UPI Study › Courses › Business Ethics › Free lessons › Lesson 1.4 Free with a free account
Rights-Based and Natural Law Approaches to Ethics
Business Ethics · Chapter 1: Foundations of Business Ethics and Moral ReasoningSection 1.4 · lesson 4 of 10516 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Business Ethics.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Business Ethics
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Applying Utilitarian Thinking to Business Situations →← What Shapes Ethics at Work: People, Culture, and ContextNext lesson: Applying Utilitarian Thinking to Business Situations →
In this lesson
Kantian moral duty and natural law reasoning about dignity and human flourishing.
- Explain duty as the basis of Kantian ethics.
- Apply universal law and humanity formulations.
- Explain natural law, reason, and the law hierarchy.
- Compare moral duty, dignity, strengths, and limitations.
- Apply both approaches to honesty and safety decisions.
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (2,020 words). Read along, or search it.
Foundations of Business Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Rights, Duties, and Natural Law
A profitable result does not settle every ethical question, especially when a decision affects dignity or safety. This lesson examines Kantian duty ethics and natural law, two approaches that place limits on pursuing outcomes. Deontology evaluates actions through obligations, while natural law grounds moral reasoning in human nature and flourishing. You will explain how Kant connects duty with rational principle, good will, and moral worth. His Categorical Imperative includes universal law and humanity formulations, which guide examination of proposed actions. You will then examine natural law through Thomas Aquinas, including reason and related kinds of law. Basic goods and natural rights give that discussion practical relevance, especially for fair treatment and safety. Comparing the approaches reveals different foundations, alongside strengths and difficulties in their application to decisions. The sales, manufacturer, and pharmaceutical hypotheticals show how duties and goods inform concrete business choices. Both frameworks can support honest disclosure, while arriving at that conclusion through different kinds of reasoning. Explain those reasons, beyond noticing that the final answers agree.
Kantian Ethics
Moral Worth Depends on Acting from Duty
Deontology takes its name from the Greek word for duty, emphasizing obligations when judging conduct. The eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a major approach within that broader family of theories. For Kant, a good will is the only thing good without qualification, independently of useful results. Wealth, talent, and even happiness can be misused, depending on the will that directs them. Moral worth concerns acting from duty. The action is chosen because it is understood to be right. Merely doing something that matches a duty, for self-interest alone, differs from acting because of duty. The distinction examines motivation and rational principle, rather than success alone. Autonomy means rational self-government through moral law, rather than simply selecting whatever an individual prefers. The lesson connects duties with rights, because obligations to others support their corresponding claims to treatment. A duty not to deceive supports truthful treatment, even when deception could bring a business advantage. Kantian ethics is one duty-based approach, within the wider family of rights theories.
Categorical Imperative
Universal Law and Humanity Express the Moral Test
The Categorical Imperative is Kant’s unconditional moral requirement, expressed through different formulations of the same principle. A maxim is the underlying rule behind an action. State it before applying the moral test. The universal-law formulation asks whether that maxim can be willed as a rule for everyone. Examine whether it can function coherently, rather than depend on making an exception for yourself. The humanity formulation requires treating humanity as an end, never merely as a tool for another purpose. That requirement concerns yourself and others, recognizing rational agency and the capacity to make choices. Respecting agency gives honesty and consent ethical significance, rather than treating people as instruments of advantage. The formulation does not prohibit every cooperative use of someone’s services; it rejects treating them merely as means. A desirable result does not automatically suspend either formulation’s moral requirements. Together, they connect universal duty with respect for persons. Apply them to the actual maxim, and the treatment of people involved.
Universalizability
State the Maxim before Testing the Action
Begin the universalizability test by stating the maxim, including the rule supporting your proposed action. An incomplete maxim can obscure the principle that actually motivates the choice. Next, imagine everyone acting under that rule, in the relevant circumstances described by the maxim. Then examine whether the universal rule is coherent, and whether it can be rationally willed. The question is not simply whether you would enjoy living with the predicted consequences of widespread behavior. It concerns whether the rule contradicts the practice it relies on, or cannot be rationally willed universally. A maxim that fails this test is rejected. An attractive business result does not remove that duty. If no contradiction is found, the maxim has passed this examination rather than every possible moral question. Still consider the humanity formulation, and whether the maxim and its implications have been adequately examined. The process structures reasoning; it does not automatically grant moral permission. Explain the contradiction clearly, connecting your conclusion with the test.
Sales Hypothetical
A Profitable False Claim Still Fails the Duty Test
Consider a sales representative tempted to overstate a product’s capabilities, hoping to close a deal. The proposed maxim permits false product claims whenever they help secure a sale for the representative. Universalize that rule, asking what happens to truthful assurance when everyone relies on convenient deception. The lesson’s argument is that the practice undermines the credibility on which sales claims depend. The rule therefore defeats the assurance it exploits, creating the contradiction used to reject the deception. This is a moral argument about the maxim. It is not a measured prediction of market collapse. Prospective profit does not remove the duty, or justify this deceptive rule. The humanity formulation also directs attention to the customer, whose informed choice depends on truthful information. Using false claims to direct that choice treats the customer’s agency as subordinate to the seller’s purpose. The conclusion is to reject the misleading claim, supported by duty and respect for the person involved. The example makes honesty concrete, distinguishing duty from a calculation of profit.
Natural Law Theory
Human Reason Participates in an Order of Law
Natural law grounds moral reasoning in human nature, with reason identifying what human flourishing requires. Thomas Aquinas developed a systematic medieval account, building on Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing. Reason is essential here too. The account differs from Kant’s test of a proposed maxim. Eternal law names the divine rational order governing the universe, within Aquinas’s philosophical and theological framework. Natural law is rational human participation in that order, discoverable through reason rather than revelation alone. Its first principle directs people to pursue good and avoid evil, guiding further practical moral reasoning. Human law concerns specific enacted rules, which should be derived from and consistent with natural law. The diagram highlights these three related kinds, rather than claiming to display Aquinas’s entire classification of law. Aquinas regards unjust enactments as defective in moral authority, while qualifying whether they bind in conscience. His account considers avoiding disorder or greater harm, rather than granting an unrestricted permission to disregard every disliked rule. Distinguish that philosophical judgment from a statute’s status under a modern legal system, which requires separate analysis.
Goods and Rights
Flourishing Gives Practical Reason Its Direction
Basic goods have value for their own sake. Practical reason recognizes them as ends worth pursuing. The lesson’s examples include life, knowledge, sociability, and practical reasonableness, within the natural-law tradition. These goods give action direction, beyond treating every value as a tool for commercial success. The account rejects directly acting against a basic good, merely to obtain a competitive or financial advantage. That reasoning gives life and physical well-being significance, when a business considers working conditions or safety information. Knowledge supports truthful information, while sociability and dignity connect with fair treatment and respectful relationships. Natural rights are moral entitlements people possess as human beings, rather than only through grants or contracts. The lesson argues for truthful treatment, fair treatment, and a safe workplace through human dignity and flourishing. Those are moral arguments within the approach, rather than proof that every jurisdiction recognizes identical legal entitlements. Identifying goods and their practical implications requires reasoning, sometimes involving difficult judgments. Profit alone cannot settle what respecting people and their basic goods requires.
Compare the Foundations
Different Premises Produce Different Decision Questions
The approaches begin from different premises. They can nevertheless support the same business response. Kantian ethics grounds moral obligation in rational duty, expressed through the Categorical Imperative and its formulations. Natural law grounds obligation in human nature, and in the goods that practical reason identifies. For Kantian reasoning, examine the maxim’s universalizability and the treatment of people as ends in themselves. For natural law, direct action toward human goods and reject directly acting against them for advantage. The Kantian view emphasizes rational autonomy, recognizing a person’s dignity as more than usefulness to someone else. Natural law emphasizes human nature and flourishing, connecting moral requirements with the goods of human life. Both approaches limit what can be done for an attractive outcome, which makes them non-consequentialist here. Consequences can still help explain the facts, even in a non-consequentialist approach. It means a favorable result alone does not override the duty or good supporting the moral constraint. Compare foundations and questions; a shared conclusion can follow from different arguments.
Compare Practical Use
Strengths and Difficulties Need Careful Interpretation
Kantian reasoning offers a repeatable method, asking people to formulate and examine the rule behind an action. That structure can make a decision’s principle visible, instead of leaving its justification vague or purely intuitive. Its application still requires judgment, including how to state the maxim and examine apparent conflicts among duties. Natural law connects moral obligation with human well-being and dignity, giving ethical constraints a human foundation. Its difficulties include identifying relevant goods, and deciding how practical priorities should be handled in a case. These are strengths and limitations. They deserve examination, rather than automatic rejection of either framework. For a sales decision, Kantian honesty rejects misleading claims even when closing the sale would be profitable. For safety, natural-law concern for life and health rejects concealing a known risk merely to protect profit. The examples highlight different emphases; either approach can address honesty and safety. Both require an accurate factual basis, including what the business knows and whose interests the choice affects. Explain how the framework connects those facts with the recommended action.
Manufacturer Hypothetical
A Costly Recall Does Not Justify Concealing Safety Information
Imagine a manufacturer discovering a minor defect, after the product has already shipped to customers. The defect is described as unlikely to cause serious harm, while recalling the product would be costly. The ethical question is whether cost justifies withholding known safety information from people affected by it. Under the Kantian argument, state the maxim as withholding safety information whenever disclosure becomes costly. Universalizing that rule undermines truthful safety assurance, which the manufacturer’s relationship with customers relies on. The duty-based conclusion therefore supports disclosure, rather than treating the recall cost as permission to conceal. Natural law approaches the same concern through life and physical well-being, which have value beyond profit. Concealing the concern to preserve a margin subordinates those goods to advantage, supporting disclosure through another route. Both arguments converge on telling the truth about the defect, although their foundations remain different. Disclosure does not itself determine the exact recall response; safety facts and applicable legal requirements need separate examination. Honest information matters, even when the described risk appears small.
Pharmaceutical Hypothetical
A Major Health Benefit Does Not Erase a Known Risk
Now consider a highly effective drug, with a small documented risk of a serious side effect. The risk affects a minority of patients, and the marketing team wants to downplay it for competitiveness. The thought question asks whether you would approve, and whether a large benefit for most patients changes the answer. Kantian reasoning examines the maxim of downplaying known risks, whenever that helps the company compete. Universalized concealment undermines trustworthy patient information, while misleading communication also interferes with informed rational choice. The resulting duty supports clear disclosure, rather than making honesty conditional on the company’s competitive position. Natural-law reasoning focuses on life and health, treating them as basic goods that deserve respect. It rejects subordinating clear risk information to commercial advantage, supporting an honest account of the known risk. The approaches converge, through duty and agency or through human goods. A large benefit does not justify misleading information, though honest communication can explain benefits and risks together. The lesson does not conclude that every beneficial treatment with a side effect must be prohibited.
Review and Connect
Explain the Duty or Good behind Each Conclusion
First, distinguish duty ethics from consequences: moral obligation can constrain a choice despite an attractive result. Second, explain universal law by stating the maxim, universalizing it, and examining coherence and rational willing. Remember the humanity formulation too, because respect for persons complements the examination of the rule. Third, explain Aquinas’s relationship between human and natural law, identifying moral authority rather than modern statutory status. Just human law should reflect natural law; unjust enactments are defective, with qualifications about obligations in conscience. Fourth, develop the natural-law safety argument, connecting working conditions with life and physical well-being. Cost savings alone do not justify directly opposing those human goods, within the approach discussed here. Fifth, explain the pharmaceutical case, where both frameworks support honest disclosure of the documented risk. Kantian duty and rational agency provide one argument, while respect for life and health provides another. Review all eight terms, including maxim, autonomy, eternal law, basic goods, and natural rights. Explain each conclusion’s foundation, distinguishing duty from natural-law reasoning about flourishing.
About Business Ethics at UPI Study
Business Ethics (Business 211) is a self-paced online course of 105 video lessons in 19 chapters, from moral reasoning and compliance to governance, diversity, government and society, social responsibility, consumers, advertising, technology, the environment and global business. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Which ethics course? · Business Law vs Business Ethics
Why take it here
Why students take Business Ethics with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Business Ethics carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Rights-Based and Natural Law Approaches to Ethics
What is Kant's categorical imperative?
How do you apply Kant's universalizability test to a business decision?
What is natural law ethics according to Thomas Aquinas?
What is the difference between Kantian ethics and natural law?
About the Business Ethics course
How many college credits is Business Ethics?
How much does Business Ethics cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Business Ethics take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Business Ethics.
105 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →