Moral intensity

According to Jones (1991, pp.374-378), moral intensity comprises the following six attributes:

Magnitude of consequences: Jones said that the importance of the consequences is the

"sum of the damage (or benefits) makes the victim (or beneficiary) of ethical behavior in question" (p. 374). One example he provided was an act causing death is a cause bigger consequences minor injury. Jones said that the inclusion of the extent of the consequences is a component of moral strength is not only common sense but also in line with empirical evidence.

Two market research ethics review by Jones are in Fritzsche & Becker (1983) and Fritzsche (1988), the results showed a positive relationship between the magnitude of the consequences and ethical behavior. One of the recent studies, Vasquez-Párraga Hunt (1993) have shown that

14

the positive relationships between organizational consequences and moral decisions of a manager. High moral intensity will be recognized as ethical issues more often and will most likely result in a more virtuous intention or ethics.

Social consensus: According to Jones (p. 375), social consensus is "level of social agreement that a proposed action is evil (or good)". Because "social consensus" is a rather vague term, most of them can be influenced by the extent to which the important people (eg, family, friends, others employees) agree "that a proposed action is evil (or good)". The interesting thing is, Hunt & Vitell (1986, 1993) defined "cultural norms" as a factor in the pattern of their marketing ethics. Although no detail has been given by them, cultural norms have been described as a structural impact on various aspects of decision making and ethical issues as perceived alternatives how ethical awareness. According to Jones, the logic is the reason why a social consensus is defined as a dimension of moral strength. As he explains "It is difficult to act ethically if a person does not know what good moral regulation in a situation, a high degree of social consensus reduces the ambiguity will existence "(p 375) Citing the work of Laczniak &

Inderrieden (1987), Jones also defended its inclusion of social consensus with the empirical evidence. The following statement by Laczniak & Inderrieden (1987, p. 304) has been interpreted by Jones, "In order for individuals to respond appropriately to a given situation, the agreement must exist to be whether or not this is appropriate behavior. " Of course, this "agreed value" does not necessarily ensure that moral action will be taken in a given situation…

Probability impact: The probability of effect is defined as "a general function of the probability that the action in question will actually occur and act in question would actually harm (benefits)" (Jones, p. 375). This size has the moral strength and Vitell matching Hunt (1986, 1993), who described "the probability of consequences" as part of the evaluation of a teleological individuals. In particular, citing the work of the day tons (1979), Hunt & Vitell said "a personal preference alternatives in situations with a moral content to be balanced against the possibility that the actions contribute to the achievement of personal goals "(p. 9). According to Jones, the inclusion of the dimension of moral strength is a matter of logic. In other words, as he illustrates, the magnitude of a moral action would be "discounted" if either its probability of harm or its probability is less than 1.00. Following to this concept and in line with the general

15

recommendations of the impact of moral strength, we believe that the probability of a negative result has a positive impact on the perception of a moral to market and of the intention of a marketer.

Temporal immediacy: Jones (p. 376) defines the instantaneous power is "the period between the present and on the consequences of ethical behavior in question." Jones said that

"people tend to discount the impact of events occurring in the future.... “The greater the interval, the greater the discount" (p. 376) According to Jones, this may be because people tend to realize that the greater the time between action and its consequences, is lower than the probability of the actions caused any harm.

Proximity: It is defined as "a feeling of closeness (social, cultural, psychological or physical) that the moral agent with the victim (the beneficiary) of evil (good) actions in question asked "(p. 376). Jones asserted that "people care more about others, those close to them (social, cultural, psychological, or physical) than they do to those who are far off" (p. 376). Almost a factor of ethical decision-making in line with the moral model of Hunt & Vitell (1986, 1993), where "the importance of stakeholder" is defined as a structure affects the moral judgment of the marketer. Based on their evaluation of the work of Brenner & Molander (1977) and Zey-Ferrell, Weaver & Ferrell (1979), an important stakeholder groups the following is recorded: customers, shareholders, employees, colleagues, interfaces and management. Perceived importance of stakeholders is the focus of a study by Vitell & Singhapakdi (1991), who found that the strict implementation of the code of ethics in an organization can have a positive impact pole on the way marketers assess their importance. They also found that Machiavellians tend to place importance on personal preferences rather than on the interests of customers.

Concentration effects: Effective concentration is defined as "a function of the inverse of the number of people affected by the actions of certain intensity" (Jones, 1991, p. 377). The concept of effective concentrations is consistent with the philosophy of utilitarianism normative ethics, which essentially said that "an action is right only when it creates for everyone a better balance better result than the negative consequences other available alternatives (for example,

"the best for the greatest number ')" (Hunt & Vitell, 1986, p. 7). since the concentration of impacts extreme action means a "bad" for a large number of people or else it is "extremely bad"

16

for a few, then, according to a philosophy of pragmatism, it will be less than one ethical action does not have a high concentration of negative impact.