1.7 Ethical Principles and Arguments

As we work through this course, we’ll notice a pattern involving the use of ethical principles in arguments about business ethics. In this section we’ll discuss that pattern.

Let’s return to one of the ethical principles we stated earlier: “Discriminating against people on the basis of protected classes like sex, race, sexual orientation, military history, and so on, is wrong.” Depending on your position, you could use this principle as a premise in an argument about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Here’s an argument involving that principle:

1. Jack Phillips discriminated against Charlie Craig and David Mullins by refusing to make their wedding cake.

2. Discriminating against people on the basis of protected classes like sex, race, sexual orientation, military history, and so on, is wrong.

3. Therefore, what Jack Phillips did was wrong.

Our ethical principle appears as the second premise in this argument. The first premise describes what really happened; the second premise is our principle; and the third statement is the conclusion, which gives a possible position on this ethical problem.

When we put the argument this way, we can see that our ethical principle is the most important premise in the argument. By “most important,” we mean that this principle is what actually makes us think that what happened was wrong. Even in the original court case, no one denied that Phillips had discriminated against Craig and Mullins—the question was whether he had legal justification to do so. The ethical principle in premise #2 says that he does not, which leads us to the conclusion in statement #3: that what he did was wrong, illegal, or bad.

Another way to see the importance of the ethical principle in this argument is to ask what would happen if we stated the argument without it. Imagine giving this argument without premise #2—the first premise would just state the facts, and the second would say that someone did wrong. We’d be left with no way of connecting what happened to the ethics of right and wrong. The ethical principle is doing all the work, so to speak, in that it gives us the reason why we should think that what happened was wrong.

Here again we see the power of ethical principles. In many arguments, they are different from other premises because they don’t state specific facts or details of a case—they give a more timeless statement of an ethical truth, usually not even mentioning specific people or places. Much of their persuasive power comes from this generality: we can apply them to many different cases across time, geography, and context.

In addition, putting this position on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case into an argument helps us see how the pieces of reasoning work together. We see that the details given in premise #1 allow us to draw from the ethical principle in premise #2, and both those premises then work together to reach the conclusion.

Some may disagree with our position on Masterpiece’s discrimination. By giving the position as an argument, we’ve done a favor for those who disagree with us—we’ve made it possible to quickly identify what we actually disagree about. A few people might dispute the facts of the case, such as whether what Phillips did really counts as discrimination. But in most disagreements about ethical problems, the source of the disagreement is not the particular events themselves but one or more ethical principles, or the role those principles play in the arguments. Some people might think, for example, that it is ethically permissible to discriminate on the basis of someone’s sexual orientation. They would have a hard time justifying that position in court, but if that were their position, we would know that we disagree with them over the truth of premise #2 in our argument.

Let’s now think more about the difference between ethical principles and things like guidelines we give ourselves for how to act. I might follow a rule in my own behavior like, “Don’t eat too much for lunch when I have a softball game later.” This rule guides my behavior: I check my softball schedule and act accordingly.

But my lunch/softball rule is not an ethical principle. It doesn’t help me understand or solve any ethical problems, for one. In addition, the rule only applies to me—other people might be able to eat whatever they want for lunch and still play just fine. The rule is also too specific in its description of the circumstances—does it also apply to days when I have basketball games, or when I have chess matches? Because the rule restricts itself to a narrow range of circumstances, it isn’t useful for many other cases.

Ethical principles don’t work like that. Besides the fact that ethical principles are about ethics and ethical problems, the main difference between them and other rules or guidelines for action is their generality. They aren’t just supposed to apply to me, nor to a limited context. They should be useful for reasoning about many cases. Our principle about discrimination meets these requirements.

In this generality, we can see that our principle is more objective than other rules for action. A statement is objective when its truth doesn’t depend much on personal opinion or special circumstances. Of course, our principle isn’t perfectly objective, since other people may disagree and have good reasons to do so. But it’s more objective than the rule about eating on softball days.

Another important difference between an ethical principle and a rule for action is that ethical principles have, or should have, good justifications. A justification is a reason or piece of evidence in favor of something. For an ethical principle to be justified, we must have evidence for it, or reasons to support it. Our principle about discrimination has those. Discrimination is wrong because it harms those discriminated against, creates an unjust society, and so on. Those reasons are the justification for our ethical principle.

In fact, we’ve now come full circle, because in giving a justification for our ethical principles, all we’ve done is give an argument! Here’s one way to do it:

1. Discrimination harms the people who are discriminated against.

2. Discrimination creates an unjust society.

3. Therefore, discrimination on the basis of protected classes is wrong.

We could fine-tune this argument if we wanted, but it’s clear enough to prove the point. Our justifications for ethical principles are nothing more than premises in an argument whose conclusion is our principle.

To wrap this section up, let’s look at another case study. It’s about the clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch, and it involves discrimination. It also involves hiring and firing, which will be the main topic of a later chapter.

The case of Abercrombie & Fitch involves discrimination. We’ve been using an ethical principle about discrimination in reasoning about other cases. According to our principle, discriminating against someone for being a member of a protected class is wrong.

Does that principle apply here? Why or why not? How would you create an argument using that principle as a premise? What other premises would you need to add in order to conclude that Abercrombie & Fitch’s hiring strategy wasn’t ethically permissible?

You can also consider how others would respond to your position. How might someone challenge the argument you’ve created? In what ways would that challenge differ from a challenge someone could make to our argument at the beginning of this section, about discrimination at Masterpiece Cakeshop?