BSB250 · Business Citizenship
Ethics Foundations & the Four Frameworks
This chapter is the ethical-reasoning foundation of BSB250: it separates ethics (the justification of right and wrong) from law, custom and religion, hammers the signature trap that legal does not equal ethical, and teaches the four normative frameworks — consequentialism, deontology, virtue and justice — as four lenses on one question, "what is the right thing to do?". It is assessed directly in the A1 Personal Code of Ethics and underpins the justice and SDG reasoning examined later, so the rewarded skill is to name the lens, apply it, weigh its standard weakness, and take a defensible stand rather than pick a favourite.
What this chapter covers
- 01Ethics vs morality, law, custom and religion
- 02Legality is not ethicality (law = minimum floor)
- 03The three decision perspectives: ethical / legal / strategic
- 04Consequentialism / utilitarianism (maximise net welfare)
- 05Deontology / duty (Kant, dignity, red lines)
- 06Virtue ethics (character + practical wisdom)
- 07Justice / fairness (Rawls, veil of ignorance)
- 08Each framework's standard weakness (the critique that earns marks)
One dilemma, four lenses: the cheaper-supplier decision
- +1Issue: frame the ethical question precisely and keep the perspectives separate. The switch is already legal and arguably strategic, so this is specifically an ETHICAL question — should GreenStride benefit from below-living-wage, unsafe labour to protect local jobs and cut prices?
- +1Consequentialism / utilitarianism: tally net welfare across ALL stakeholders — savings, ~30 local jobs preserved, cheaper goods for customers, higher profit, versus the harm to overseas workers. A crude headcount may favour switching; weakness = it can sacrifice the few for the many, the welfare figures are hard to measure, and it is indifferent to how the burden falls on the worst-off.
- +1Deontology / duty (Kant): identify the binding duty. Knowingly profiting from unsafe, below-living-wage labour treats those workers as a mere means, breaching human dignity — a red line, so switching as-is is forbidden regardless of savings; weakness = rigidity, and the duty to overseas workers can clash with the duty to local employees.
- +1Virtue ethics + justice: a firm of good character (integrity, fairness) would not outsource harm to chase margin and would seek audited, fairer suppliers (weakness = hard to measure, risk of virtue-signalling). Under Rawls' veil of ignorance — not knowing if you'd be the shareholder or the overseas worker — the arrangement loads the burden onto the least advantaged, so it likely fails the fairness test (weakness = 'fair' is contested between equality, desert and rights).
- +1Conclusion: surface the conflict, then integrate and decide. Three lenses point against an unconditional switch and the utilitarian case rests on shaky, distribution-blind numbers, so the defensible recommendation is to NOT switch as-is but pursue an audited supplier with contractual wage and safety conditions — capturing some savings and most local jobs without breaching the dignity red line.
Key terms
- Ethics vs morality
- Ethics = the branch of philosophy that studies the justification of what is right or wrong (the reasoning); morality = the specific norms a particular society actually holds (the content).
- Legality ≠ ethicality
- The law is only the minimum enforceable floor, not the ceiling: an action can be fully legal yet unethical (e.g. exploiting a loophole), so 'is it allowed?' must never be collapsed into 'is it right?'.
- Consequentialism / utilitarianism
- A normative framework that judges an act by its outcomes — the right choice maximises net utility / aggregate welfare across all affected parties (a stakeholder-wide cost–benefit analysis).
- Deontology (Kant)
- A duty-based framework: the right act follows universal rules and respects human dignity (the categorical imperative) regardless of outcome; the source of ethical 'red lines', codes and whistleblowing.
- Virtue ethics
- A framework that focuses on the character of the actor rather than the act or outcome — cultivate virtues (integrity, fairness) and practical wisdom, asking 'what would a person or organisation of good character do?'.
- Justice / fairness (Rawls)
- A framework judging fair process plus fair distribution of benefits and burdens; Rawls' veil of ignorance asks you to choose rules without knowing your own position, which protects the least advantaged.
Ethics Foundations & the Four Frameworks FAQ
What are the four ethical frameworks in BSB250?
Consequentialism / utilitarianism (judge the outcome — maximise net welfare), deontology / duty (follow universal rules and human dignity, Kant), virtue ethics (judge the character of the actor), and justice / fairness (fair process and fair distribution, Rawls). Each is strong exactly where the others are weak.
Is something ethical just because it is legal?
No — this is the signature BSB250 trap. The law sets only the minimum enforceable standard, so an action can be perfectly legal and still unethical, or arguably ethical but unlawful. A defensible decision keeps the ethical, legal and strategic perspectives separate, then integrates all three.
What is the difference between consequentialism and deontology?
Consequentialism judges an act purely by its results (does it maximise overall welfare?), so the ends can justify the means. Deontology judges by the duty or rule being followed regardless of outcome, so some actions (breaching human dignity) are forbidden even if they produce a better result — they create non-negotiable 'red lines'.
How do I structure an ethics answer that uses all four frameworks?
State the issue and keep ethical / legal / strategic separate; run all four lenses giving each one's verdict AND its standard weakness; surface where the lenses conflict; then conclude with one integrated, defensible stand. Naming the lens and weighing its strength against its weakness is where the marks live.
What is each framework's standard weakness?
Utilitarianism can sacrifice the few for the many and is indifferent to distribution; deontology is rigid and its duties can clash with no tie-breaker; virtue ethics resists measurement and risks virtue-signalling; and justice/fairness is contested because equality, desert and rights can each point to a different 'fair' answer.
Exam move
Treat the four frameworks as one reusable decision drill, not four facts to memorise. For every framework lock in the strength–weakness PAIR (utilitarian = stakeholder-wide but distribution-blind; deontology = protects dignity but rigid; virtue = captures motivation but unmeasurable; justice = centres the worst-off but 'fair' is contested), because naming the weakness earns the second half of the marks. Then practise the move end to end on any dilemma: Issue (keep ethical / legal / strategic separate) → run all four lenses with a verdict each → surface the conflict → take ONE integrated, defensible stand. Avoid the two failure modes — single-lens tunnel vision, and listing four verdicts with no integration. This same justice-and-fairness reasoning resurfaces in the Week 11–12 social-purpose and SDG material that the open-book final exam examines, so the framework muscle you build here pays off twice.
