Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 389–400 | Cite as

The Role of Virtues in the Framing of Decisions

  • Miquel BastonsEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article explores links between the modern theory of rational choice and ethics. Ethics allows us to answer an unsolved question in modern decision theory: the structuring problem in decisions. Such a problem cannot be solved coming from the principle of expected utility. This principle can solve the problem of ‚choosing’ among given alternatives, but does not establish which alternatives should be taken into account in decision. In order to understand the structuring problem, the act of ‚choosing’ has to be completed with three human acts: operating, predicting and evaluating. At the same time, the subjective criteria of rational choice – probability and utility – have to be completed with three objective criteria: efficiency, truth and goodness. Utility is a subjective value of an alternative considered in relation to another. Efficiency, truth and goodness are objective qualities of the joint alternatives in relation to the reality: the real operating possibilities of the agent, the real possibilities of his environment and the true good produced. So, the rule that guarantees a decision to be optimal would be: “do that which most certainly maximises our preferences, according to real operative resources, true knowledge and the right will”. However, this rule cannot be applied without the development of virtues, which could be seen as the main moral competences in decision-making.

Keywords

Aquinas Aristotle decision-making ethics theory of the choice virtues 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackoff R. L., Emery F. E. (1972) On Purposefull Systems. Aldine-Alterton, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Aquinas, Thomas: 2007, www.newadvent.org/summa/ (Accessed on: January 9, 2007)Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle 1980 The Nicomachean Ethics (trans) Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow K. (1974), The Limits of Organization. W. W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnard Ch. (1968) The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastons M. (2000) La toma de decisiones en la organización. Ariel, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  7. Cyert R. M., March J. (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan R., Raiffa H. (1985) Games and Decisions. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodwin P., Wright G. (1998) Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex. Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalez C. (2005) The Framing Effect and Risky Decisions: Examining Cognitive Functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology 26:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Langley A., Mintzberg H. (1995) Opening Up Decision Making: The View from the Black Stool. Organization Science 6(3):260–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacIntyre A. (1999) Dependent Rational Animals. Why Human Beings Need the Virtues. Duckwoeth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. March J., Simon H. A. (1993) Organizations. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Mauri M. (1994) Conciencia y elección. Anuario Filosófico 27(2):829–840Google Scholar
  15. Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D., Théorêt A. (1976) The Structure of “Unstructured” Decision Processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(2):246–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitroff I. (1974) On Systemic Problem Solving and the Error of the Third Kind. Behavioral Science 19(6):3383–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newell A., Simon H. (1972) Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. Pérez López J. A. (1991) Teoría de la acción en las organizaciones. Rialp, MadridGoogle Scholar
  19. Pérez López J. A. (1994) Fundamentos de la dirección de empresas. Rialp, MadridGoogle Scholar
  20. Pieper, J. 1966, The four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana)Google Scholar
  21. Sen A. (1995) Rationality and Social Choice. The American Economic Review 85(1):1–24Google Scholar
  22. Simon H. (1955) A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics LXIX:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon H. (1976) Administrative Behaviour. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Simon H. (1990) Alternative Visions of Rationality. in Moser Paul K. (ed.) Rationality in Action. Contemporary Approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 189–204Google Scholar
  25. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211:453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1986) Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. The Journal of Business 59(4):S251–S278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Von Newmann J., Morgenstern O. (1953) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversitat Internacional de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations