ting to "nail Jello to a wall" (p. 377). Lewis (1985) contended that, within the framework of such a definition, rules, standards, principles, and even the concept of truthfulness will vary with time and place in the business sphere. Within such a framework, one could attempt to justify almost any behavior. Such an approach to ethical standards is problematic in a business environment (Geisler & Douglass, 2007). This writer rejected ethical relativism at the ethical focus for this paper.
Other approaches to ethical principles that are widely accepted today include utilitarianism, deontology, and natural law (DeGeorge, 2005). Utilitarian ethics, as it is practiced today, embraces one of two concepts. First, an ethical behavior is an action that yields the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Second, an ethical behavior is an action that creates a positive outcome, i.e., the end justifies the means (DeGeorge, 2005). Obviously, not everyone will utilitarian logic. In the former case, the minority will be distressed. In the latter case, disputes will arise as to the definition of a positive outcome.
Deontology holds that moral rules exist that human beings are obliged to follow. A further contention of deontologists is that the principles underlying these moral rules are unchanging. Deontology is more easily discussed that it is applied. Suicide bombers, for instance, recognize a different set of moral rules from those that are accepted by most people (DeGeorge, 2005).
Ethical principles based on natural law hold that actions are ethically correct when they are in accord with the end purpose of human nature and human goals. A maxim of ethical behavior that is in accord with natural law is, do good while causing no harm. Even this simple maxim, however, can lead to disputes in defining what makes a behavioral outcome good and in defining harm (DeGeorge, 2005).
Ethical principles create ...