Chapter 5: Universal Rules
Overview
A Universal Rules approach to ethical decision making is based on the idea that ethical principles should apply consistently to everyone across all situations, rather than being dependent on a person or organization’s preferences or specific circumstances. Examples of an approach to ethics with universally binding rules are the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule.
The Categorical Imperative, developed by Immanuel Kant, is a principle for making ethical decisions based on intentions and universal moral rules, not just outcomes. It serves as a test to determine whether an action is truly moral by asking if it could be applied universally in all situations without contradiction.
The Golden Rule, in its simplest form, can be summarized as “treat others the way you would like to be treated.” It encourages decision makers to adopt an egalitarian and other-directed outlook, encouraging individuals to consider their impact on others and treat them as peers deserving comparable consideration. Many religious traditions have the equivalent of a golden rule.
Core Concepts
- Universalizability: Act only according to principles you would be willing to see applied as a universal law for everyone, at all times
- Respect for Humanity: Treat every person as an “end” in themselves, never merely as a tool to achieve your goals
- Duty-Driven Ethics: Make ethical decisions because it is the right thing to do, not for personal benefit or reputation
- Integrity: Commit to principles that remain consistent regardless of the situation or potential profit
In Practice
Ethical Lens: Applying the Categorical Imperative at Tech Solutions
Tech Solutions is facing financial pressures, and its leaders are considering cutting paid parental leave and flexible work options. From a Universal Rules perspective, two questions guide the decision:
- Universalizability: If every company eliminated parental leave and flexible work to save money, would this be acceptable as a universal rule? If universally applied, it would undermine the ability of employees everywhere to meet family responsibilities, creating a work culture that devalues caregiving and human needs.
- Respect for Humanity: Would removing these benefits treat employees as “ends” in themselves or merely as tools for company profit? Cutting such benefits could be seen as using employees solely to meet financial goals, disregarding their inherent worth and their right to be treated with fairness and respect.
From this lens, Tech Solutions would conclude that removing these benefits fails both the universalizability test and the requirement to respect human dignity. The morally consistent action would be to maintain or adapt benefits in a way that upholds principles that could be applied by all businesses without contradiction.
Watch: This short video introduces Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative and explains how it can be applied as a universal test for ethical action (2 minutes)
Quick Check
Foundational Theorists
- Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant developed the moral philosophy known as the Categorical Imperative.
- Chinese philosopher Confucius is credited with developing an eastern version of the Golden Rule as is Jewish Rabbi Yeshua.
References:
Johnson R. and Cureton, A. (2022). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.
Puka, B. (n.d.). The Golden Rule. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/.
