The third ethical principle is Descartes rule of change. This rule states that if something cannot be repeatedly done, then it should not be done at all. For example, since people should not steal large amounts of things, they should not steal small amounts of things either. This argument is based on logic and the other principles that claim, if it is not right for me then it is not right for you, in any way, shape, size, or form.
The fourth ethical principle is titled risk aversion. It entails taking the action that produces the least amount of harm or the route that produces the least cost for everyone. Washington Mutual tends to think that this is not the right policy for their company. Instead of looking at matters with the idea of minimizing costs, they would like to look at things with the idea of gaining something. This relates more to the idea of profit maximization. If the cost is reduced and not many people are harmed then not only will this principle lead to better ethical products, but it will also lead to higher profits.
The opposite idea of risk aversion is the utilitarian principle. This principle says that you should take the action that achieves the higher or greater value. Value, in this case, does not refer to profits or revenues. Instead, it refers to the value of morality. Washington Mutual takes this policy into their company because they think that it encourages the well being of the whole community. According to this principle then we see that if a certain ethical issue is valued more than another is and one has to be forgone, then the one that yields the most pleasure, morally, is the one that should be executed. This principle makes sense because utilitarianism states that everything we do should benefit society in the greatest. If something only benefits one person, it is not as sound as something that benefits everyone is.
The last ethical principle taken into account is the idea of no free lunches . This principle says that you must assume that someone already owns all tangible and intangible objects unless there is a specific declaration otherwise. With this in mind, we must assume by using other s resources we must pay for it, and we must be ethical about this and always pay what is owed. If everyone does not abide by this principle and pay what is due the principle will not be able to be sustained.
With these ethical principles at hand, we can evaluate ethics with the five-step process of ethical analysis. First, we must identify and describe clearly all the facts and problems. By doing this, we can identify which ethical principle to use. Second, we must define the conflict or dilemma and identify the higher order values involved. Once we do this we can begin to apply the principles chosen. Third, we must identify the stakeholder. This allows us to ask the question, Who is being affected here? This step would allow Kant s categorical imperative to come into play because if something is not right for everyone then it is probably not right for the stakeholder at hand. Fourth, we must identify the opinions that you can reasonably take. We must decide what information regarding the situation is valuable and who should be involved in making such decisions. Lastly, we must identify potential consequences of our opinions. By making a decision on moral grounds we are setting ourselves up for praise or rejection. We must consider what the possible consequences are of each decision and using the utilitarian principal or the risk aversion principles decide which one is right for our purposes. The people of Washington Mutual claim that this is an excellent way of assessing their problems and finding the best solutions. When an ethical dilemma arises they turn to a plan similar to this and point out the problem in detail and design a solution.