whether the action itself is right or wrong, regardless of its consequences.
Imagine a situation in which a professional accountant holds a consequentialist ethical viewpoint and believes
that there are certain scenarios in which the disclosure of only part of the truth is a commendable course of
action. For example, if an accountant is interviewed regarding how the company handled a certain transaction
in its retirement account, he might choose to withhold certain information because he is afraid it will harm the
retirees’ ability to retain the full benefits of their pensions. In this case, the accountant is utilizing “the ends
justify the means” logic because he feels that the omission of truth will result in more benefit than its
revelation. A mediator or arbitrator who also follows a consequentialist viewpoint would consider the
accountant’s motivation and the circumstances, in addition to his or her actions.
Ethical situations like these are not only part of dispute mediation in business law scenarios, but also happen
in daily life. Consider the case of a parent who is on his way home from work when he receives a call from the
babysitter, telling him that his child’s forehead feels hot and that she is complaining of not feeling well. Sitting
in traffic, the parent remembers that he does not know the whereabouts of the digital thermometer, so he
decides to stop and purchase one. The parking lot at the store is extremely busy, so the parent decides to park
in a handicapped spot, even though he does not have any mobility challenges. These types of situations have
been addressed by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, who spoke of the categorical imperative, which he
defined as, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a
universal law.” In other words, one’s action should be considered in light of what would happen if everyone
were to engage in the same action. While it might not seem like a harmful infraction, if everyone were to do it,
then it would cause a true inconvenience and possible suffering for mobility-impaired individuals, for whom
those spaces were designated. A deontological ethical viewpoint would determine that it is always wrong to
park in the handicapped space, regardless of the situation. In real life, it is very difficult to adopt a 100%
deontological viewpoint for dispute resolution. Often, the reason the dispute has arisen in the first place is
because of some ambiguity inherent in the situation. In these cases, mediators must apply their best
judgment to help the disagreeing parties see one another’s viewpoints and to guide them toward a mutually
amicable solution.
Figure 2.4
Sometimes ethical issues have no clear-cut answers and mediators must rely upon their best
judgement. (Credit: George Becker/ pexels/ License: CC0)
Chapter 2 Disputes and Dispute Settlement
21