Hero Circle Shape
Hero Moon Shape
Hero Right Shape
tp最新下载|ethical value

tp最新下载|ethical value

  • 作者: tp最新下载
  • 2024-03-14 22:16:01

moral 和ethic这两个构念的区别和联系是什么? - 知乎

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 56​​4 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 9​​1 条评论​分享​收藏​喜欢收起​​

What Are Ethical Values in Business?

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

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

Email

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

LinkedIn

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

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 - The Behavioral Scientist

hical Values - The Behavioral Scientist Skip to main content Skip to footer Learn advanced behavioral design techniquesLearn how to break bad habitsLearn the difference between habits and practices Learn why habit formation books (usually) don't workLearn how to create habit-forming productsAbout Articles Insights Guides Glossaries Behavioral Economics Glossary Behavioral Design Glossary Behavioral Science Glossary Behavior Change Glossary Neuroscience Glossary Quotes & Interviews Contact Work With Me About Articles Insights Guides Glossaries Behavioral Economics Glossary Behavioral Design Glossary Behavioral Science Glossary Behavior Change Glossary Neuroscience Glossary Quotes & Interviews Contact Work With Me Search site Search ... × About Articles Insights Guides Glossaries Behavioral Economics Glossary Behavioral Design Glossary Behavioral Science Glossary Behavior Change Glossary Neuroscience Glossary Quotes & Interviews Contact Work With Me What is An Ethical Value In Behavioral Science? What are Ethical Values? Ethical values are principles and beliefs that guide individuals and organizations in making decisions and evaluating actions as morally right or wrong. These values serve as the foundation for ethical behavior, helping to shape personal character and promote social cohesion. Ethical values can stem from various sources, such as cultural, religious, philosophical, or personal beliefs. While the specific ethical values held by individuals and groups may differ, some common themes include honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect, and compassion. By adhering to ethical values, individuals can navigate complex moral dilemmas, maintain their integrity, and foster positive relationships with others. Examples of Ethical Values Honesty Honesty is an ethical value that promotes truthfulness, openness, and sincerity in one’s actions and communications. It involves being truthful to oneself and others, not engaging in deception or manipulation, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. Honesty is important for building trust and maintaining integrity in personal and professional relationships. Responsibility Responsibility is an ethical value that emphasizes the importance of being accountable for one’s actions and their consequences. This includes recognizing and fulfilling obligations, taking ownership of mistakes, and making amends when necessary. A sense of responsibility can contribute to personal growth, better decision-making, and improved relationships with others. Respect Respect is an ethical value that involves treating others with dignity, consideration, and empathy. It requires recognizing and valuing the inherent worth of all individuals, regardless of their background, beliefs, or characteristics. Respectful behavior includes active listening, acknowledging different perspectives, and avoiding prejudiced or discriminatory actions. Compassion Compassion is an ethical value that involves understanding and empathizing with the feelings and experiences of others. It encourages individuals to act with kindness, offer support, and alleviate suffering where possible. Compassion can help foster a sense of connectedness and promote positive social relationships. Related Behavioral Science TermsBelief PerseveranceRead Definition →Crystallized IntelligenceRead Definition →Extraneous VariableRead Definition →Representative SampleRead Definition →Factor AnalysisRead Definition →EgocentrismRead Definition →Stimulus GeneralizationRead Definition →Reciprocal DeterminismRead Definition →Divergent ThinkingRead Definition →Convergent ThinkingRead Definition →Social EnvironmentRead Definition →Decision MakingRead Definition →BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE GLOSSARYRelated ArticlesDefault Nudges: Fake Behavior ChangeRead Article →Here’s Why the Loop is StupidRead Article →How behavioral science can be used to build the perfect brandRead Article →The Death Of Behavioral EconomicsRead Article → I can help youApply behavioral science Create a habit forming product Develop new habits Work With MeBehavioral Strategy Consulting Speaking ArticlesWhy Hooked Is Wrong What Is Behavioral Strategy? Death of Behavioral Economics The Behavioral State Model What Is A Habit? AboutAbout Me Get In Touch Subscribe to my newsletter Connect with me©Jason Hreha, 2023, All rights Reserved.Terms and ConditionPrivacy Policy

Ethical Values Every Professional Should Adopt

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 - The Behavioral Scientist

hical Values - The Behavioral Scientist Skip to main content Skip to footer Learn advanced behavioral design techniquesLearn how to break bad habitsLearn the difference between habits and practices Learn why habit formation books (usually) don't workLearn how to create habit-forming productsAbout Articles Insights Guides Glossaries Behavioral Economics Glossary Behavioral Design Glossary Behavioral Science Glossary Behavior Change Glossary Neuroscience Glossary Quotes & Interviews Contact Work With Me About Articles Insights Guides Glossaries Behavioral Economics Glossary Behavioral Design Glossary Behavioral Science Glossary Behavior Change Glossary Neuroscience Glossary Quotes & Interviews Contact Work With Me Search site Search ... × About Articles Insights Guides Glossaries Behavioral Economics Glossary Behavioral Design Glossary Behavioral Science Glossary Behavior Change Glossary Neuroscience Glossary Quotes & Interviews Contact Work With Me What is An Ethical Value In Behavioral Science? What are Ethical Values? Ethical values are principles and beliefs that guide individuals and organizations in making decisions and evaluating actions as morally right or wrong. These values serve as the foundation for ethical behavior, helping to shape personal character and promote social cohesion. Ethical values can stem from various sources, such as cultural, religious, philosophical, or personal beliefs. While the specific ethical values held by individuals and groups may differ, some common themes include honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect, and compassion. By adhering to ethical values, individuals can navigate complex moral dilemmas, maintain their integrity, and foster positive relationships with others. Examples of Ethical Values Honesty Honesty is an ethical value that promotes truthfulness, openness, and sincerity in one’s actions and communications. It involves being truthful to oneself and others, not engaging in deception or manipulation, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. Honesty is important for building trust and maintaining integrity in personal and professional relationships. Responsibility Responsibility is an ethical value that emphasizes the importance of being accountable for one’s actions and their consequences. This includes recognizing and fulfilling obligations, taking ownership of mistakes, and making amends when necessary. A sense of responsibility can contribute to personal growth, better decision-making, and improved relationships with others. Respect Respect is an ethical value that involves treating others with dignity, consideration, and empathy. It requires recognizing and valuing the inherent worth of all individuals, regardless of their background, beliefs, or characteristics. Respectful behavior includes active listening, acknowledging different perspectives, and avoiding prejudiced or discriminatory actions. Compassion Compassion is an ethical value that involves understanding and empathizing with the feelings and experiences of others. It encourages individuals to act with kindness, offer support, and alleviate suffering where possible. Compassion can help foster a sense of connectedness and promote positive social relationships. Related Behavioral Science TermsBelief PerseveranceRead Definition →Crystallized IntelligenceRead Definition →Extraneous VariableRead Definition →Representative SampleRead Definition →Factor AnalysisRead Definition →EgocentrismRead Definition →Stimulus GeneralizationRead Definition →Reciprocal DeterminismRead Definition →Divergent ThinkingRead Definition →Convergent ThinkingRead Definition →Social EnvironmentRead Definition →Decision MakingRead Definition →BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE GLOSSARYRelated ArticlesDefault Nudges: Fake Behavior ChangeRead Article →Here’s Why the Loop is StupidRead Article →How behavioral science can be used to build the perfect brandRead Article →The Death Of Behavioral EconomicsRead Article → I can help youApply behavioral science Create a habit forming product Develop new habits Work With MeBehavioral Strategy Consulting Speaking ArticlesWhy Hooked Is Wrong What Is Behavioral Strategy? Death of Behavioral Economics The Behavioral State Model What Is A Habit? AboutAbout Me Get In Touch Subscribe to my newsletter Connect with me©Jason Hreha, 2023, All rights Reserved.Terms and ConditionPrivacy Policy

Ethical Values and Personal Integrity | SpringerLink

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?

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

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

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

Facebook

Twitter

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)

Print

print

Print

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

Facebook

Twitter

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

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)

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

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

Just a moment...

a moment...Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue