An Explanation of Moral Intention Theory

The concept of Moral Intention Theory is not new and an emphasis on moral intention has been proposed by Wilks (2012) as a distinctive strand of moral theory within the larger setting of medieval thought. Wilks draws on the writings of St Anselm (c1100), St Augustine (c400), Abelard (c1130s) and Ockham (c1285) to propose that only moral intention, not ensuing action, is a suitable basis for moral judgement. Actions are considered to be morally neutral and the moral value dependent on the quality of the accompanying intention. The moral quality is attributed to the underlying interior act. In consideration of how a pagan moral outlook is distinguished from a Christian moral outlook, Abelard claims justice stands alone as the centrepiece of pagan virtue.

​

The focus on moral intention and justice as the centrepiece of virtue is a contrast to existing theories where the focus is on thinking about the ethical decision making process. When consideration is limited to the ethical decision making process, a person using utilitarian thinking will be focused on the utility of different outcomes and whether or not the rule of the greatest good is upheld. A person using universalist thinking will be focused on determining a universal rule to apply in the particular situation and a person using a virtue based approach will be thinking about which virtues are being upheld with different actions.

​

Moral Intention Theory synthesizes virtue theory, Kantian moral theory and utilitarianism by interweaving virtues, free will and outcomes. The primary concern of a person wishing to avoid creating unethical outcomes according to Moral Intention Theory should be the focus on their moral intentions. The secondary concern should be the definition of what constitutes moral intention. I have proposed a set of ‘ideal’ values derived from the writings of the key mortal philosophers, Aristotle, Kant, Bentham and Mill. However, in enacting Moral Intention Theory a person may choose to use different values to set their moral boundaries. Similarly, a corporation may choose different values to set the moral boundaries of the activities of the corporation. These values chosen will be determined by how a person answers the central questions in ethics of how ought we to live, or what constitutes a good life? As a corporation these questions become how ought we to do business, or how does a good corporation behave? The answers to these questions are at the heart of ethics and the associated fields of corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Moral Intention Theory requires a person or corporation to explicitly define what the moral boundaries are of what they are choosing to create. Put simply – What is your moral intent?

The second key issue in Moral Intention Theory is Kant’s concept of free will. Kant (1785) proposed that outcomes were a poor way of assessing moral dilemmas because the future could not be known with any degree of certainty. Because of this he proposed instead that logic should be used to determine universal rules that are applicable in all situations. Central to this argument is Kant’s view that a person has a duty to uphold these rules and furthermore that a persons’ ultimate duty was to themselves and the protection of a free autonomous will untainted by desire. My research considered literature in the social psychology field (Abrams, 1994; Hinkle & Brown, 1990; Zimbardo, 2007) that showed how dynamic social forces can influence a person’s behaviour, including obedience to authority, conformity and group norms. To determine their moral boundaries a person requires the free will to do so and an awareness of the dynamic social forces that may influence this is critical to this determination. Similarly, research into self-regulation was considered (Haidt, 2001; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Selart & Johansen, 2011; Welsh, et al., 2014) that influences a person’s ability to prioritise will over desire. This research identified influencing factors including stress, sleep deprivation, caffeine and social influence. According to Moral Intention Theory a person wishing to avoid the creation of unethical outcomes needs to be aware of the detrimental effects of these factors on their ability to maintain and prioritise will over desire.

​

The third issue in Moral Intention Theory considers the outcomes created. Bentham (1781) and Mill (1863) proposed that from a utilitarian perspective when faced with an ethical dilemma a person should consider all possible actions and calculate the impact of the consequences of these actions taking into account the positive and negative impacts on happiness. The best ethical outcome is the one that leads to the greatest good and the least harm. This calculation is made like a mathematical equation. However, the underlying problem with utilitarian theory is the impact of an uncertain environment on the validity of the forecasted impacts of different actions. In an environment of uncertainty utilitarian thinking becomes more like a best guess methodology. Moral Intention Theory considers outcomes from a different perspective due to the consideration of the temporal nature of existence and the assumption that unethical outcomes occur over a period of time rather than as a one off event. From the perspective of Moral Intention Theory, the critical aspect of outcomes is the story that is told that interprets those outcomes and the impact of this story on current and future events. For example, a construction corporation seeking a building contract in Egypt is put under pressure by the local agent to pay a facilitation fee to win the business. The construction company has a set of clear corporate values that includes transparency and honesty in all business dealings. The fee is effectively a bribe disguised as a legitimate payment and the flawed justification for the payment is that ‘everybody is doing it so if we don’t pay we will lose the business’. The desire to win the business has overridden the stated moral boundaries of the corporation. From a moral intention perspective once the decision has been made the way it is described and justified becomes an important indicator as to whether or not this behaviour becomes the new acceptable norm. If this behaviour is ignored and not addressed the justification becomes accepted. The challenge from the perspective of Moral Intention Theory is to identify this action as a breach of the stated moral boundaries and to communicate that fact rather than sweep the issue under the carpet.

​

In summary, Moral Intention Theory proposes that the central concern of a person wishing to avoid the creation of unethical outcomes should be a focus on their moral intentions. The secondary concerns should be on defining their moral boundaries, protecting their free will and ensuring outcomes are considered from the perspective of whether or not they are aligned to stated intentions. The ideal is to achieve existential alignment between intentions, actions and the stories told about the outcomes.

​

When considering the causal factor model and the results from the case study research the next question that needs to be considered is ‘What causes a person to choose to violate their moral intention?’ Abelard (c1130s), when writing about moral intention and pagan moral outlooks, identified justice as the centrepiece of pagan virtue. A criticism of this position is that justice can be a very subjective concept. Similarly, the causal factor model gives the concept of justice, and its subjectivity, a central role in the creation of unethical outcomes. In the field of law, motive is considered a key factor in finding a person accused of perpetrating an illegal act guilty. A ‘bad’ person may have clear intent to create a bad outcome and may be motivated by a sense of injustice. The desire is to level the perceived scales of justice. This sense of injustice however may arise from a sense of entitlement rather than from a sense of moral obligation. Research (Jones & Paulhus, 2014) into three socially averse traits – Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy – identifies one of the key traits of narcissism to be a sense of entitlement. The case study research in my research showed that in one of the cases in particular, that of internal fraud in the construction industry, a sense of entitlement was the key driving force.

​

From the perspective of a good person doing a bad thing, the case studies showed that there was a trigger event that threatened a pre-existing moral obligation. This threat to a moral obligation motivated the person to take action. The concept of moral obligation has been considered in the research into the link between intentions and action. Early work by Ajzen and Fishbein (1970) on the theory of planned behaviour included a measure of perceived moral values in addition to measures of attitudes and social norms in predicating behavioural intentions. However, this component was removed from their model when they found that in many situations it served as an alternate measure of behavioural intentions. Further research (Gorsuch & Ortberg, 1983) has since indicated that adding a component measuring moral obligation to Fishbein and Ajzen’s model added significantly to the prediction of behavioural intention only if the situation under consideration was a moral one. This thesis supports the view that a sense of moral obligation is a critical component in predicting moral intention. Analysis of the case studies revealed that all of the participants had a pre-existing sense of moral obligation – either to their parents, their employees, their community, or an associate or family member. The key element here is that the moral obligation is a ‘felt’ obligation involving emotions, not just a theoretical, intellectual one. This is reflected in the case studies – the moral obligation is personal and subjective, not objective.

​

In the causal factor model a trigger event threatens this sense of moral obligation and is perceived as unjust or unfair. For example, in one case, the use of an incorrect form causes a major financial crisis in the company and threatens to put the company out of business. This event is seen by the person running the company as unfair and hence they feel justified to take action to correct this imbalance. The impact of a sense of unfairness on subsequent ethical decision making has been found to have a profound impact. Research (Schweitzer & Gibson, 2008) considering the consequences of violating community standards of fairness found that explanations for actions that violated community standards of fairness led to intentions to behave unethically. In addition, this behaviour was found to provide significant psychological benefits to the perpetrator including greater satisfaction and happiness, and reduced anger. Schweitzer and Gibson (2008) also found that perceptions of justifiability mediated the relationship.

​

From a theory building perspective this is significant as it again indicates that the way we describe and interpret our reality has a significant impact on how we make decisions and create unethical outcomes. Importantly, the focus here is on perceptions of fairness and the impact on a person’s sense of justice. This is a subjective construct created by the emotional reactions of the person affected which in turn is influenced further by the person’s perceptual biases. Kahnemann, Knetsch, and Thaler (1986) have proposed that judgements of fairness are not always made in a way that is consistent with economic rationality. My research proposes that the decision process to take action in response to this threat to a moral obligation is one dominated by higher order cognitive reasoning. This higher order reasoning process is not, however, made considering moral principles and values but rather on subjective judgements of fairness and that the threat to a person’s perceived moral obligation invokes the use of a moral neutralisation. This moral neutralisation neutralises the moral values of the person making the decision in favour of the desire to balance the scales of justice. Research shows that when a person perceives outcomes to be unfair they are likely to experience anger (Allred, 1999; Bies & Tripp, 1996; Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997), and as noted above, this anger can be reduced by engaging in unethical actions. Participants in my case study research felt that this action to protect their moral obligation was something they ‘had to do’ and that they had a perceived lack of choice in their actions.

My research proposes that once a person makes a decision to act unethically they have effectively crossed a line with regard to their internal moral compass. The decision to invoke justice as the primary value puts them in the position of sole arbiter of justice and creates an attachment to a particular outcome which in turn creates a sense of self-righteousness. This attachment to a self-concept causes the person to hold onto and defend their position using moral neutralisations. This position is supported by Mazar et al. (2008) who termed this categorisation malleability – the reframing of events to avoid having to reassess one’s view of self. Mazar et al. (2008, p. 635) note however that this process only works up to a certain degree, “beyond which people can no longer avoid the obvious moral valence of their behaviour”. In the causal factor model once the initial decision is made using higher order reasoning it is proposed that a precedent has been set and that subsequent decisions are made using reflexive pattern matching. However, the cases also show that as these subsequent decisions mount up the internal conflict created begins to affect a person’s wellbeing. For example, in one case the person began drinking and taking drugs but continued down the fraud path because they still believed they could ‘fix it’.

​

In summary, the causal factor model developed explains the overall process of the creation of unethical outcomes and hence provides a model that precedes awareness and decision making as called for by scholars who have reviewed the existing literature (Craft, 2013). Additionally, it provides a theoretical basis for longitudinal studies of business ethics. The normative model, Moral Intention Theory, is distinct from the fields of virtue ethics, duty ethics and outcome based approaches. The implications for training and education of these two models are significant because it provides a new perspective from which to consider ethical dilemmas.

​