout its organization. Greg Jones, a customer research analyst for the company, says that fairness means “trying to be a blank page and giving everyone the same pen with which to write their story. It means all opportunities, advancement, and recognition being offered in equal measure to all qualified parties.”3. LeadershipAll companies have bosses and managers, but that doesn’t mean they have leaders who follow ethical standards and ethical principles. Ethical business practices are easier to follow when one of the core values is leadership. Just because someone is in a position of power does not mean they’re a leader. True leadership displays all the ethical values of an organization, setting an example for everyone to follow. They cultivate an environment where people want to adopt these values for themselves.One of the most effective ways to show personal ethics is through servant leadership. Servant leaders place their team’s, community’s, and customers’ needs above their own. They listen, empathize with those around them, and put themselves in others’ shoes to see things from their viewpoint. In addition to this, they resolve workplace conflict issues and hold themselves accountable for their actions. Fulfilling ethical behavior and principles is the primary focus of servant leaders, making it one of the key ways executives guide teams in a manner where morals matter most.4. HonestyHonesty and integrity are closely related to personal ethical standards. This means leading with the intention of not deceiving or misleading others. Oftentimes, this means avoiding overstatements and misrepresentations. Additionally, being honest also involves dealing with employees and customers in a way that is sincere and earnest. One way honesty can manifest in business is through advertising. A fascinating case of this comes from a Dutch hotel company called the Hans Brinker Budget Hotel. This business is well-known for offering an unapologetically poor customer experience. Their hilariously straightforward ad campaigns have made them world-renowned for being terrible. One campaign featured posters with phrases like, “Sorry for being excellent at losing your luggage” and “Sorry for being the best at ignoring your complaints.” This brutal honesty attracts budget-minded people looking for a place to rest their heads. By setting the right expectations, people also feel like they know exactly what they’re getting into when they book a room here. 5. AccountabilityAnother one of the core ethical standards for behavior is accountability. Stories of companies and executives doing everything they can to avoid accountability are all too common. From Enron to WorldCom, businesses like these show the opposite of what organizations should do when crises occur. However, companies that practice self-accountability hold themselves responsible for when things go wrong. They admit mistakes and do their best to correct them, which is more admirable than shifting blame onto others.As Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.” Too many companies try and refocus attention on why they shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions. Yet, organizations with accountable leaders play by a different set of ethics. By taking personal responsibility at all times, they learn from their mistakes and grow. Executives that don’t practice self-accountability, on the other hand, will more than likely make the same mistakes in the future.6. TeamworkThe ethical core value of teamwork doesn’t just entail people working toward a common goal. It deals with respect and concern for other group members. Strong teams brainstorm with each other, collaborate, and support one another in achieving goals, which leads to greater ethics, productivity, progress, and innovation. In other words, team members make each other and the companies they work for better. One example of teamwork in action involves multiple teams from Ford who needed to find ways to maintain the high quality of the Ford F-150 while improving it with better fuel efficiency. As the story goes, team members at the company worked closely together for a year and a half to hammer out ways to accomplish the task. The team effort grew to encompass more than a thousand people including designers, logistics experts, industry experts, and engineers. The result was 1.9 billion dollars in third-quarter earnings—a major increase from the previous year’s sales. Without teamwork, this accomplishment wouldn’t have been possible.7. Charity/KindnessCompanies can also demonstrate their commitment to ethical standards and morals through their charity work. Charity shows kindness to the community and the world at large. It also shows dedication to a cause bigger than the organization itself. Charity involves more than just devoting time and money. It encapsulates what ethics a company values and holds dear.Many companies combine their charitable work with their code of ethics. The clothing company Ivory Ella, for example, gives up to 50 percent of its net profits every year toward the goal of helping elephants throughout the world. In fact, the whole identity of the business revolves around the causes and ethics they support, which include national parks and saving the oceans. Thanks to their efforts, they’ve donated two million dollars to charities aimed at making the world a better place.8. LoyaltyLoyal companies act to earn customer loyalty through great ethics every day. That usually means providing high-quality products and excellent customer service. At a time when cybersecurity concerns grow by the day, it also means showing they can protect personal information from those with ill intent.Businesses that are loyal to their customers usually receive that loyalty back. Many know Apple fans as loyal buyers, and this is no coincidence. This loyalty comes from sharing common values and beliefs with their customers. By encouraging their target audience to be innovative creators, Apple inspires and motivates people to build a greater future together. This vision establishes an emotional connection between the company and its buyers. Additionally, the organization is well-known for never compromising the quality of its products. As a result, Apple bridges the gap between company loyalty, customer loyalty, and ethics.How to Promote Ethical Values at Your CompanyHave a code of ethics and morals you abide by.Don’t keep executive discussions a secret.Treat everyone fairly and equally.Foster leadership qualities that encourage business ethics.Be honest with coworkers and customers.Hold everyone accountable, including yourself.Build teams that work well together.Spend time and resources on a charitable cause.Build loyalty with your customers by being loyal to them.An Ethical Business is a Successful BusinessRecent studies show more companies realize the importance of moral values in the workplace. In a 2021 Global Business Ethics Survey, one in every five employees said their companies had a strong ethical culture. 20 years ago, this number was only one in 10. While this illustrates businesses are on the right track, these statistics reveal more work is still needed. To do this, have a personal code of ethics and promote ethical values. This makes people act as better leaders who are capable of guiding their organizations toward a sustainable, impactful future. For business owners and executives looking to increase their leadership skills while also growing their businesses, this is a win-win situation. Want to learn more about team building and ethics? Check out the following articles:Teamwork Quotes to Motivate and Inspire CollaborationThe Ideal Team Player: How to Grow an Effective TeamTeam Culture Guide: Building Bonds at WorkSourcesLeaders Media has established sourcing guidelines and relies on relevant, and credible sources for the data, facts, and expert insights and analysis we reference. You can learn more about our mission, ethics, and how we cite sources in our editorial policy.Jenkin, M. (2015, May 18). Millennials want to work for employers committed to values and ethics. The Guardian. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/05/millennials-employment-employers-values-ethics-jobs2016 Cone Communications Millennial Employee Engagement Study – Cone. (n.d.). Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://conecomm.com/2016-millennial-employee-engagement-study/10 bold examples of transparency in the workplace. (2021, October 13). Front. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://front.com/blog/10-bold-examples-of-transparency-in-the-workplace5 Inspiring Companies That Rely on Teamwork to Be Successful. (2016, February 16). Success. https://www.success.com/5-inspiring-companies-that-rely-on-teamwork-to-be-successful/Ella, I. (n.d.). Mission. Ivory Ella. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://ivoryella.com/pages/our-missionEthics and Compliance Initiative. (2022, May 25). 2021 Global Business Ethics Survey. Retrieved September 7, 2022, from https://www.ethics.org/global-business-ethics-survey/Home / Articles / What Are Ethical Values in Business?ShareFacebookTweetEmailLinkedInRelated ArticlesLearn the Winning Answers to the Most Common Phone Interview QuestionsThe phone interview—it’s one of the most critical steps in the hiring process in part because it’s often the first...Read moreWhat is a Sabbatical? Your Ticket to Restful Growth and MeaningSeven out of ten employees say that their company doesn’t do enough to alleviate work burnout, with 21% admitting that...Read moreThe Importance of a Strong Work Ethic and 5 Ways to Improve YoursIf you’ve ever faked being sick to get out of going to work, you’re not alone. One survey found that...Read more23 Character Traits: A List of The Good and Bad Traits You See at WorkAre you born a leader? Is anyone? Data suggests that leadership traits could be in your genetics, with 30%-60% of...Read moreShould You Sign a Non-Compete Agreement? The Benefits and Controversies of NCAsGetting a job at a prestigious company like Microsoft would normally be a cause for someone to celebrate, but when...Read moreHow to Write a Professional Bio that Best Represents YouIf you want a guaranteed recipe for writer's block, try writing a professional bio—between being taunted by a blinking cursor...Read moreWant Your Team to Excel? Try One of These 20 Employee Incentive ProgramsOne of the most persistent problems for companies all over the world is the lack of employee engagement. According to...Read moreEveryone Hates Bad Icebreaker Questions. Here Are 60 That Actually Work.It’s an all too familiar situation. You sit down to have a team meeting only for the manager to begin...Read moreRecent ArticlesHiringNov 1, 2023Learn the Winning Answers to the Most Common Phone Interview QuestionsCome to your next phone interview fully preparedPersonal GrowthOct 30, 202385 Quotes on Self-Love to Boost Your Self-EsteemDon’t fall into the trap of harsh self-criticismCompany CultureOct 27, 2023What is a Sabbatical? Your Ticket to Restful Growth and MeaningSabbaticals can benefits both employees and businessesBusinessLeadershipWealthJoin the Leaders CommunityGet exclusive tools and resources you need to grow as a leader and scale a purpose-driven business.EmailSubscribing indicates your consent to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Leaders.comPrivacy PolicyAboutCareersCookie PolicyTermsDisclosuresEditorial PolicyMember Login© 2024 Leaders.com - All rights reserved.Search Leaders.comSearch for:
Sear
Ethical Values and Personal Integrity | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Advertisement
Log in
Menu
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Search
Cart
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance pp 4191–4199Cite as
Home
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance
Reference work entry
Ethical Values and Personal Integrity
James L. Cook2
Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2023
57 Accesses
Synonyms
Integrity: character; Value: belief, principle
Definition
Ethical values are beliefs that provide guidelines for acting rightly in specific roles or for living morally in general. Personal integrity is consistently sound moral character.
Introduction
In addition to defining key terms, an account of ethical values and personal integrity must explain where ethical values can exist and where they originate; question whether values are ephemeral or enduring, and explain why some values endure while others do not; examine whether there is one greatest ethical value or if there are many values of equal importance; suggest how to resolve conflicts among ethical values; inquire whether values are relative or universal; clarify the relationship between ethical values and personal integrity; and point out obstacles to developing ethical values and personal integrity. This article sketches ways to approach each of these tasks by appealing to ancient and modern philosophy and moral...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
ReferencesAriely D (2010) Predictably irrational, revised and expanded edition: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Perennial, New York
Google Scholar
Aristotle (1934) Nicomachean ethics. Aristotle in 23 volumes, vol 19 (trans: Rackham H). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd, Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0054Berlin I (1958) Two concepts of liberty, inaugural lecture. University of Oxford. Reproduced in Berlin, Isaiah, Liberty, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002
Google Scholar
Capaldi N (1996) What philosophy can and cannot contribute to business ethics. J Priv Enterp 22(2):68–86
Google Scholar
Doris J (2005) Lack of character: personality and moral behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Haidt J (2012) The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books, New York
Google Scholar
Haidt J (2014, January 13) Can you teach businessmen to be ethical? The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/13/can-you-teach-businessmen-to-be-ethical/MacDonald B (2008/2009) Values-based leadership. Speech transcript. https://www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/company/purpose_people/values_based_leadership.pdf. See also “Values-Based Leadership”. Video presentation. http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/executive_team/values_based_leadership.shtmlPlato (1966) The apology. Plato in twelve volumes, vol 1 (trans: Fowler HN; Introduction: Lamb WRM). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D38aPlato (1967) Meno. Plato in twelve volumes, vol 3 (trans: Lamb WRM). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0178%3Atext%3DMenoPlato (1969) Republic. Plato. Plato in twelve volumes, vols 5 and 6 (trans: Shorey P). Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd., Cambridge, MA/London. Reproduced by the Perseus Project. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0168Rimington S (1994) Security and democracy: is there a conflict? Richard Dimble by Lecture. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/news/security-and-democracy-is-there-a-conflictRoss WD (1930) The right and the good. British moral philosophers series. Clarendon Press, Gloucestershire 2003. Part II, “What makes right acts right?” Reproduced at http://www.ditext.com/ross/right2.htmlWilson EO (2000) Sociobiology. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA
Google Scholar
Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsUS Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO, USAJames L. CookAuthorsJames L. CookView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
James L. Cook .Editor informationEditors and AffiliationsFlorida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USAAli Farazmand Rights and permissionsReprints and permissionsCopyright information© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AGAbout this entryCite this entryCook, J.L. (2022). Ethical Values and Personal Integrity.
In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_914Download citation.RIS.ENW.BIBDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_914Published: 06 April 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66251-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66252-3eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social SciencesShare this entryAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Publish with usPolicies and ethics
Access via your institution
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Search
Search by keyword or author
Search
Navigation
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Discover content
Journals A-Z
Books A-Z
Publish with us
Publish your research
Open access publishing
Products and services
Our products
Librarians
Societies
Partners and advertisers
Our imprints
Springer
Nature Portfolio
BMC
Palgrave Macmillan
Apress
Your privacy choices/Manage cookies
Your US state privacy rights
Accessibility statement
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Help and support
49.157.13.121
Not affiliated
© 2024 Springer Nature
Ethics | Definition, History, Examples, Types, Philosophy, & Facts | Britannica
Search Britannica
Click here to search
Search Britannica
Click here to search
Login
Subscribe
Subscribe
Home
Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Money
Videos
On This Day
One Good Fact
Dictionary
New Articles
History & Society
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Science & Tech
Health & Medicine
Science
Technology
Biographies
Browse Biographies
Animals & Nature
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Mammals
Plants
Geography & Travel
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Literature
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Companions
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Lists
Podcasts
Spotlights
Summaries
The Forum
Top Questions
#WTFact
100 Women
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Home
Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Money
Videos
ethics
Table of Contents
ethics
Table of Contents
Introduction & Top QuestionsThe origins of ethicsMythical accountsIntroduction of moral codesProblems of divine originPrehuman ethicsNonhuman behaviourKinship and reciprocityAnthropology and ethicsThe history of Western ethicsAncient civilizations to the end of the 19th centuryThe ancient Middle East and AsiaThe Middle EastIndiaChinaAncient and Classical GreeceAncient GreeceSocratesPlatoAristotleLater Greek and Roman ethicsThe StoicsThe EpicureansChristian ethics from the New Testament to the ScholasticsEthics in the New TestamentSt. AugustineSt. Thomas Aquinas and the ScholasticsThe Renaissance and the ReformationMachiavelliThe first ProtestantsThe British tradition from Hobbes to the utilitariansHobbesEarly intuitionists: Cudworth, More, and ClarkeShaftesbury and the moral sense schoolButler on self-interest and conscienceThe climax of moral sense theory: Hutcheson and HumeThe intuitionist response: Price and ReidUtilitarianismPaleyBenthamMillSidgwickThe Continental tradition from Spinoza to NietzscheSpinozaLeibnizRousseauKantHegelMarxNietzscheWestern ethics from the beginning of the 20th centuryMetaethicsMoore and the naturalistic fallacyModern intuitionismEmotivismExistentialismUniversal prescriptivismLater developments in metaethicsMoral realismKantian constructivism: a middle ground?Irrealist views: projectivism and expressivismEthics and reasons for actionNormative ethicsThe debate over consequentialismVarieties of consequentialismObjections to consequentialismAn ethics of prima facie dutiesRawls’s theory of justiceRights theoriesNatural law ethicsVirtue ethicsFeminist ethicsEthical egoismApplied ethicsEqualityAnimalsEnvironmental ethicsWar and peaceAbortion, euthanasia, and the value of human lifeBioethics
References & Edit History
Quick Facts & Related Topics
Images
For Students
ethics summary
Related Questions
What is ethics?
How is ethics different from morality?
Why does ethics matter?
Is ethics a social science?
What did Aristotle do?
Read Next
Philosophers to Know, Part I
What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?
Plato and Aristotle: How Do They Differ?
What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?
Order in the Court: 10 “Trials of the Century”
Discover
Causes of the Great Depression
Periods of American Literature
Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement
What’s the Difference Between Bison and Buffalo?
Why Doesn’t Arizona Observe Daylight Saving Time?
Ten Days That Vanished: The Switch to the Gregorian Calendar
New Seven Wonders of the World
Home
Philosophy & Religion
Ethical Issues
History & Society
ethics
philosophy
Actions
Cite
verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies.
Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style
MLA
APA
Chicago Manual of Style
Copy Citation
Share
Share
Share to social media
URL
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy
Give Feedback
External Websites
Feedback
Corrections? Updates? Omissions? Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login).
Feedback Type
Select a type (Required)
Factual Correction
Spelling/Grammar Correction
Link Correction
Additional Information
Other
Your Feedback
Submit Feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External Websites
Business LibreTexts - What is Ethics?
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Ethics and Contrastivism
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics
VIVA Open Publishing - Ethics and Society - Ethical Behavior and Moral Values in Everyday Life
Philosophy Basics - Ethics
American Medical Association - Journal of Ethics - Triage and Ethics
Psychology Today - Ethics and Morality
Government of Canada - Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat - What is ethics?
Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Ethics
Britannica Websites
Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students.
ethics and morality - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Please select which sections you would like to print:
Table Of Contents
Cite
verifiedCite
While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies.
Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style
MLA
APA
Chicago Manual of Style
Copy Citation
Share
Share
Share to social media
URL
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy
Feedback
External Websites
Feedback
Corrections? Updates? Omissions? Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login).
Feedback Type
Select a type (Required)
Factual Correction
Spelling/Grammar Correction
Link Correction
Additional Information
Other
Your Feedback
Submit Feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External Websites
Business LibreTexts - What is Ethics?
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Ethics and Contrastivism
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics
VIVA Open Publishing - Ethics and Society - Ethical Behavior and Moral Values in Everyday Life
Philosophy Basics - Ethics
American Medical Association - Journal of Ethics - Triage and Ethics
Psychology Today - Ethics and Morality
Government of Canada - Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat - What is ethics?
Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Ethics
Britannica Websites
Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students.
ethics and morality - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Also known as: moral philosophy
Written by
Peter Singer
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. A specialist in applied ethics, he approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference-utilitarian...
Peter Singer
Fact-checked by
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Last Updated:
Feb 14, 2024
•
Article History
Table of Contents
Code of Hammurabi
See all media
Category:
History & Society
Also called:
moral philosophy
(Show more)
Key People:
Socrates
Aristotle
Plato
St. Augustine
Immanuel Kant
(Show more)
Related Topics:
history of ethics
Trolley problem
legal ethics
biocentrism
optimism
(Show more)
On the Web:
VIVA Open Publishing - Ethics and Society - Ethical Behavior and Moral Values in Everyday Life (Feb. 14, 2024)
(Show more)
See all related content →
Top Questions
What is ethics?The term ethics may refer to the philosophical study of the concepts of moral right and wrong and moral good and bad, to any philosophical theory of what is morally right and wrong or morally good and bad, and to any system or code of moral rules, principles, or values. The last may be associated with particular religions, cultures, professions, or virtually any other group that is at least partly characterized by its moral outlook.How is ethics different from morality?Traditionally, ethics referred to the philosophical study of morality, the latter being a more or less systematic set of beliefs, usually held in common by a group, about how people should live. Ethics also referred to particular philosophical theories of morality. Later the term was applied to particular (and narrower) moral codes or value systems. Ethics and morality are now used almost interchangeably in many contexts, but the name of the philosophical study remains ethics.Why does ethics matter?Ethics matters because (1) it is part of how many groups define themselves and thus part of the identity of their individual members, (2) other-regarding values in most ethical systems both reflect and foster close human relationships and mutual respect and trust, and (3) it could be “rational” for a self-interested person to be moral, because his or her self-interest is arguably best served in the long run by reciprocating the moral behaviour of others.Is ethics a social science?No. Understood as equivalent to morality, ethics could be studied as a social-psychological or historical phenomenon, but in that case it would be an object of social-scientific study, not a social science in itself. Understood as the philosophical study of moral concepts, ethics is a branch of philosophy, not of social science.ethics, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles.(Read Britannica’s biography of this author, Peter Singer.)How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions that face us: is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? Is going to war justified in cases where it is likely that innocent people will be killed? Is it wrong to clone a human being or to destroy human embryos in medical research? What are our obligations, if any, to the generations of humans who will come after us and to the nonhuman animals with whom we share the planet?Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong.The terms ethics and morality are closely related. It is now common to refer to ethical judgments or to ethical principles where it once would have been more accurate to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. In earlier usage, the term referred not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy.Although ethics has always been viewed as a branch of philosophy, its all-embracing practical nature links it with many other areas of study, including anthropology, biology, economics, history, politics, sociology, and theology. Yet, ethics remains distinct from such disciplines because it is not a matter of factual knowledge in the way that the sciences and other branches of inquiry are. Rather, it has to do with determining the nature of normative theories and applying these sets of principles to practical moral problems.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.
Subscribe Now
This article, then, will deal with ethics as a field of philosophy, especially as it has developed in the West. For coverage of religious conceptions of ethics and the ethical systems associated with world religions, see Buddhism; Christianity; Confucianism; Hinduism; Jainism; Judaism; Sikhism. The origins of ethics Mythical accounts Introduction of moral codes When did ethics begin and how did it originate? If one has in mind ethics proper—i.e., the systematic study of what is morally right and wrong—it is clear that ethics could have come into existence only when human beings started to reflect on the best way to live. This reflective stage emerged long after human societies had developed some kind of morality, usually in the form of customary standards of right and wrong conduct. The process of reflection tended to arise from such customs, even if in the end it may have found them wanting. Accordingly, ethics began with the introduction of the first moral codes. Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi (died c. 1750 bce), known as the Code of Hammurabi. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) account of God’s giving the Ten Commandments to Moses (flourished 14th–13th century bce) on Mount Sinai might be considered another example. In the dialogue Protagoras by Plato (428/427–348/347 bce), there is an avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who were physically no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies, Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another. That morality should be invested with all the mystery and power of divine origin is not surprising. Nothing else could provide such strong reasons for accepting the moral law. By attributing a divine origin to morality, the priesthood became its interpreter and guardian and thereby secured for itself a power that it would not readily relinquish. This link between morality and religion has been so firmly forged that it is still sometimes asserted that there can be no morality without religion. According to this view, ethics is not an independent field of study but rather a branch of theology (see moral theology).
There is some difficulty, already known to Plato, with the view that morality was created by a divine power. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that, if this were the case, one could not say that the gods approve of such actions because they are good. Why then do they approve of them? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some standards of right or wrong that are independent of the likes and dislikes of the gods. Modern philosophers have generally accepted Plato’s argument, because the alternative implies that if, for example, the gods had happened to approve of torturing children and to disapprove of helping one’s neighbours, then torture would have been good and neighbourliness bad.
Ethical Values | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Advertisement
Log in
Menu
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Search
Cart
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance pp 4187–4191Cite as
Home
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance
Reference work entry
Ethical Values
George Reed2
Reference work entry
First Online: 01 January 2023
9 Accesses
Synonyms
Ethical code; Moral principles; Principals; Professional ethics; Value-system; Virtue
The field of ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that attempts to develop concepts, rules, principles, and standards of right conduct. The subset of ethics known as professional ethics seeks to discern a well-reasoned approach for practitioners who are charged with carrying out functions of professional activity as honorably and forthrightly as possible (Cook 2008). Public administrators are not necessarily trained as ethicists, but they are confronted on a daily basis with decisions that have significant implications for the communities they serve. Values are an important concept when discussing right and wrong, and this is especially so in public administration due to the myriad conflicts and dilemmas inherent in the public sector. As an example, it is good to protect the rights of individual property owners, and it is also good to ensure access to land for expansion of infrastructure...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
ReferencesAbbott A (1988) The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert labor. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoBook
Google Scholar
American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) (2013) ASPA code of ethics. http://www.aspanet.org/public/ASPA/About_ASPA/Code_of_Ethics/ASPA/Resources/Code_of_Ethics/Code_of_Ethics1.aspx?hkey=222cd7a5-3997-425a-8a12-5284f81046a8. Accessed 22 Dec 2015Bozeman B (2007) Public values and public interest: counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC 38(13)
Google Scholar
Cook M (2008) Revolt of the generals: a case study in professional ethics. Parameters 4–14
Google Scholar
Fredrickson HG (1972) Toward a new public administration. In: Scranton FM (ed) Toward a new public administration. Chandler Publications, New York, pp 309–331
Google Scholar
Garofalo C, Geuras D (2007) Ethics in the public service; the moral mind at work. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC
Google Scholar
Gawthrop LC (2009) Public service, ethics, and democracy. Foundations of public administration: public service, ethics and democracy. Public Administration Review. http://www.aspanet.org/public/ASPADocs/PAR/FPA/FPA-Ethics-Article.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015Molina DA, McKeown CL (2002) The heart of the profession: understanding public service values. J Public Aff Edu 18(2):375–396Article
Google Scholar
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) (2009) Accreditation standards for Master’s degree programs. https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditation-standards.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2015Rohr J (1989) Ethics for bureaucrats: an essay on law and values, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York
Google Scholar
Schein E (2010) Organizational culture and leadership, 4th edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Constitution Initiative. http://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp. Accessed 23 Dec 2015Van Wart M (1998) Changing public sector values. Garland, New York
Google Scholar
Waldo D (1988) The enterprise of public administration. Chandler and Sharp, Novato
Google Scholar
Wright BE (2001) Public-sector work motivation: a review of the current literature and a revised conceptual model. J Public Adm Res Theory 11(4):559–586Article
Google Scholar
Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsSchool of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USAGeorge ReedAuthorsGeorge ReedView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
George Reed .Editor informationEditors and AffiliationsFlorida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USAAli Farazmand Rights and permissionsReprints and permissionsCopyright information© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AGAbout this entryCite this entryReed, G. (2022). Ethical Values.
In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_942Download citation.RIS.ENW.BIBDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_942Published: 06 April 2023
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66251-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66252-3eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social SciencesShare this entryAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Publish with usPolicies and ethics
Access via your institution
Buying options
Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy Chapter
eBook
EUR 6,419.99
Price includes VAT (Philippines)
Available as EPUB and PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Buy eBook
Hardcover Book
EUR 5,999.99
Price excludes VAT (Philippines)
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Buy Hardcover Book
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Search
Search by keyword or author
Search
Navigation
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research
Discover content
Journals A-Z
Books A-Z
Publish with us
Publish your research
Open access publishing
Products and services
Our products
Librarians
Societies
Partners and advertisers
Our imprints
Springer
Nature Portfolio
BMC
Palgrave Macmillan
Apress
Your privacy choices/Manage cookies
Your US state privacy rights
Accessibility statement
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Help and support
49.157.13.121
Not affiliated
© 2024 Springer Nature
Value Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Menu
Browse
Table of Contents
What's New
Random Entry
Chronological
Archives
About
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Contact
Support SEP
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Navigation
Entry Contents
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top
Value TheoryFirst published Tue Feb 5, 2008; substantive revision Thu Mar 4, 2021
The term “value theory” is used in at least three
different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value
theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of
moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and
sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion —
whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some
“evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value
theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative
ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to
consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is
roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be
thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are
good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of
axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective
psychological states, or objective states of the world.
But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the
area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions
about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value.
The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also
includes many other questions about the nature of value and its
relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into
the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation,
cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into
normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its
own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain
of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the
normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of
investigation. This article surveys a range of the questions which
come up in the theory of value, and attempts to impose some structure
on the terrain by including some observations about how they are
related to one another.
1. Basic Questions
1.1 Varieties of Goodness
1.2 Good, Better, Bad
2. Traditional Questions
2.1 Intrinsic Value
2.2 Monism/Pluralism
2.3 Incommensurability/Incomparability
3. Relation to the Deontic
3.1 Teleology
3.2 Fitting Attitudes
3.3 Agent-Relative Value?
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
1. Basic Questions
The theory of value begins with a subject matter. It is hard to
specify in some general way exactly what counts, but it certainly
includes what we are talking about when we say any of the following
sorts of things (compare Ziff [1960]):
“pleasure is good/bad”; “it would be good/bad if you
did that”; “it is good/bad for him to talk to her”;
“too much cholesterol is good/bad for your health”;
“that is a good/bad knife”; “Jack is a good/bad
thief”; “he’s a good/bad man”;
“it’s good/bad that you came”; “it would be
better/worse if you didn’t”; “lettuce is
better/worse for you than Oreos”; “my new can opener is
better/worse than my old one”; “Mack is a better/worse
thief than Jack”; “it’s better/worse for it to end
now, than for us to get caught later”; “best/worst of all,
would be if they won the World Series and kept all of their
players for next year”; “celery is the best/worst thing
for your health”; “Mack is the best/worst thief
around”
The word “value” doesn’t appear anywhere on this
list; it is full, however, of “good”,
“better”, and “best”, and correspondingly of
“bad”, “worse”, and “worst”. And
these words are used in a number of different kinds of constructions,
of which we may take these four to be the main exemplars:
Pleasure is good.
It is good that you came.
It is good for him to talk to her.
That is a good knife.
Sentences like 1, in which “good” is predicated of a mass
term, constitute a central part of traditional axiology, in which
philosophers have wanted to know what things (of which there can be
more or less) are good. I’ll stipulatively call them value
claims, and use the word “stuff” for the kind of thing of
which they predicate value (like pleasure, knowledge, and money).
Sentences like 2 make claims about what I’ll (again
stipulatively) call goodness simpliciter; this is the kind of
goodness appealed to by traditional utilitarianism. Sentences like 3
are good for sentences, and when the subject following
“for” is a person, we usually take them to be claims about
welfare or well-being. And sentences like 4 are what, following Geach
[1956], I’ll call attributive uses of “good”,
because “good” functions as a predicate modifier, rather
than as a predicate in its own right.
Many of the basic issues in the theory of value begin with questions
or assumptions about how these various kinds of claim are related to
one another. Some of these are introduced in the next two sections,
focusing in 1.1 on the relationship between our four kinds of
sentences, and focusing in 1.2 on the relationship between
“good” and “better”, and between
“good” and “bad”.
1.1 Varieties of Goodness
Claims about good simpliciter are those which have garnered the
most attention in moral philosophy. This is partly because as it is
usually understood, these are the “good” claims that
consequentialists hold to have a bearing on what we ought to do.
Consequentialism, so understood, is the view that you ought to do
whatever action is such that it would be best if you did it. This
leaves, however, a wide variety of possible theories about how such
claims are related to other kinds of “good” claim.
1.1.1 Good Simpliciter and Good For
For example, consider a simple point of view theory, according
to which what is good simpliciter differs from what is good for
Jack, in that being good for Jack is being good from a certain point
of view — Jack’s — whereas being good
simpliciter is being good from a more general point of view
— the point of view of the universe (compare Nagel [1985]). The
point of view theory reduces both good for and good
simpliciter to good from the point of view of, and
understands good simpliciter claims as about the point of view
of the universe. One problem for this view is to make sense of what
sort of thing points of view could be, such that Jack and the universe
are both the kinds of thing to have one.
According to a different sort of theory, the agglomerative
theory, goodness simpliciter is just what you get by
“adding up” what is good for all of the various people
that there are. Rawls [1971] attributes this view to utilitarians, and
it fits with utilitarian discussions such as that of Smart’s
contribution to Smart and Williams [1973], but much more work would
have to be done in order to make it precise. We sometimes say things
like, “wearing that outfit in the sun all day is not going to be
good for your tan line”, but your tan line is not one of the
things whose good it seems plausible to “add up” in order
to get what is good simpliciter. Certainly it is not one of the
things whose good classical utilitarians would want to add up. So the
fact that sapient and even sentient beings are not the only kinds of
thing that things can be good or bad for sets an important constraint
both on accounts of the good for relation, and on theories
about how it is related to good simpliciter.
Rather than accounting for either of goodness simpliciter or
goodness-for in terms of the other, some philosophers have
taken one of these seriously at the expense of the other. For example,
Philippa Foot [1985] gives an important but compressed argument that
apparent talk about what is good simpliciter can be made
sense of as elliptical talk about what is good for some unmentioned
person, and Foot’s view can be strengthened (compare Shanklin
[2011], Finlay [2014]) by allowing that apparent good
simpliciter claims are often generically quantified
statements about what is, in general, good for a person. Thomson
[2008] famously defends a similar view.
G.E. Moore [1903], in contrast, struggled to make sense of good-for
claims. In his refutation of egoism, Moore attributed to ethical
egoists the theory that what is good for Jack (or “in
Jack’s good”) is just what is good and in Jack’s
possession, or alternatively, what it is good that Jack possesses.
Moore didn’t argue against these theses directly, but he did
show that they cannot be combined with universalizable egoism. It is
now generally recognized that to avoid Moore’s arguments,
egoists need only to reject these analyses of good for, which
are in any case unpromising (Smith [2003]).
1.1.2 Attributive Good
Other kinds of views understand good simpliciter in terms of
attributive good. What, after all, are the kinds of things to which we
attribute goodness simpliciter? According to many philosophers,
it is to propositions, or states of affairs. This is supported by a
cursory study of the examples we have considered, in which what is
being said to be good appears to be picked out by complementizers like
“if”, “that”, and “for”: “it
would be good if you did that”; “it’s good that you
came”; “it’s better for it to end now”. If
complementizer phrases denote propositions or possible states of
affairs, then it is reasonable to conjecture, along with Foot [1985]
that being good simpliciter is being a good state of affairs,
and hence that it is a special case of attributive good (if it makes
sense at all — Geach and Foot both argue that it does not, on
the ground that states of affairs are too thin of a kind to support
attributive good claims).
See the
Supplement on Four Complications about Attributive Good
for further complications that arise when we consider the attributive
sense of “good”.
Some philosophers have used the examples of attributive good and
good for in order to advance arguments against noncognitivist
metaethical theories (See the entry
cognitivism and non-cognitivism).
The basic outlines of such an argument go like this: noncognitivist
theories are designed to deal with good simpliciter, but have
some kind of difficulties accounting for attributive good or for
good for. Hence, there is a general problem with noncognitivist
theories, or at least a significant lacuna they leave. It has
similarly been worried that noncognitivist theories will have problems
accounting for so-called “agent-relative” value [see
section 4], again, apparently, because of its relational nature. There
is no place to consider this claim here, but note that it would be
surprising if relational uses of “good” like these were in
fact a deep or special problem for noncognitivism; Hare’s
account in The Language of Morals (Hare [1952]) was
specifically about attributive uses of “good”, and it is
not clear why relational noncognitive attitudes should be harder to
make sense of than relational beliefs.
1.1.3 Relational Strategies
In an extension of the strategies just discussed, some theorists have
proposed views of “good” which aspire to treat all of good
simpliciter, good for, and attributive good as special
cases. A paradigm of this approach is the “end-relational”
theory of Paul Ziff [1960] and Stephen Finlay [2004], [2014].
According to Ziff, all claims about goodness are relative to ends or
purposes, and “good for” and attributive
“good” sentences are simply different ways of making these
purposes (more or less) explicit. Talk about what is good for Jack,
for example, makes the purpose of Jack’s being happy (say)
explicit, while talk about what is a good knife makes our usual
purposes for knives (cutting things, say) explicit. The claim about
goodness is then relativized accordingly.
Views adopting this strategy need to develop in detail answers to just
what, exactly, the further, relational, parameter on
“good” is. Some hold that it is ends, while others
say things like “aims”. A filled-out version of this view
must also be able to tell us the mechanics of how these ends
can be made explicit in “good for” and attributive
“good” claims, and needs to really make sense of both of
those kinds of claim as of one very general kind. And, of course, this
sort of view yields the prediction that non-explicitly relativized
“good” sentences — including those used throughout
moral philosophy — are really only true or false once the end
parameter is specified, perhaps by context.
This means that this view is open to the objection that it fails to
account for a central class of uses of “good” in ethics,
which by all evidence are non-relative, and for which the
linguistic data do not support the hypothesis that they are
context-sensitive. J.L. Mackie held a view like this one and embraced
this result — Mackie’s [1977] error theory about
“good” extended only to such putative non-relational
senses of “good”. Though he grants that there are such
uses of “good”, Mackie concludes that they are mistaken.
Finlay [2014], in contrast, argues that he can use ordinary pragmatic
effects in order to explain the appearances. The apparently
non-relational senses of “good”, Finlay argues, really are
relational, and his theory aspires to explain why they seem
otherwise.
1.1.4 What’s Special About Value Claims
The sentences I have called “value claims” present special
complications. Unlike the other sorts of “good” sentences,
they do not appear to admit, in a natural way, of comparisons.
Suppose, for example, with G.E. Moore, that pleasure is good and
knowledge is good. Which, we might ask, is better? This question does
not appear to make very much sense, until we fix on some amount
of pleasure and some amount of knowledge. But if Sue is a good
dancer and Huw is a good dancer, then it makes perfect sense to ask
who is the better dancer, and without needing to fix on any particular
amount of dancing — much less on any amount of Sue or
Huw. In general, just as the kinds of thing that can be tall are the
same kinds of thing as can be taller than each other, the kinds of
thing that can be good are the same kinds of thing as can be better
than one another. But the sentences that we are calling “value
claims”, which predicate “good” of some stuff,
appear not to be like this.
One possible response to this observation, if it is taken seriously,
is to conclude that so-called “value claims” have a
different kind of logical form or structure. One way of implementing
this idea, the good-first theory, is to suppose that
“pleasure is good” means something roughly like,
“(other things equal) it is better for there to be more
pleasure”, rather than, “pleasure is better than most
things (in some relevant comparison class)”, on a model with
“Sue is a good dancer”, which means roughly, “Sue is
a better dancer than most (in some relevant comparison class)”.
According to a very different kind of theory, the value-first
theory, when we say that pleasure is good, we are saying that pleasure
is a value, and things are better just in case there is more of the
things which are values. These two theories offer competing orders of
explanation for the same phenomenon. The good-first theory analyzes
value claims in terms of “good” simpliciter, while the
value-first theory analyzes “good” simpliciter in
terms of value claims. The good-first theory corresponds to the thesis
that states of affairs are the “primary bearers” of value;
the value-first theory corresponds to the alternative thesis that it
is things like pleasure or goodness (or perhaps their instances) that
are the “primary bearers” of value.
According to a more skeptical view, sentences like “pleasure is
good” do not express a distinctive kind of claim at all, but are
merely what you get when you take a sentence like “pleasure is
good for Jill to experience”, generically quantify out Jill, and
ellipse “to experience”. Following an idea also developed
by Finlay [2014], Robert Shanklin [2011] argues that in general,
good-for sentences pattern with experiencer adjectives like
“fun”, which admit of these very syntactic
transformations: witness “Jack is fun for Jill to talk
to”, “Jack is fun to talk to”, “Jack is
fun”. This view debunks the issue over which the views discussed
in the last paragraph disagree, for it denies that there is any such
distinct topic for value claims to be about. (It may also explain the
failures of comparative forms, above, on the basis of differences in
the elided material.)
1.2 Good, Better, Bad
1.2.1 Good and Better
On a natural view, the relationship between “good”,
“better”, and “best” would seem to be the same
as that between “tall”, “taller”, and
“tallest”. “Tall” is a gradable adjective, and
“taller” is its comparative form. On standard views,
gradable adjectives are analyzed in terms of their comparative form.
At bottom is the relation of being taller than, and someone is
the tallest woman just in case she is taller than every woman.
Similarly, someone is tall, just in case she is taller than a
contextually appropriate standard (Kennedy [2005]), or taller than
sufficiently many (this many be vague) in some contextually
appropriate comparison class.
Much moral philosophy appears to assume that things are very different
for “good”, “better”, and “best”.
Instead of treating “better than” as basic, and something
as being good just in case it is better than sufficiently many in some
comparison class, philosophers very often assume, or write as if they
assume, that “good” is basic. For example, many theorists
have proposed analyses of what it is to be good which are
incompatible with the claim that “good” is to be
understood in terms of “better”. In the absence of some
reason to think that “good” is very different from
“tall”, however, this may be a very peculiar kind of claim
to make, and it may distort some other issues in the theory of
value.
1.2.2 Value
Moreover, it is difficult to see how one could do things the other way
around, and understand “better” in terms of
“good”. Jon is a better sprinter than Jan not because it
is more the case that Jon is a good sprinter than that Jan is a good
sprinter — they are both excellent sprinters, so neither one of
these is more the case than the other. It is, however, possible to see
how to understand both “good” and “better” in
terms of value. If good is to better as tall is to taller, then the
analogue of value should intuitively be height. One person is taller
than another just in case her height is greater; similarly, one state
of affairs is better than another just in case its value is greater.
If we postulate something called “value” to play this
role, then it is natural (though not obligatory) to identify value
with amounts of values — amounts of things like pleasure
or knowledge, which “value” claims claim to be good.
But this move appears to be implausible or unnecessary when applied to
attributive “good”. It is not particularly plausible that
there is such a thing as can-opener value, such that one can-opener is
better than another just in case it has more can-opener value. In
general, not all comparatives need be analyzable in terms of something
like height, of which there can be literally more or less. Take, for
example, the case of “scary”. The analogy with height
would yield the prediction that if one horror film is scarier than
another, it is because it has more of something — scariness
— than the other. This may be right, but it is not obviously so.
If it is not, then the analogy need not hold for “good”
and its cognates, either. In this case, it may be that being better
than does not merely amount to having more value than.
1.2.3 Good and Bad
These questions, moreover, are related to others. For example,
“better” would appear to be the inverse relation of
“worse”. A is better than B just in case B is worse than
A. So if “good” is just “better than sufficiently
many” and “bad” is just “worse than
sufficiently many”, all of the interesting facts in the
neighborhood would seem to be captured by an assessment of what stands
in the better than relation to what. The same point goes if to
be good is just to be better than a contextually set standard. But it
has been held by many moral philosophers that an inventory of what is
better than what would still leave something interesting and important
out: what is good.
If this is right, then it is one important motivation for denying that
“good” can be understood in terms of “better”.
But it is important to be careful about this kind of argument.
Suppose, for example, that, as is commonly held about
“tall”, the relevant comparison class or standard for
“good” is somehow supplied by the context of utterance.
Then to know whether “that is good” is true, you do
need to know more than all of the facts about what is better than what
— you also need to know something about the comparison class or
standard that is supplied by the context of utterance. The assumption
that “good” is context-dependent in this way may therefore
itself be just the kind of thing to explain the intuition which drives
the preceding argument.
2. Traditional Questions
Traditional axiology seeks to investigate what things are good, how
good they are, and how their goodness is related to one another.
Whatever we take the “primary bearers” of value to be, one
of the central questions of traditional axiology is that of what
stuffs are good: what is of value.
2.1 Intrinsic Value
2.1.1 What is Intrinsic Value?
Of course, the central question philosophers have been interested in,
is that of what is of intrinsic value, which is taken to
contrast with instrumental value. Paradigmatically, money is
supposed to be good, but not intrinsically good: it is supposed to be
good because it leads to other good things: HD TV’s and houses
in desirable school districts and vanilla lattes, for example. These
things, in turn, may only be good for what they lead to: exciting NFL
Sundays and adequate educations and caffeine highs, for example. And
those things, in turn, may be good only for what they lead to, but
eventually, it is argued, something must be good, and not just for
what it leads to. Such things are said to be intrinsically
good.
Philosophers’ adoption of the term “intrinsic” for
this distinction reflects a common theory, according to which whatever
is non-instrumentally good must be good in virtue of its intrinsic
properties. This idea is supported by a natural argument: if something
is good only because it is related to something else, the argument
goes, then it must be its relation to the other thing that is
non-instrumentally good, and the thing itself is good only because it
is needed in order to obtain this relation. The premise in this
argument is highly controversial (Schroeder [2005]), and in fact many
philosophers believe that something can be non-instrumentally good in
virtue of its relation to something else. Consequently, sometimes the
term “intrinsic” is reserved for what is good in virtue of
its intrinsic properties, or for the view that goodness itself
is an intrinsic property, and non-instrumental value is instead called
“telic” or “final” (Korsgaard [1983]).
I’ll stick to “intrinsic”, but keep in mind that
intrinsic goodness may not be an intrinsic property, and that what is
intrinsically good may turn out not to be so in virtue of its
intrinsic properties.
See the
Supplement on Atomism/Holism about Value
for further discussion of the implications of the assumption that
intrinsic value supervenes on intrinsic properties.
Instrumental value is also sometimes contrasted with
“constitutive” value. The idea behind this distinction is
that instrumental values lead causally to intrinsic values,
while constitutive values amount to intrinsic values. For
example, my giving you money, or a latte, may causally result in your
experiencing pleasure, whereas your experiencing pleasure may
constitute, without causing, your being happy. For many
purposes this distinction is not very important and often not noted,
and constitutive values can be thought, along with instrumental
values, as things that are ways of getting something of intrinsic
value. I’ll use “instrumental” in a broad sense, to
include such values.
2.1.2 What is the Intrinsic/Instrumental Distinction Among?
I have assumed, here, that the intrinsic/instrumental distinction is
among what I have been calling “value claims”, such as
“pleasure is good”, rather than among one of the other
kinds of uses of “good” from part 1. It does not make
sense, for example, to say that something is a good can opener, but
only instrumentally, or that Sue is a good dancer, but only
instrumentally. Perhaps it does make sense to say that vitamins are
good for Jack, but only instrumentally; if that is right, then the
instrumental/intrinsic distinction will be more general, and it may
tell us something about the structure of and relationship between the
different senses of “good”, to look at which uses of
“good” allow an intrinsic/instrumental distinction.
It is sometimes said that consequentialists, since they appeal to
claims about what is good simpliciter in their explanatory
theories, are committed to holding that states of affairs are the
“primary” bearers of value, and hence are the only things
of intrinsic value. This is not right. First, consequentialists can
appeal in their explanatory moral theory to facts about what state of
affairs would be best, without holding that states of affairs are the
“primary” bearers of value; instead of having a
“good-first” theory, they may have a
“value-first” theory (see section 1.1.4), according to
which states of affairs are good or bad in virtue of there
being more things of value in them. Moreover, even those who take a
“good-first” theory are not really committed to holding
that it is states of affairs that are intrinsically valuable; states
of affairs are not, after all, something that you can collect more or
less of. So they are not really in parallel to pleasure or
knowledge.
For more discussion of intrinsic value, see the entry on
intrinsic vs. extrinsic value.
2.2 Monism/Pluralism
One of the oldest questions in the theory of value is that of whether
there is more than one fundamental (intrinsic) value. Monists say
“no”, and pluralists say “yes”. This question
only makes sense as a question about intrinsic values; clearly there
is more than one instrumental value, and monists and pluralists will
disagree, in many cases, not over whether something is of value, but
over whether its value is intrinsic. For example, as important
as he held the value of knowledge to be, Mill was committed to holding
that its value is instrumental, not intrinsic. G.E. Moore disagreed,
holding that knowledge is indeed a value, but an intrinsic one, and
this expanded Moore’s list of basic values. Mill’s theory
famously has a pluralistic element as well, in contrast with
Bentham’s, but whether Mill properly counts as a pluralist about
value depends on whether his view was that there is only one value
— happiness — but two different kinds of pleasure which
contribute to it, one more effectively than the other, or whether his
view was that each kind of pleasure is a distinctive value. This point
will be important in what follows.
2.2.1 Ontology and Explanation
At least three quite different sorts of issues are at stake in this
debate. First is an ontological/explanatory issue. Some monists have
held that a plural list of values would be explanatorily
unsatisfactory. If pleasure and knowledge are both values, they have
held, there remains a further question to be asked: why? If this
question has an answer, some have thought, it must be because there is
a further, more basic, value under which the explanation subsumes both
pleasure and knowledge. Hence, pluralist theories are either
explanatorily inadequate, or have not really located the basic
intrinsic values.
This argument relies on a highly controversial principle about how an
explanation of why something is a value must work — a very
similar principle to that which was appealed to in the argument that
intrinsic value must be an intrinsic property [section 2.1.1]. If this
principle is false, then an explanatory theory of why both
pleasure and knowledge are values can be offered which does not work
by subsuming them under a further, more fundamental value. Reductive
theories of what it is to be a value satisfy this description,
and other kinds of theory may do so, as well (Schroeder [2005]). If
one of these kinds of theory is correct, then even pluralists can
offer an explanation of why the basic values that they appeal to are
values.
2.2.2 Revisionary Commitments?
Moreover, against the monist, the pluralist can argue that the basic
posits to which her theory appeals are not different in kind
from those to which the monist appeals; they are only different in
number. This leads to the second major issue that is at stake
in the debate between monists and pluralists. Monistic theories carry
strong implications about what is of value. Given any monistic theory,
everything that is of value must be either the one intrinsic value, or
else must lead to the one intrinsic value. This means that if some
things that are intuitively of value, such as knowledge, do not, in
fact, always lead to what a theory holds to be the one intrinsic value
(for example, pleasure), then the theory is committed to denying that
these things are really always of value after all.
Confronted with these kinds of difficulties in subsuming everything
that is pre-theoretically of value under one master value, pluralists
don’t fret: they simply add to their list of basic intrinsic
values, and hence can be more confident in preserving the
pre-theoretical phenomena. Monists, in contrast, have a choice. They
can change their mind about the basic intrinsic value and try all over
again, they can work on developing resourceful arguments that
knowledge really does lead to pleasure, or they can bite the bullet
and conclude that knowledge is really not, after all, always good, but
only under certain specific conditions. If the explanatory commitments
of the pluralist are not different in kind from those of the
monist, but only different in number, then it is natural for
the pluralist to think that this kind of slavish adherence to the
number one is a kind of fetish it is better to do without, if we want
to develop a theory that gets things right. This is a
perspective that many historical pluralists have shared.
2.2.3 Incommensurability
The third important issue in the debate between monists and
pluralists, and the most central over recent decades, is that over the
relationship between pluralism and incommensurability. If one state of
affairs is better than another just in case it contains more value
than the other, and there are two or more basic intrinsic values, then
it is not clear how two states of affairs can be compared, if one
contains more of the first value, but the other contains more of the
second. Which state of affairs is better, under such a circumstance?
In contrast, if there is only one intrinsic value, then this
can’t happen: the state of affairs that is better is the one
that has more of the basic intrinsic value, whatever that is.
Reasoning like this has led some philosophers to believe that
pluralism is the key to explaining the complexity of real moral
situations and the genuine tradeoffs that they involve. If some things
really are incomparable or incommensurable, they reason, then
pluralism about value could explain why. Very similar reasoning
has led other philosophers, however, to the view that monism
has to be right: practical wisdom requires being able to make
choices, even in complicated situations, they argue. But that would be
impossible, if the options available in some choice were incomparable
in this way. So if pluralism leads to this kind of incomparability,
then pluralism must be false.
In the next section, we’ll consider the debate over the
comparability of values on which this question hinges. But even if we
grant all of the assumptions on both sides so far, monists have the
better of these two arguments. Value pluralism may be one way
to obtain incomparable options, but there could be other ways, even
consistently with value monism. For example, take the interpretation
of Mill on which he believes that there is only one intrinsic value
— happiness — but that happiness is a complicated sort of
thing, which can happen in each of two different ways — either
through higher pleasures, or through lower pleasures. If Mill has this
view, and holds, further, that it is in some cases indeterminate
whether someone who has slightly more higher pleasures is happier than
someone who has quite a few more lower pleasures, then he can explain
why it is indeterminate whether it is better to be the first way or
the second way, without having to appeal to pluralism in his theory of
value. The pluralism would be within his theory of
happiness alone.
See a more detailed discussion in the entry on
value pluralism.
2.3 Incommensurability/Incomparability
We have just seen that one of the issues at stake in the debate
between monists and pluralists about value turns on the question
(vaguely put) of whether values can be incomparable or
incommensurable. This is consequently an area of active dispute in its
own right. There are, in fact, many distinct issues in this debate,
and sometimes several of them are run together.
2.3.1 Is there Weak Incomparability?
One of the most important questions at stake is whether it must always
be true, for two states of affairs, that things would be better if the
first obtained than if the second did, that things would be better if
the second obtained than if the first did, or that things would be
equally good if either obtained. The claim that it can sometimes
happen that none of these is true is sometimes referred to as the
claim of incomparability, in this case as applied to good
simpliciter. Ruth Chang [2002] has argued that in addition to
“better than”, “worse than”, and
“equally good”, there is a fourth “positive value
relation”, which she calls parity. Chang reserves the use
of “incomparable” to apply more narrowly, to the
possibility that in addition to none of the other three relations
holding between them, it is possible that two states of affairs may
fail even to be “on a par”. However, we can distinguish
between weak incomparability, defined as above, and
strong incomparability, further requiring the lack of parity,
whatever that turns out to be. Since the notion of parity is
itself a theoretical idea about how to account for what happens when
the other three relations fail to obtain, a question which I
won’t pursue here, it will be weak incomparability that will
interest us here.
It is important to distinguish the question of whether good
simpliciter admits of incomparability from the question of
whether good for and attributive good admit of incomparability.
Many discussions of the incomparability of values proceed at a very
abstract level, and interchange examples of each of these kinds of
value claims. For example, a typical example of a purported
incomparability might compare, say, Mozart to Rodin. Is Mozart a
better artist than Rodin? Is Rodin a better artist than Mozart? Are
they equally good? If none of these is the case, then we have an
example of incomparability in attributive good, but not an example of
incomparability in good simpliciter. These questions may be
parallel or closely related, and investigation of each may be
instructive in consideration of the other, but they still need to be
kept separate.
For example, one important argument against the incomparability of
value was mentioned in the previous section. It is that
incomparability would rule out the possibility of practical wisdom,
because practical wisdom requires the ability to make correct choices
even in complicated choice situations. Choices are presumably between
actions, or between possible consequences of those actions. So it
could be that attributive good is sometimes incomparable, because
neither Mozart nor Rodin is a better artist than the other and they
are not equally good, but that good simpliciter is always
comparable, so that there is always an answer as to which of two
actions would lead to an outcome that is better.
2.3.2 What Happens when there is Weak Incomparability?
Even once it is agreed that good simpliciter is incomparable in
this sense, many theories have been offered as to what that
incomparability involves and why it exists. One important constraint
on such theories is that they not predict more incomparabilities than
we really observe. For example, though Rodin may not be a better or
worse artist than Mozart, nor equally good, he is certainly a better
artist than Salieri — even though Salieri, like Mozart, is a
better composer than Rodin. This is a problem for the idea that
incomparability can be explained by value pluralism. The argument from
value pluralism to incomparability suggested that it would be
impossible to compare any two states of affairs where one contained
more of one basic value and the other contained more of another. But
cases like that of Rodin and Salieri show that the explanation of what
is incomparable between Rodin and Mozart can’t simply be that
since Rodin is a better sculptor and Mozart is a better composer,
there is no way of settling who is the better artist. If that were the
correct explanation, then Rodin and Salieri would also be
incomparable, but intuitively, they are not. Constraints like these
can narrow down the viable theories about what is going on in cases of
incomparability, and are evidence that incomparability is probably not
going to be straightforwardly explained by value pluralism.
There are many other kinds of theses that go under the title of the
incomparability or incommensurability of values. For example, some
theories which posit lexical orderings are said to commit to
“incomparabilities”. Kant’s thesis that rational
agents have a dignity and not a price is often taken to be a thesis
about a kind of incommensurability, as well. Some have interpreted
Kant to be holding simply that respect for rational agents is of
infinite value, or that it is to be lexically ordered over the value
of anything else. Another thesis in the neighborhood, however, would
be somewhat weaker. It might be that a human life is “above
price” in the sense that killing one to save one is not an
acceptable exchange, but that for some positive value of \(n\),
killing one to save \(n\) would be an acceptable exchange. On this
view, there is no single “exchange value” for a life,
because the value of a human life depends on whether you are
“buying” or “selling” — it is higher
when you are going to take it away, but lower when you are going to
preserve it. Such a view would intelligibly count as a kind of
“incommensurability”, because it sets no single value on
human lives.
A more detailed discussion of the commensurability of values can be
found in the entry on
incommensurable values.
3. Relation to the Deontic
One of the biggest and most important questions about value is the
matter of its relation to the deontic — to categories like
right, reason, rational, just, and
ought. According to teleological views, of which
classical consequentialism and universalizable egoism are classic
examples, deontic categories are posterior to and to be explained in
terms of evaluative categories like good and good for.
The contrasting view, according to which deontic categories are prior
to, and explain, the evaluative categories, is one which, as Aristotle
says, has no name. But its most important genus is that of
“fitting attitude” accounts, and Scanlon’s [1998]
“buck-passing” theory is another closely related
contemporary example.
3.1 Teleology
Teleological theories are not, strictly speaking, theories about
value. They are theories about right action, or about what one ought
to do. But they are committed to claims about value, because
they appeal to evaluative facts, in order to explain what is right and
wrong, and what we ought to do — deontic facts. The most
obvious consequence of these theories, is therefore that evaluative
facts must not then be explained in terms of deontic facts. The
evaluative, on such views, is prior to the deontic.
3.1.1 Classical Consequentialism
The most familiar sort of view falling under this umbrella is
classical consequentialism, sometimes called (for reasons
we’ll see in section 3.3) “agent-neutral
consequentialism”. According to classical consequentialism,
every agent ought always to do whatever action, out of all of the
actions available to her at that time, is the one such that if she did
it, things would be best. Not all defenders of consequentialism
interpret it in such classical terms; other prominent forms of
consequentialism focus on rules or motives, and evaluate actions only
derivatively.
Classical consequentialism is sometimes supported by appeal to the
intuition that one should always do the best action, and then the
assumption that actions are only instrumentally good or bad —
for the sake of what they lead to (compare especially Moore [1903]).
The problem with this reasoning is that non-consequentialists can
agree that agents ought always to do the best action. The important
feature of this claim to recognize is that it is a claim not about
intrinsic or instrumental value, but about attributive good. And as
noted in section 2.1, “instrumental” and
“intrinsic” don’t really apply to attributive good.
Just as how good of a can opener something is or how good of a
torturer someone is does not depend on how good the world is, as a
result of the fact that they exist, how good of an action something is
need not depend on how good the world is, as a result that it happens.
Indeed, if it did, then the evaluative standards governing actions
would be quite different from those governing nearly everything
else.
3.1.2 Problems in Principle vs. Problems of Implementation
Classical consequentialism, and its instantiation in the form of
utilitarianism, has been well-explored, and its advantages and costs
cannot be surveyed here. Many of the issues for classical
consequentialism, however, are issues for details of its exact
formulation or implementation, and not problems in principle
with its appeal to the evaluative in order to explain the deontic. For
example, the worry that consequentialism is too demanding has been
addressed within the consequentialist framework, by replacing
“best” with “good enough” — substituting
a “satisficing” conception for a “maximizing”
one (Slote [1989]). For another example, problems faced by certain
consequentialist theories, like traditional utilitarianism, about
accounting for things like justice can be solved by other
consequentialist theories, simply by adopting a more generous picture
about what sort of things contribute to how good things are (Sen
[1982]).
In section 3.3 we’ll address one of the most central issues
about classical consequentialism: its inability to allow for
agent-centered constraints. This issue does pose an
in-principle general problem for the aspiration of consequentialism to
explain deontic categories in terms of the evaluative. For more, see
the entry on
consequentialism and utilitarianism.
3.1.3 Other Teleological Theories
Universalizable egoism is another familiar teleological theory.
According to universalizable egoism, each agent ought always to do
whatever action has the feature that, of all available alternatives,
it is the one such that, were she to do it, things would be best
for her. Rather than asking agents to maximize the good, egoism
asks agents to maximize what is good for them. Universalizable
egoism shares many features with classical consequentialism, and
Sidgwick found both deeply attractive. Many others have joined
Sidgwick in holding that there is something deeply attractive about
what consequentialism and egoism have in common — which
involves, at minimum, the teleological idea that the deontic is to be
explained in terms of the evaluative (Portmore [2005]).
Of course, not all teleological theories share the broad features of
consequentialism and egoism. Classical Natural Law theories (Finnis
[1980], Murphy [2001]) are teleological, in the sense that they seek
to explain what we ought to do in terms of what is good, but they do
so in a very different way from consequentialism and egoism. According
to an example of such a Natural Law theory, there are a variety of
natural values, each of which calls for a certain kind of distinctive
response or respect, and agents ought always to act in ways that
respond to the values with that kind of respect. For more on natural
law theories, see the entry on
the natural law tradition in ethics.
And Barbara Hermann has prominently argued for interpreting
Kant’s ethical theory in teleological terms. For more on
Herman’s interpretation of Kant, see the entry on
Kant’s Moral Philosophy,
especially section 13. Philip Pettit [1997] prominently
distinguishes between values that we are called to
“promote” and those which call for other responses.
As Pettit notes, classical consequentialists hold that all values are
to be promoted, and one way of thinking of some of these other kinds
of teleological theories is that like consequentialism they explain
what we ought to do in terms of what is good, but unlike
consequentialism they hold that some kinds of good call for responses
other than promotion.
3.2 Fitting Attitudes
In contrast to teleological theories, which seek to account for
deontic categories in terms of evaluative ones, Fitting Attitudes
accounts aspire to account for evaluative categories — like good
simpliciter, good for, and attributive good — in
terms of the deontic. Whereas teleology has implications about
value but is not itself a theory primarily about value, but
rather about what is right, Fitting Attitudes accounts are
primarily theses about value — in accounting for it in terms of
the deontic, they tell us what it is for something to be good. Hence,
they are theories about the nature of value.
The basic idea behind all kinds of Fitting Attitudes account is that
“good” is closely linked to “desirable”.
“Desireable”, of course, in contrast to
“visible” and “audible”, which mean
“able to be seen” and “able to be heard”, does
not mean “able to be desired”. It means, rather, something
like “correctly desired” or “appropriately
desired”. If being good just is being desirable, and being
desirable just is being correctly or appropriately desired, it follows
that being good just is being correctly or appropriately desired. But
correct and appropriate are deontic concepts, so if
being good is just being desirable, then goodness can itself be
accounted for in terms of the deontic. And that is the basic idea
behind Fitting Attitudes accounts (Ewing [1947], Rabinowicz and
Rönnow-Rasmussen [2004]).
3.2.1 Two Fitting Attitudes Accounts
Different Fitting Attitudes accounts, however, work by appealing to
different deontic concepts. Some of the problems facing Fitting
Attitudes views can be exhibited by considering a couple exemplars.
According to a formula from Sidgwick, for example, the good is what
ought to be desired. But this slogan is not by itself very helpful
until we know more: desired by whom? By everyone? By at least someone?
By someone in particular? And for which of our senses of
“good” does this seek to provide an account? Is it an
account of good simpliciter, saying that it would be good if
\(p\) just in case ____ ought to desire that \(p\), where
“____” is filled in by whoever it is, who is supposed to
have the desire? Or is it an account of “value” claims,
saying that pleasure is good just in case pleasure ought to be desired
by ____?
The former of these two accounts would fit in with the
“good-first” theory from section 1.1.4; the latter would
fit in with the “value-first” theory. We observed in
section 1.1.4 that “value” claims don’t admit of
comparatives in the same way that other uses of “good” do;
this is important here because if “better” simpliciter is
prior to “good” simpliciter, then strictly speaking a
“good-first” theorist needs to offer a Fitting Attitudes
account of “better”, rather than of “good”.
Such a modification of the Sidgwickian slogan might say that it would
be better if \(p\) than if \(q\) just in case ____ ought to desire
that \(p\) more than that \(q\) (or alternatively, to prefer \(p\) to
\(q\)).
In What We Owe to Each Other, T.M. Scanlon offered an
influential contemporary view with much in common with Fitting
Attitudes accounts, which he called the Buck-Passing theory of
value. According to Scanlon’s slogan, “to call something
valuable is to say that it has other properties that provide reasons
for behaving in certain ways with respect to it.” One important
difference from Sidgwick’s view is that it appeals to a
different deontic concept: reasons instead of ought. But
it also aspires to be more neutral than Sidgwick’s slogan on the
specific response that is called for. Sidgwick’s slogan required
that it is desire that is always relevant, whereas
Scanlon’s slogan leaves open that there may be different
“certain ways” of responding to different kinds of
values.
But despite these differences, the Scanlonian slogan shares with the
Sidgwickian slogan the feature of being massively underspecified. For
which sense of “good” does it aspire to provide an
account? Is it really supposed to be directly an account of
“good”, or, if we respect the priority of
“better” to “good”, should we really try to
understand it as, at bottom, an account of “better than”?
And crucially, which are the “certain ways” that are
involved? It can’t just be that the speaker has to have some
certain ways in mind, because there are some ways of responding such
that reasons to respond in that way are evidence that the thing in
question is bad rather than that it is good — for
example, the attitude of dread. So does the theory require that
there is some particular set of certain ways, such that a thing is
good just in case there are reasons to respond to it in any of
those ways? Scanlon’s initial remarks suggest rather that
for each sort of thing, there are different “certain ways”
such that when we say that that thing is good, we are saying
that there are reasons to respond to it in those ways. This is a
matter that would need to be sorted out by any worked out view.
A further complication with the Scanlonian formula, is that appealing
in the analysis to the bare existential claim that there are
reasons to respond to something in one of these “certain
ways” faces large difficulties. Suppose, for example, that there
is some reason to respond in one of the “certain ways”,
but there are competing, and weightier, reasons not to, so that all
things considered, responding in any of the “certain ways”
would be a mistake. Plausibly, the thing under consideration should
not turn out to be good in such a case. So even a view like
Scanlon’s, which appeals to reasons, may need, once it is more
fully developed, to appeal to specific claims about the weight
of those reasons.
3.2.2 The Wrong Kind of Reason
Even once these kinds of questions are sorted out, however, other
significant questions remain. For example, one of the famous problems
facing such views is the Wrong Kind of Reasons problem (Crisp
[2000], Rabinowicz and Rönnow-Rasmussen [2004]). The problem
arises from the observation that intuitively, some factors can affect
what you ought to desire without affecting what is good. It may be
true that if we make something better, then other things being equal,
you ought to desire it more. But we can also create incentives
for you to desire it, without making it any better. For example, you
might be offered a substantial financial reward for desiring something
bad, or an evil demon might (credibly) threaten to kill your family
unless you do so. If these kinds of circumstances can affect what you
ought to desire, as is at least intuitively plausible, then they will
be counterexamples to views based on the Sidgwickian formula.
Similarly, if these kinds of circumstances can give you reasons
to desire the thing which is bad, then they will be counterexamples to
views based on the Scanlonian formula. It is in the context of the
Scanlonian formula that this issue has been called the “Wrong
Kind of Reasons” problem, because if these circumstances do give
you reasons to desire the thing that is bad, they are reasons of the
wrong kind to figure in a Scanlon-style account of what it is to be
good.
This issue has recently been the topic of much fruitful investigation,
and investigators have drawn parallels between the kinds of reason to
desire that are provided by these kinds of “external”
incentives and familiar issues about pragmatic reasons for belief and
the kind of reason to intend that exists in Gregory Kavka’s
Toxin Puzzle (Hieronymi [2005]). Focusing on the cases of desire,
belief, and intention, which are all kinds of mental state, some have
claimed that the distinction between the “right kind” and
“wrong kind” of reason can be drawn on the basis of the
distinction between “object-given” reasons, which refer to
the object of the attitude, and “state-given” reasons,
which refer to the mental state itself, rather than to its object
(Parfit [2001], Piller [2006]). But questions have also been raised
about whether the “object-given”/“state-given”
distinction is general enough to really explain the distinction
between reasons of the right kind and reasons of the wrong kind, and
it has even been disputed whether the distinction tracks anything at
all.
One reason to think that the distinction may not be general enough, is
that situations very much like Wrong Kind of Reasons situations can
arise even where no mental states are in play. For example, games are
subject to norms of correctness. External incentives to cheat —
for example, a credible threat from an evil demon that she will kill
your family unless you do so — can plausibly not only provide
you with reasons to cheat, but make it the case that you ought to. But
just as such external incentives don’t make it appropriate or
correct to desire something bad, they don’t make it a correct
move of the game to cheat (Schroeder [2010]). If this is right, and
the right kind/wrong kind distinction among reasons really does arise
in a broad spectrum of cases, including ones like this one, it is not
likely that a distinction that only applies to reasons for mental
states is going to lie at the bottom of it.
Further discussion of fitting attitudes accounts of
value and the wrong kind of reasons problem can be found in the entry
on
fitting attitude theories of value.
3.2.4 Application to the Varieties of Goodness
One significant attraction to Fitting Attitudes-style accounts, is
that they offer prospects of being successfully applied to attributive
good and good for, as well as to good simpliciter
(Darwall [2002], Rönnow-Rasmussen [2009], Suikkanen [2009]). Just
as reasons to prefer one state of affairs to another can underwrite
one state of affairs being better than another, reasons to choose one
can-opener over another can underwrite its being a better can opener
than the other, and reasons to prefer some state of affairs for
someone’s sake can underwrite its being better for that
person than another. For example, here is a quick sketch of what an
account might look like, which accepts the good-first theory from
section 1.1.4, holds as in section 1.1.2 that good simpliciter
is a special case of attributive good, and understands attributive
“good” in terms of attributive “better” and
“good for” in terms of “better for”:
Attributive better: For all kinds K, and things
A and B, for A to be a better K
than B is for the set of all of the right kind of reasons to
choose A over B when selecting a K to be
weightier than the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose
B over A when selecting a K.
Better for: For all things A, B, and
C, A is better for C than B is
just in case the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose
A over B on C’s behalf is weightier
than the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose B
over A on C’s behalf.
If being a good K is just being a better K than most (in some
comparison class), and “it would be good if \(p\)” just
means that \(p\)‘s obtaining is a good state of affairs, and
value claims like “pleasure is good” just mean that other
things being equal, it is better for there to be more pleasure, then
this pair of accounts has the right structure to account for the full
range of “good” claims that we have encountered. But it
also shows how the various senses of “good” are related,
and allows that even attributive good and good for have, at
bottom, a common shared structure. So the prospect of being able to
offer such a unified story about what the various senses of
“good” have in common, though not the exclusive property
of the Fitting Attitudes approach, is nevertheless one of its
attractions.
3.3 Agent-Relative Value?
3.3.1 Agent-Centered Constraints
The most central, in-principle problem for classical consequentialism
is the possibility of what are called agent-centered
constraints (Scheffler [1983]). It has long been a traditional
objection to utilitarian theories that because they place no intrinsic
disvalue on wrong actions like murder, they yield the prediction that
if you have a choice between murdering and allowing two people to die,
it is clear that you should murder. After all, other things being
equal, the situation is stacked 2-to-1 — there are two deaths on
one side, but only one death on the other, and each death is equally
bad.
Consequentialists who hold that killings of innocents are
intrinsically bad can avoid this prediction. As long as a murder is at
least twice as bad as an ordinary death not by murder,
consequentialists can explain why you ought not to murder, even in
order to prevent two deaths. So there is no in-principle problem for
consequentialism posed by this sort of example; whether it is an issue
for a given consequentialist depends on her axiology: on what she
thinks is intrinsically bad, and how bad she thinks it is.
But the problem is very closely related to a genuine problem for
consequentialism. What if you could prevent two murders by murdering?
Postulating an intrinsic disvalue to murders does nothing to account
for the intuition that you still ought not to murder, even in this
case. But most people find it pre-theoretically natural to assume that
even if you should murder in order to prevent thousands of murders,
you shouldn’t do it in order to prevent just two. The constraint
against murdering, on this natural intuition, goes beyond the idea
that murders are bad. It requires that the badness of your own murders
affects what you should do more than it affects what others should do
in order to prevent you from murdering. That is why it is called
“agent-centered”.
3.3.2 Agent-Relative Value
The problem with agent-centered constraints is that there seems to be
no single natural way of evaluating outcomes that yields all of the
right predictions. For each agent, there is some way of evaluating
outcomes that yields the right predictions about what she ought to do,
but these rankings treat that agent’s murders as contributing
more to the badness of outcomes than other agents’ murders. So
as a result, an incompatible ranking of outcomes appears to be
required in order to yield the right predictions about what some other
agent ought to do — namely, one which rates his murders
as contributing more to the badness of outcomes than the first
agent’s murders. (The situation is slightly more complicated
— Oddie and Milne [1991] prove that under pretty minimal
assumptions there is always some agent-neutral ranking that
yields the right consequentialist predictions, but their proof does
not show that this ranking has any independent plausibility, and Nair
[2014] argues that it cannot be an independently plausible account of
what is a better outcome.)
As a result of this observation, philosophers have postulated a thing
called agent-relative value. The idea of agent-relative value
is that if the better than relation is relativized to
agents, then outcomes in which Franz murders can be
worse-relative-to Franz than outcomes in which Jens murders,
even though outcomes in which Jens murders are worse-relative-to Jens
than outcomes in which Franz murders. These contrasting rankings of
these two kinds of outcomes are not incompatible, because each is
relativized to a different agent — the former to Franz, and the
latter to Jens.
The idea of agent-relative value is attractive to teleologists,
because it allows a view that is very similar in structure to
classical consequentialism to account for constraints. According to
this view, sometimes called Agent-Relative Teleology or
Agent-Centered Consequentialism, each agent ought always to do
what will bring about the results that are best-relative-to her. Such
a view can easily accommodate an agent-centered constraint not to
murder, on the assumption that each agent’s murders are
sufficiently worse-relative-to her than other agent’s murders
are (Sen [1983], Portmore [2007]).
Some philosophers have claimed that Agent-Relative Teleology is not
even a distinct theory from classical consequentialism, holding that
the word “good” in English picks out agent-relative value
in a context-dependent way, so that when consequentialists say,
“everyone ought to do what will have the best results”,
what they are really saying is that “everyone ought to do what
will have the best-relative-to-her results” (Smith [2003]). And
other philosophers have suggested that Agent-Relative Teleology is
such an attractive theory that everyone is really committed to it
(Dreier [1996]). These theses are bold claims in the theory of value,
because they tell us strong and surprising things about the nature of
what we are talking about, when we use the word,
“good”.
3.3.3 Problems and Prospects
In fact, it is highly controversial whether there is even such a thing
as agent-relative value in the first place. Agent-Relative
Teleologists typically appeal to a distinction between agent-relative
and agent-neutral value, but others have contested that no one has
ever successfully made such a distinction in a theory-neutral way
(Schroeder [2007]). Moreover, even if there is such a distinction,
relativizing “good” to agents is not sufficient to deal
with all intuitive cases of constraints, because common sense allows
that you ought not to murder, even in order to prevent yourself
from murdering twice in the future. In order to deal with such cases,
“good” will need to be relativized not just to agents, but
to times (Brook [1991]). Yet a further source of difficulties
arises for views according to which “good” in English is
used to make claims about agent-relative value in a context-dependent
way; such views fail ordinary tests for context-dependence, and
don’t always generate the readings of sentences which their
proponents require.
One of the motivations for thinking that there must be such a thing as
agent-relative value comes from proponents of Fitting Attitudes
accounts of value, and goes like this: if the good is what ought to be
desired, then there will be two kinds of good. What ought to be
desired by everyone will be the “agent-neutral” good, and
what ought to be desired by some particular person will be the good
relative-to that person. Ancestors of this idea can be found in
Sidgwick and Ewing, and it has found a number of contemporary
proponents. Whether it is right will turn not only on whether Fitting
Attitudes accounts turn out to be correct, but on what role the answer
to the questions, “who ought?” or “whose
reasons?” plays in the shape of an adequate Fitting Attitudes
account. All of these issues remain unresolved.
The questions of whether there is such a thing as agent-relative
value, and if so, what role it might play in an agent-centered variant
on classical consequentialism, are at the heart of the debate between
consequentialists and deontologists, and over the fundamental question
of the relative priority of the evaluative versus the deontic. These
are large and open questions, but as I hope I’ve illustrated
here, they are intimately interconnected with a very wide range of
both traditional and non-traditional questions in the theory of value,
broadly construed.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Brook, Richard, 1991. “Agency and Morality”,
Journal of Philosophy, 88: 190–212.
Brown, Campbell, 2007. “Two Kinds of Holism About
Values”, Philosophical Quarterly, 57: 456–463.
Chang, Ruth, 2002. “The Possibility of Parity”,
Ethics, 112: 659–688.
Crisp, Roger, 2000. “Review of Jon Kupperman, Value …
and what Follows”, Philosophy, 75: 458–462.
Dancy, Jonathan, 2004. Ethics Without Principles, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Darwall, Stephen, 2002. Welfare and Rational Care,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dreier, James, 1996. “Accepting Agent-Centered Norms”,
Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 409–422.
Ewing, A.C., 1947. The Definition of Good, London:
Macmillan.
Finlay, Stephen, 2004. “The Conversational Practicality of
Value Judgment”, The Journal of Ethics, 8:
205–223.
–––, 2014. A Confusion of Tongues, New
York: Oxford University Press.
Finnis, John, 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Foot, Philippa, 1985. “Utilitarianism and the
Virtues”, Mind, 94(2): 196–209.
Geach, Peter, 1956. “Good and Evil”, Analysis,
17: 33–42.
Hare, R.M., 1952. The Language of Morals, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hieronymi, Pamela, 2005. “The Wrong Kind of Reason”,
The Journal of Philosophy, 102: 437–457.
Kavka, Gregory, 1983. “The Toxin Puzzle”,
Analysis, 43: 33–36.
Korsgaard, Christine, 1983. “Two Distinctions in
Goodness”, Philosophical Review, 92: 169–195.
Mackie, J.L., 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, New
York: Penguin.
McHugh, Conor, and Jonathan Way, 2016. “Fittingness
First”, Ethics, 126(3): 575–606.
Mill, John Stuart, 1861. Utilitarianism, in Collected
Works of John Stuart Mill (Volume 29), J. M. Robson (ed.),
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 371–577.
Moore, G.E., 1993. Principia Ethica, revised edn.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, Mark, 2001. Natural Law and Practical Rationality,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagel, Thomas, 1985. The View From Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nair, Shyam, 2014. “A Fault Line in Ethical Theory”,
Philosophical Perspectives, 28: 173–200.
Oddie, Graham, and Peter Milne, 1991. “Act and Value:
Expectation and the Representability of Moral Theories”,
Theoria, 57: 42–76.
Parfit, Derek, 2001. “Rationality and Reasons”, in Dan
Egonsson, et al. (eds.), Exploring Practical Philosophy,
Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 17–39.
Pettit, Philip, 1997. “The Consequentialist
Perspective”, in M. Baron, P. Pettit, and M. Slote, eds.,
Three Methods of Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp.
92–174.
Piller, Christian, 2006. “Content-Related and
Attitude-Related Reasons for Preferences”, Philosophy,
81: 155–182.
Portmore, Douglas, 2005. “Combining Teleological Ethics with
Evaluator Relativism: A Promising Result”, Pacific
Philosophical Quarterly, 86: 95–113.
–––, 2007. “Consequentializing Moral
Theories”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88:
39–73.
Rabinowicz, Wlodek, and Toni Rönnow-Rasmussen, 2004.
“The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro-Attitudes and
Value”, Ethics, 114: 391–423.
Rawls, John, 1971. A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Rönnow-Rasmussen, Toni, 2009. Personal Value, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Scanlon, T.M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, Samuel, 1983. The Rejection of Consequentialism,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schroeder, Mark, 2005. Cudworth and Normative Explanations.
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, vol 1, issue 3.
www.jesp.org.
–––, 2007. “Teleology, Agent-Relative
Value, and ‘Good’”, Ethics, 116:
265–295.
–––, 2010. “Value and the Right Kind of
Reason”, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 5:
25–55.
Sen, Amartya, 1982. “Rights and Agency”, Philosophy
and Public Affairs, 11: 3–39.
–––, 1983. “Evaluator Relativity and
Consequential Evaluation”, Philosophy and Public Affairs,
12: 113–132.
Shanklin, Robert, 2011. On Good and ‘Good’,
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Sidgwick, Henry, 1907. The Methods of Ethics, 7th edition,
Indianapolis: Hackett.
Slote, Michael, 1989. Beyond Optimizing, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Smart, J.J.C. and Bernard Williams, 1973. Utilitarianism: For
and Against, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Michael, 2003. “Neutral and Relative Value After
Moore”, Ethics, 113: 576–598.
Suikkanen, Jussi, 2009. “Buck-Passing Accounts of
Value”, Philosophy Compass, 4: 768–779.
Szabo, Zoltan, 2001. “Adjectives in Context”, in
Kiefer, Kenesei, and Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on Semantics,
Pragmatics, and Discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Co, pp.
119–146.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 2008. Normativity, Chicago: Open
Court.
Ziff, Paul, 1960. Semantic Analysis, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Other Important Works
Anomaly, Jonathan, 2008. “Internal Reasons and the
Ought-Implies-Can Principle”, Philosophical Forum, 39:
469–83.
Bradley, Ben, 2006. “Two Concepts of Intrinsic Value”,
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 9: 111–130.
Broome, John, 1997. “Is Incommensurability
vagueness?”, in R. Chang (ed.), Incommensurability,
Incomparability, and Practical Reasoning, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, pp. 67–89.
Bykvist, Krister, 2009. “No Good Fit: Why the
Fitting-Attitude Analysis of Value Fails”, Mind, 118:
1–30.
Carlson, Erik, 1995. Consequentialism Reconsidered,
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chang, Ruth, 1997. “Introduction”, in R. Chang (ed.),
Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reasoning,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–34.
Crisp, Roger, 2005. “Value, Reasons, and the Structure of
Justification: How to Avoid Passing the Buck”, Analysis,
65: 80–85.
Dancy, Jonathan, 2003. “Are there Organic Unities?”
Ethics, 113: 629–650.
D’Arms, Justin, and Daniel Jacobson, 2000. “Sentiment
and Value”, Ethics, 110: 722–748.
–––, 2000b. “The Moralistic Fallacy: On
the ‘Appropriateness’ of Emotions”, Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, 61: 65–90.
Dorsey, Dale, 2012. “Intrinsic Value and the Supervenience
Principle”, Philosophical Studies, 157:
267–285.
Dreier, James, 1993. “The Structure of Normative
Theories”, The Monist, 76: 22–40.
–––, 2004. “Why Ethical Satisficing Makes
Sense and Rational Satisficing Doesn’t”, in Michael Byron
(ed.), Satisficing and Maximizing, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 131–154.
Fletcher, Guy, 2008. “Mill, Moore, and Intrinsic
Value”, Social Theory and Practice, 34:
517–532.
Heathwood, Chris, 2008. “Fitting Attitudes and
Welfare”, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 3:
47–73.
Hurka, Tom, 2010. “Asymmetries in Value”,
Noûs, 44: 199–223.
Kagan, Shelly, 1989. The Limits of Morality, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kamm, Frances, 1989. “Harming Some to Save Others”,
Philosophical Studies, 57: 227–260.
Kant, Immanuel, 1785. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of
Morals, Mary Gregor, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997.
Kraut, Richard, 2007. What is Good and Why: The Ethics of
Well-Being, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Langton, Rae, 2007. “Objective and Unconditioned
Value”, Philosophical Review, 116: 157–185.
Lemos, Noah, 1994. Intrinsic Value, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Louise, Jennie, 2004. “Relativity of Value and the
Consequentialist Umbrella”, Philosophical Quarterly, 54:
518–536.
Nagel, Thomas, 1970. The Possibility of Altruism,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Olson, Jonas, 2009. “Fitting Attitudes Analyses of Value and
the Partiality Challenge”, Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice, 12: 365–378.
Parfit, Derek, 1984. Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pettit, Philip, 1997. “The Consequentialist
Perspective”, in Baron, Pettit, and Slote, Three Methods of
Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 92–174.
Perry, R.B., 1926. General Theory of Value, New York:
Longmans, Green & Co.
Rabinowicz, Wlodek, 2008. “Value Relations”,
Theoria, 74: 18–49.
Raz, Joseph, 1999. Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and
Action, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ross, W.D., 1930. The Right and The Good, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stocker, Michael, 1990. Plural and Conflicting Values,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 2001. Goodness and Advice,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Urmson, J.O., 1967. The Emotive Theory of Ethics, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Väyrynen, Pekka, 2006. “Resisting the Buck-Passing
Account of Value”, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 1:
295–324.
Wedgwood, Ralph, 2009. “Intrinsic Values and Reasons for
Action”, in Ernest Sosa and Enrique Villanueva (eds.),
Philosophical Issues, 19: 321–342.
Zimmerman, Michael, 2001. The Nature of Intrinsic Value,
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Academic Tools
How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at the
Friends of the SEP Society.
Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry
at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
Enhanced bibliography for this entry
at PhilPapers, with links to its database.
Other Internet Resources
PEA Soup,
a blog dedicated to philosophy, ethics, and academia
Related Entries
cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism, moral |
consequentialism |
ethics: natural law tradition |
fitting attitude theories of value |
value: incommensurable |
value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic |
value: pluralism
Copyright © 2021 by
Mark Schroeder
Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
The Encyclopedia Now Needs Your Support
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free
Browse
Table of Contents
What's New
Random Entry
Chronological
Archives
About
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Accessibility
Contact
Support SEP
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Mirror Sites
View this site from another server:
USA (Main Site)
Philosophy, Stanford University
Info about mirror sites
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University
Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054
Ethical Values Every Professional Should Adopt
Just announced! Explore the agenda for Uplift 2024 | April 10–11 in SF
EN - US
English US
Deutsch
English GB
Français
For Business
How it works
Platform Overview
Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.
Integrations
Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.
Powered by AI
We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.
Products
BetterUp Lead
Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.
BetterUp Manage™
Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.
BetterUp Care™
Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.
Solutions
Sales Performance
Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.
Executive
Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.
Diversity & Inclusion
Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.
Government
Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.
Customers
Case Studies
See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.
Why BetterUp?
Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.
A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.
For Individuals
What is coaching?
About Coaching
Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.
Find your Coach
Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.
Types of Coaching
Career Coaching
Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.
Communications Coaching
Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.
Life Coaching
Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.
Discover your perfect match: Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.
Resources
Library
Guides & Reports
Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.
Events
View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.
Blog
BetterUp Blog
The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.
BetterUp Briefing
BetterUp Briefing
The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.
Research
BetterUp Labs
Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.
Center for Purpose & Performance
Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance
About
About Us
We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.
Careers
Join us and create impactful change.
News & Press
Read the buzz about BetterUp.
Leadership Team
Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.
Login
EN - US
EN - US
English US
Deutsch
English GB
Français
For Business
For Business
How it works
Platform Overview
Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.
Integrations
Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.
Powered by AI
We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.
Products
BetterUp Lead
Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.
BetterUp Manage™
Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.
BetterUp Care™
Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.
Solutions
Sales Performance
Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.
Executive
Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.
Diversity & Inclusion
Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.
Government
Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.
Customers
Case Studies
See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.
Why BetterUp?
Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.
For Individuals
For Individuals
What is coaching?
About Coaching
Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.
Find your Coach
Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.
Types of Coaching
Career Coaching
Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.
Communications Coaching
Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.
Life Coaching
Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.
Resources
Resources
Library
Guides & Reports
Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.
Events
View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.
Blog
BetterUp Blog
The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.
BetterUp Briefing
BetterUp Briefing
The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.
Research
BetterUp Labs
Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.
Center for Purpose & Performance
Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance
About
About
About Us
We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.
Careers
Join us and create impactful change.
News & Press
Read the buzz about BetterUp.
Leadership Team
Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.
Login
Blog
Professional Development
8 ethical values every professional should adopt
By Elizabeth Perry
June 2, 2023
- 16 min read
Share this article
Understand Yourself Better:
Big 5 Personality Test
Learn how to leverage your natural strengths to determine your next steps and meet your goals faster.
Take quiz
Understand Yourself Better:
Big 5 Personality Test
Learn how to leverage your natural strengths to determine your next steps and meet your goals faster.
Take quiz
Invest in yourself today
Jump to section
What are ethical values, and why are they important?
8 ethical value examples all professionals should adopt
8 benefits of ethical values in the workplace
Embrace your ethics
Your coworker asks you to cover up an oversight they made on a project that could potentially harm a client's reputation. A friend urges you to hire them over other contractors. You catch a well-liked colleague bullying their assistant.
When you think about moral problems, you might have an idealized view of how you’d respond. But upholding ethical values in the workplace involves more than taking the high road in difficult situations.
Your sense of values plays an integral role in guiding your most important decisions, from hiring staff to announcing layoffs and all the decision-making, policy-building, and goal setting in-between.
When an organization places ethics at the core of the business, it creates a culture of respect and transparency in the workplace. And when everyone commits to these high standards and holds themselves accountable for their actions, it positively impacts the organization and the ecosystem surrounding it.
What are ethical values, and why are they important?
Ethical values are an individual’s moral compass, guiding their actions and behaviors. The ethics one’s drawn toward are typically affected by their community, upbringing, and culture. In some cultures, it’s disrespectful to put your elbows on the table, and some societies are individualistic while others are community-oriented.
For a company, work ethics are guiding principles designed to serve the well-being of others over self-interest. You use these workplace ethics to inform your response to difficult, stressful, or potentially damaging situations.
A company’s ethical standards help leaders answer important questions like:
What sort of products and services can I sell?
What information must I reveal about my business?
Whose interests should my organization serve, and who should manage them?
What does an organization owe its workforce, and what do employees owe their employers?
Do businesses have a social responsibility to consumers and communities?
How can I best support my employees?
Ethical principles weren't always a part of the business equation. Traditionally, most businesses cared about hitting profits and considered themselves outside moral high grounds. But business ethics principles entered the conversation as a field of academic study, originating from moral philosophy in the 1970–80s, and slowly merged into more traditional business studies.
A code of ethics is foundational to running a successful company in today's business world. According to a 2022 survey by Deloitte, ethical issues like climate change, inequality, and work-life balance are among the top concerns of millennial and Gen Z workers.
According to the same study, 37% of Gen Z and 36% of millennial workers rejected a job or assignment because it didn't align with their personal values.
As both generations take up a larger share of the workforce, businesses and their employees must express their values to potential hires to showcase a company culture that respects workers' ethical behavior standards.
8 ethical value examples all professionals should adopt
Whether you want to self-reflect on your personal code of conduct, develop your skills as an ethical leader and lead by example, or audit your team’s ethical business practices, here are eight ethical values to consider.
1. Honesty
When you’re honest, you actively work to not deceive or mislead people — whether it's your coworkers, clients, or consumers. You avoid making promises you can't keep, don’t misrepresent your capabilities, and are sincere about your shortcomings.
Honesty is a core value of great leaders and team members, as it's foundational to how you communicate with others. You can use honest and transparent communication to provide constructive feedback that helps your coworkers grow, build rapport with colleagues and clients, and make ethical decisions that align with consumer values.
2. Integrity
Expressing integrity means you're committed to doing what's right, even if nobody credits you for it or people dislike it. This might mean avoiding a conflict of interest that could personally benefit you, complying with policies and regulations, and being consistent in your behavior and decision-making.
Imagine a company that bases all its decisions on its sustainability and environmental health commitments. Acting with integrity might include a business leader accepting higher operational costs for recyclable materials despite a lower bottom line or an employee biking to work as often as possible.
3. Charity
Companies and employees can express their commitment to ethical issues and core values by donating their money or time to charity. This shows kindness and support for a local community or global cause and that the organization cares about more than itself.
Charity also encourages employees to practice self-reflection, hold themselves accountable, and stimulate collaborative action. And giving back to the community pays it forward in happiness. People who volunteer their time report increased happiness levels, which can have a snowball effect on the organization.
4. Accountability
Accountability reflects self-awareness that your decisions and behaviors carry weight. Being accountable isn't just about accepting fault for adverse consequences. It also encourages you to contemplate how a potential decision affects others to guide you toward more ethical decision-making.
Being accountable also means taking ownership of your work and understanding where you fit into your team and employer’s overall success. When you hold yourself accountable, you strive to meet commitments, deliver on promises, and remain transparent about your progress and results.
Acting responsibly lets people know they can rely on you and your word, creating more powerful human connections based on mutual trust.
5. Respect
Mutual respect means showing coworkers you value and appreciate their work and including employees in decisions that impact them.
Respectfulness also means treating people with kindness and compassion, understanding that everyone comes from distinct backgrounds and perspectives, and being willing to learn from others' knowledge and experience.
Your ability to be respectful of others requires you to develop several interpersonal skills, like active listening, open-mindedness, and showing gratitude.
6. Fairness
Healthy workplaces promote level playing fields for everyone, regardless of their background or place in the company hierarchy. When fairness is a central pillar, you treat everyone with respect and offer them equal opportunities to succeed and advance in their career.
A few ways to stimulate fairness at work are clearly communicating decision-making processes like internal hiring or performance evaluations, developing objective conflict resolution policies, and encouraging your teammates to voice their opinions.
7. Courage
Standing up for what’s right isn't always easy, even when the correct answer is clear. It takes great courage to prioritize ethics when a decision is unpopular or backlash is strong.
This might include admitting you were wrong about something (even if it could result in disciplinary action), prioritizing ethical best practices over profits, or speaking up against discrimination, gender inequality, and hostile work environments.
Even if the decisions are tough, when you take a stand for what's right, you build a strong reputation for your ethical leadership values and encourage others to stand up for their principles, in turn promoting positive changes throughout your team.
8. Excellence
Striving for excellence means promoting a culture of learning and continuous development. Nobody’s perfect — we all make mistakes and have room to grow.
A couple of ways to create a culture of excellence in your workplace are hosting workshops to break down cognitive dissonance and learning about different types of innovation you can foster to help your company succeed.
8 benefits of ethical values in the workplace
Embracing high ethical values requires work and sacrifice, but it pays off. Here are eight benefits of implementing ethical values in the workplace:
Better decision-making: When you clearly understand your ethical code, making challenging decisions is easier. Knowing what you believe is right and wrong will help you depend on yourself rather than following others.
A greater sense of community: Workers want to feel a sense of belonging and connection to their work and coworkers. You can create this by expressing values concurrent with theirs so they feel connected to a shared vision.
Stronger self-esteem: Acting with integrity even when your decision is unpopular or unnoticed shows confidence and self-esteem. You’re expressing confidence in your ability to persevere on your own terms, even if ethical decisions don’t benefit you.
Fewer worries: When you make ethically-right decisions, you can rest easy knowing you have nothing to hide and that your work is positively impacting your community and setting the right example for other companies.
Increased trustworthiness: When you express high moral standards, your clients and colleagues respect you. This helps you connect with loyal consumers or collaborators who share your values and strive toward the same goals.
Sets the right tone: If you're a manager, your attitude, moral principles, and decision-making style show your workers how to operate. And if you're an employee, your devotion to your moral values inspires others to stand up for what's right and positively impact the organization.
Increased talent retention: Satisfied employees feel respected, included, and cared about. Expressing values that show you treat their well-being with the same importance as your bottom line makes workers more likely to stick around.
More purpose and meaning: It's not always easy to live an ethical life, especially in a conflicted world where many cultures encourage individualism and bad behavior.
But sticking to your values gives you a sense of meaning and purpose that can increase your mental and physical health and stimulate continuous learning. Sticking to your ethical principles makes you feel you’re a part of something bigger and contributing to the good of the whole.
Embrace your ethics
Behind every great person is a guiding light that allows them to move through their decisions with clarity and intention. Finding your ethical values helps you move toward your goals with purpose.
Upholding your principles won’t always be easy. Challenges that test your values are inevitable. But moving through the world with intention and meaning is worth it. You’ll feel more confident, develop a stronger sense of self, and act for the greater good.
And you’ll rest assured that your decisions positively impact you, your community, and the world at large.
Professional Development
Published June 2, 2023
Elizabeth Perry Content Marketing Manager, ACC
Read Next
Professional Development
14 min read
| November 7, 2022
What is job crafting, why does it matter, and how can you do it?
Dive into what job crafting is and why it does matter if you want to boost your work engagement and feel like your job connects more with your work values.
Read More
Leadership & Management
15 min read
| June 8, 2023
Use the relational leadership model for well-rounded leadership
The relational leadership model has five components: inclusivity, empowerment, purpose, ethical behavior, and process orientation. Here’s how to apply it.
Read More
Professional Development
11 min read
| October 19, 2022
How to make yourself indispensable at work: Pro tips
Being an indispensable employee is about more than doing a good job. Add value to your team and contribute to your company with these tips and strategies.
Read More
Leadership & Management
16 min read
| April 9, 2021
The importance of being an ethical leader and how to become one
What is the make or break factor of organizational success? Learn the importance of being an ethical leader and how you can become one.
Read More
Research & Insights
17 min read
| July 25, 2022
Innovations in coaching: Growth through connection for an evolving world of work
We sat down with coaching industry experts to discuss where the industry is headed, the impact of technology, and the role ethics play as the field matures.
Read More
Well-being
15 min read
| June 19, 2023
Key values in a relationship: Why are they important?
Learning about your partner’s values in a relationship can help determine whether you’re compatible enough to establish a happy and loving partnership.
Read More
Professional Development
13 min read
| December 21, 2023
Use thoughtful work anniversary messages to wish your coworkers well
Sending your coworkers work anniversary messages shows that you value their contribution to the team and encourages them to continue contributing great work.
Read More
Professional Development
18 min read
| May 21, 2021
What are work values? Identify yours and learn what they mean
Discover what work values are and why they matter for your career and your employer. Learn how to identify yours to plan a successful career.
Read More
Professional Development
18 min read
| February 15, 2024
17 essential transferable skills to boost your job search
Transferable skills are in high-demand no matter what role or industry you’re after. Learn how they can help you succeed and which employers value most.
Read More
Similar Articles
Well-being
45 company core values examples and steps to identify yours
Professional Development
10 examples of principles that can guide your approach to work
Leadership & Management
The importance of being an ethical leader and how to become one
Well-being
How are personal values formed? Discover the joy of a life aligned
Hiring
What are professional skills, and which should you add to your resume?
Leadership & Management
What's integrity in the workplace and why is it important? (+examples)
Leadership & Management
Work ethics: 5 tips for managers to develop strong teams
Leadership & Management
7 key leadership behaviors you must have
Well-being
'We are the champions' plus other qualities every good friend should have
Stay connected with BetterUp
Get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research.
3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702
For Business
How it works
Platform Overview
Integrations
Powered by AI
Products
BetterUp Lead
BetterUp Manage™
BetterUp Care™
Solutions
Sales Performance
Executive
Diversity & Inclusion
Government
Customers
Case Studies
Why BetterUp?
For Individuals
What is coaching?
About Coaching
Find your Coach
Types of Coaching
Career Coaching
Communication Coaching
Life Coaching
Company
News and Press
Careers
Leadership Team
Become a BetterUp Coach
Resources
Blog
BetterUp Labs
BetterUp Briefing
Center for Purpose & Performance
What is coaching?
Leadership Training
Business Coaching
Contact Us
Contact Support
Contact Sales
Legal Hub
Privacy Policy
Acceptable Use Policy
Trust & Security
Cookie Preferences
© 2024 BetterUp. All rights reserved