Ghanaians highly revere wealth and the affluent without questioning how their wealth was obtained. Success is defined by material wealth, leading many youth to pursue riches through illegal means like theft or fraud. The Garrett proportionality framework, which considers intentions, means, and ends of actions, is not relevant in Ghanaian society due to its obsession with wealth above all else.

1. university of cape coast
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
LECTURER: DR.ABORAMPA AMOAH MENSAH
ASSIGNMENT: BUS 207
Question: Ghanaians revere the affluent
without questioning the sources of their
wealth. Garrett proportionality framework is
therefore of no relevance to them. Discuss.
INDEX NUMBER :SB/BMS/13/0045
11/12/2014

2. Introduction
Our Ghanaian societies are structured in a way that respect is given to someone
according to the measure of his or her riches. Everything in our societies is controlled by
the affluent (rich men) who are citizens in that society. Before a child begins to attend
school, there is the ambition of wealth creation in his or her mind.
Wealth has been the only instrument that commands respect in Ghana. This is
because success is measured according to materiality. If someone want to tease his or
her enemy, the best way is to expensive clothing or prepare a delicious meal if only they
stay in the same house or even do something that shows riches. As a result of the
ambition for wealth by most Ghanaians, our able youths are travelling oversees for
greener pastures. Most of these youths travel by illegal means (stoway), others to by
stealing family properties or other fraudulent means in order to fetch him or her some
money to live by. Our family system is structured in a way that the poor is regarded as a
failure, as a result, his or her (the poor) contribution in the family meeting is not adhered
to. It does not matter the wisdom in what they (the poor) say, all that drives Ghanaians
is riches but not advice. If a member of a family arrives from oversees, he or she wi ll be
regarded as an important figure in the family, and whatever he or she says is final. It
does not matter whether what he or she is saying contains senses all because such a
person has money on herself or himself. These people have refused to ask the sources
of their family member’s riches. Children are refusing to ask their parent the sources of
their wealth, parent are also not asking the sources of their children riches. The only
question that comes into their mind is “what kind of job do you do?” whatever reply
given them is final. Instead of the children and the parent to find out whether what was
told is true or not , they rather hail their parent or children for their good works.
Ghanaians have generated the attitude of measuring success with goodness. Thus, the
more good you are the more success (deontological theory) which has been a historical
issue. This issue has driven people who engage in fraudulent means for wealth to rather
do good in their society in order for them to be seen as good citizens. Most corrupt
individuals are engaging in charity and orphanage foundations just to hide their
intensions.
Our churches have been made in such a way that the rich men (affluent) are given
Eldership positions without questioning then source of their wealth. Such people have
used the church to cover their evil means of creating wealth. During appeal for funds,
harvest or even fund raising, they (the affluent in church) will be quoting the highest bid
for a clap from the congregation. The desperation for money by modern pastors has
created way for corrupt citizens to be in the church with no fear of God. This attitude has
defiled our churches, because the congregation too has refused to question the source
of the affluent wealth.
The ambition for wealth creation has made doctors to use fraud and also have lost their
integrity in serving the nation. Today doctors are building their own private hospitals and
no one has ever asked them the sources of their wealth.

3. Small thief in society is regarded as a menace to the society and is even imprisoned but
the great thief for example, the business man Alfred Agbesi Woyome is now regarded a
hero although he has used fraud to take GHC52.1 million from the government. His
name has been in dailies reports and the television but not regarded as a thief. Even his
thievery has given political parties opportunity to make unnecessary propaganda.
Therefore, Ghanaians regard the most corrupt as a hero without thinking the
consequence of their (the corrupt) actions to the nation. After all, they have been a
blessing to others lives.
. Affluent: this refers to having an abundance of wealth, property, or other material
goods; prosperous; rich: an affluent person.(encyclopedia)
Garrett’s proportionality framework (1966)
Garrett provides what is termed a ‘proportionality’ framework and is usefully compared
with Ross’s prima facie duties framework.
His framework combines the utilitarian concern with outcomes (consequences) with the
Kantian preoccupation with process (intentions and means).
For Garrett, ethical decisions comprise three components: intention, means and end.
The sequence in the decision-making model then becomes:
· Intention or that which is willed. What is the motivation behind a person’s actions? Are
the intentions ethical?
· Means. What methods or processes are used to bring about certain ends? Are they
ethical? An unforeseen harm, resulting from risk, is permissible because it is not willed
(intended). A foreseen harm, however, is only permissible if there is a proportionate
reason for taking the risk of the harm. For instance, it is permissible when the outcomes
will be clearly of great good and the risks are minimal (the notion of restricted risk).
· End. Garrett’s view is that ends should be measured in terms of the intrinsic value
(nature) foreseen of the acts rather than by the consequences produced by these acts.
In other words, the end should not justify the means. Also, his notion of restricted
responsibility should not be applied in the sense that anything is permissible if the ends
justify the means.
The Garrett proportionality framework combines the deontological theory with the
utilitarian theory. These theories are explained below.
Deontological ethics
The word deontology comes from the Greek roots deon, which means duty, and logos,
which means science. Thus, deontology is the "science of duty." Key questions which
deontological ethical systems ask include: What is my moral duty?

4. What are my moral obligations?
How do I weigh one moral duty against another?
Deontological ethics, in philosophy, ethical theories that place special emphasis on
the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. Deontology (Greek
Deon, “duty,” and logos, “science”) consequently focuses on logic and ethics. No
attempt is made in such theories to explicate specific moral obligations.
In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some
characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good.
Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of
their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions
as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the
heavens fall.”
By contrast, teleological ethics holds that the basic standard of morality is precisely the
value of what an action brings into being. Deontological theories have been termed
formalistic because their central principle lies in the conformity of an action to some rule
or law.
The first great philosopher to define deontological principles was Immanuel Kant, the
18th-century German founder of critical philosophy, whose ethics were much influenced
by Christianity as well as by the Rationalism of the Enlightenment. Kant held that
nothing is good without qualification except a good will, which is one that wills to act in
accord with the moral law and out of respect for that law, rather than out of natural
inclinations. He saw the moral law as a categorical imperative—i.e., an unconditional
command—and believed that its content could be established by human reason alone.
Reason begins with the principle “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant’s critics, however, have
questioned his view that all duties can be derived from this purely formal principle and
have argued that, in his preoccupation with rational consistency; he neglected the
concrete content of moral obligation.
This objection was faced in the 20th century by the British philosopher W.D. Ross, who
held that numerous “prima facie duties,” rather than a single formal principle for deriving
them, are themselves immediately self-evident. Ross distinguished these prima facie
duties (such as promise keeping, reparation, gratitude, and justice) from actual duties,
for “any possible act has many sides to it which are relevant to its rightness or
wrongness”; and these facets have to be weighed before “forming a judgment on the
totality of its nature” as an actual obligation in the given circumstances.
Types of Deontological Ethics
Some examples of deontological ethical theories:
Divine Command: the most common forms of deontological moral theories are those
which derive their set of moral obligations from a god. According to many Christians, for
example, an action is morally correct whenever it is in agreement with the rules and

5. duties established by God.
Duty Theories: an action is morally right if it is in accord with some list of duties and
obligations.
Rights Theories: an action is morally right if it adequately respects the rights of all
humans (or at least all members of society). This is also sometimes referred to as
Libertarianism, the political philosophy that people should be legally free to do whatever
they wish so long as their actions do not impinge upon the rights of others.
Contractarianism: an action is morally right if it is in accordance with the rules that
rational moral agents would agree to observe upon entering into a social relationship
(contract) for mutual benefit. This is also sometimes referred to as Contractualism.
Monistic Deontology: an action is morally right if it agrees with some single
deontological principle which guides all other subsidiary principles.
Problems with Deontological Ethics
A common criticism of deontological moral systems is that they provide no clear way to
resolve conflicts between moral duties. a deontological moral system should include
both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm, for example, but in the
above situation how is a person to choose between those two moral duties? A popular
response to this is to simply choose the "lesser of two evils," but that means relying on
which of the two has the least evil consequences and, therefore, the moral choice is
being made on a consequentialitist rather than a deontological basis.
Some critics argue that deontological moral systems are, in fact, consequentialist moral
systems in disguise. According to this argument, duties and obligations which set forth
in deontological systems are actually those actions which have been demonstrated over
long periods of time to have the best consequences. Eventually, they become enshrined
in custom and law and people stop giving them or their consequences much thought —
they are simply assumed to be correct. Deontological ethics are thus ethics where the
reasons for particular duties have been forgotten, even if things have completely
changed.
A second criticism is that deontological moral systems do not readily allow for grey
areas where the morality of an action is questionable. They are, rather, systems which
are based upon absolutes — absolute principles and absolute conclusions. In real life,
however, moral questions more often involve grey areas than absolute black & white
choices. We typically have conflicting duties, interests, and issues that make things
difficult.

6. Another common criticism of deontological ethical theories is the question of just which
duties qualify as those which we should all follow, regardless of the consequences.
Duties which might have been valid in the 18th century are not necessarily valid now,
but who is to say which ones should be abandoned and which are still valid? And if any
are to be abandoned, how can we say that they really were moral duties back in the
18th century?
If these were duties created by God, how can they possibly stop being duties today?
Many attempts to develop deontological systems focus on explaining how and why
certain duties are valid at any time or at all times and how we can know that. Religious
believers are often in the difficult position of trying to explain what believers of the past
treated certain duties as objective, absolute ethical requirements created by God but
today they aren't — today we have different absolute, objective ethical requirements
created by God. These are all reasons why irreligious atheists rarely subscribe to
deontological ethical systems, though it can't be denied that they can at times have
ethical insights to offer.
Deontology's Foil: Consequentialism
Because deontological theories are best understood in contrast to consequentialist
ones, a brief look at consequentialism and a survey of the problems with it that motivate
its deontological opponents, provides a helpful prelude to taking up deontological
theories themselves. Consequentialists hold that choices—acts and/or intentions—are
to be morally assessed solely by the states of affairs they bring about.
Consequentialists thus must specify initially the states of affairs that are intrinsically
valuable—often called, collectively, “the Good.” They then are in a position to assert that
whatever choices increase the Good, that is, bring about more of it, are the choices that
it is morally right to make and to execute. (The Good in that sense is said to be prior to
“the Right.”)
Consequentialists can and do differ widely in terms of specifying the Good. Some
consequentialists are monists about the Good. Utilitarians, for example, identify the
Good with pleasure, happiness, desire satisfaction, or “welfare” in some other sense.
Other consequentialists are pluralists regarding the Good. Some of such pluralists
believe that how the Good is distributed among persons (or all sentient beings) is itself
partly constitutive of the Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average
each person's share of the Good to achieve the Good's maximization.
Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from
doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs
constitutive of the Good. An example of this is the positing of rights not being violated,
or duties being kept, as part of the Good to be maximized—the so-called “utilitarianism
of rights” (Nozick 1974).

7. None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and
deontology. For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: an
action would be right only insofar as it maximizes these Good-making states of affairs
being caused to exist.
However much consequentialists differ about what the Good consists in, they all agree
that the morally right choices are those that increase (either directly or indirectly) the
Good. Moreover, consequentialists generally agree that the Good is “agent-neutral”
(Parfit 1984; Nagel 1986). That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all
agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are
achieved through the exercise of one's own agency or not.
Consequentialism is frequently criticized on a number of grounds. Two of these are
particularly apt for revealing the temptations motivating the alternative approach to
deontic ethics that is deontology. The two criticisms pertinent here are that
consequentialism is, on the one hand, overly demanding, and, on the other hand, that it
is not demanding enough. The criticism regarding extreme demandingness runs like
this: for consequentialists, there is no realm of moral permissions, no realm of going
beyond one's moral duty (supererogation), no realm of moral indifference. All acts are
seemingly either required or forbidden. And there also seems to be no space for the
consequentialist in which to show partiality to one's own projects or to one's family,
friends, and countrymen, leading some critics of consequentialism to deem it a
profoundly alienating and perhaps self-effacing moral theory (Williams 1973).
On the other hand, consequentialism is also criticized for what it seemingly permits. It
seemingly demands (and thus, of course, permits) that in certain circumstances
innocents be killed, beaten, lied to, or deprived of material goods to produce greater
benefits for others. Consequences—and only consequences—can conceivably justify
any kind of act, for it does not matter how harmful it is to some so long as it is more
beneficial to others.
A well-worn example of this over-permissiveness of consequentialism is that of a case
standardly called, Transplant. A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one
healthy patient whose organs can save the five. In the right circumstances, surgeon will
be permitted (and indeed required) by consequentialism to kill the healthy patient to
obtain his organs, assuming there are no relevant consequences other than the saving
of the five and the death of the one. Likewise, consequentialism will permit (in a case
that we shall call, Fat Man) that a fat man be pushed in front of a runaway trolley if his
being crushed by the trolley will halt its advance towards five workers trapped on the
track. We shall return to these examples later on.
Consequentialists are of course not bereft of replies to these two criticisms. Some
retreat from maximizing the Good to “satisficing”—that is, making the achievement of
only a certain level of the Good mandatory (Slote 1984). This move opens up some
space for personal projects and relationships, as well as a realm of the morally
permissible. It is not clear, however, that satisficing is adequately motivated, except to

8. avoid the problems of maximizing. Nor is it clear that the level of mandatory satisficing
can be nonarbitrarily specified, or that satisficing will not require deontological
constraints to protect satisficers from maximizers.
Another move is to introduce a positive/negative duty distinction within
consequentialism. On this view, our (negative) duty is not to make the world worse by
actions having bad consequences; lacking is a corresponding (positive) duty to make
the world better by actions having good consequences (Bentham 1789 (1948); Quinton
2007). We thus have a consequentialist duty not to kill the one in Transplant or in Fat
Man; and there is no counterbalancing duty to save five that overrides this. Yet as with
the satisficing move, it is unclear how a consistent consequentialist can motivate this
restriction on all-out optimization of the Good.
Yet another idea popular with consequentialists is to move from consequentialism as a
theory that directly assesses acts to consequentialism as a theory that directly assesses
rules—or character-trait inculcation—and assesses acts only indirectly by reference to
such rules (or character-traits) (Alexander 1985). Its proponents contend that indirect
consequentialism can avoid the criticisms of direct (act) consequentialism because it will
not legitimate egregious violations of ordinary moral standards—e.g., the killing of the
innocent to bring about some better state of affairs—nor will it be overly demanding and
thus alienating each of us from our own projects.
The relevance here of these defensive maneuvers by consequentialists is their common
attempt to mimic the intuitively plausible aspects of a non-consequentialist,
deontological approach to ethics. For as we shall now explore, the strengths of
deontological approaches lies: (1) in their categorical prohibition of actions like the
killing of innocents, even when good consequences are in the offing; and (2) in their
permission to each of us to pursue our own projects free of any constant demand that
we shape those projects so as to make everyone else well off.
Consequences resulting from the reverence Ghanaians give to the affluent
Ghanaians have hyped the affluent in society in such a way that the poor is not
recognized as an important figure n our society. The rich in our societies have used
their wealth to control the minds of most Ghanaians which have prevented them from
discovering the source of the rich’s wealth. There is a saying that “money answers
everything”, so the outcome of the affluent actions is not considered. I would like to
stress some consequences emanating from these attitudes of Ghanaians towards the
affluent. These are:
 Increase in Non Governmental Organizations (NGO)
 The creation of power
 Societal corruption

9. The affluent in Ghana have used nongovernmental organizations as a
means of preventing people from discovering the sources of their wealth.
These days if a person wants to be recognized in society as a good person, the best is
to engage in or establish charity foundations or orphanage which is also beneficial to
the vulnerable in society. This is an opportunity Ghanaians have given to the affluent
without making any internal and effective control measures to check or verify what
actually the affluent the resources to undertake such projects those who take it upon
themselves to ask of the source of their wealth are answered that funds are being
solicited from various corporate bodies and institutions to support the project.
Meanwhile this may not be the case, it is a justification for fraudulent activity they have
engaged in. managers In corporate institutions are embezzling funds, District Chief
executives are using common funds for their own personal interest, Ministers are
appropriating the budget for a project in order to to use the remaining money for their
own benefit., etc. Today, politicians and their relatives are engaging in charity
foundations with the intension to cover their corrupt attitudes. For example, the first lady
of Ghana, Mrs. Lordina Mahama , has been running charity foundations that enhances
health promotion and advocacy and encourage women employment through capacity
building and sustained income generation among other benefits that has made her a
woman who listens, love and care for others especially the less privileged, children and
women.
A look at her work through the Lordina Foundation shows that the foundation has
helped in areas such as orphanage support, support for Persons Living with HIV/AIDS,
Scholarships for brilliant but needy students, promoting women’s empowerment through
entrepreneurship, raising awareness and advocating for cervical and breast cancer
prevention and treatment.
The foundation is also providing suitable accommodation for ostracized women in
“Witch Camps and still goes to the aid of the weak, sick and lass privileged in society.
According to her, the multiplier effects of such philanthropic gestures will help many
indigent people in the society to become self reliant by getting employment. The first
Lady is described by the less privileged in society as an honest and intelligent woman-”
a great mother and a comforter”. She is described by many as a source of
encouragement in her advocacy for health, Education, peace and unity in the country.
Ghana’s First lady, Lordina Mahama have received recognition from development
partners and organizations in the USA and across the globe for her philanthropic work
through the Lordina Foundation in Ghana and being active in helping in his husband’s
social policy interventions such as the development of deprived children and women in
both rural and urban areas of Ghana.
Although it is a good project, nobody has ever questioned her source of her wealth. I am
saying this because when Mrs. Lordina mahama was not the first lady, she was not
engaging in this philanthropic foundation. According to the utilitarian theory, which
states that the consequence of your action must bring more happiness to the greater
number of people and less harm to the least number of people (Jeremy Bentham), this
project is very welcoming in Ghana because it has helped many people from perishing

10. through sickness. Whereas, deontological theory states that doing good or bad does not
base on the consequence of your action. This is a situational issue because a person is
seen as good in Ghana if the society benefit from him or her no matter he
consequences the goodness will bring to society. For instance, if Mrs. Lordina Mahama
is embezzling funds from the government coffers in undertaken this project then, the
consequences will badly affect the state’s financial position with the intension (according
to Garrett proportionality framework) of gaining political power at the end.
Most affluent in Ghana are revered for the good they do to their societies although they
might be engaging in ‘juju’ for blood money. These and many more are some
opportunities Ghanaians have given to the affluent in society.
The reverence Ghanaians give to the affluent has given them power to
control everything in societies in fraudulent manner.
Our Ghanaian family system is structured in a way that the rich men in the family are
recognized as the backbone of the family. Because of this, the influence the rich have
on the family is very high. When it comes to family meeting the rich are always
recognized, they (rich0 decisions to suit their own interest, any decision made against
their interest will be disregarded by them because they (the rich) are those the whole
family looks onto when problems evolves. This issue has compelled most people the
ambition for riches even if the means are not there. Parents are forcing their children in
bringing huge sums of money to their house. Our family system has been a platform to
show one’s riches and belongings. Most people are embezzling funds from their
workplaces, others are using lies to claim huge sums of money from people, others also
are killing to get wealth, and whiles others are also dealing in drugs for wealth without
questioning them the source of their wealth. Today, the one in flashy cars, who wears
expensive clothing, living in beautiful house etc, is seen as a rich person and is
therefore respected by Ghanaians but the person who is not riding in posh cars and in
expensive clothing is seen as an ordinary man, lazy man, poor man etc. this attitude
has also given the affluent the opportunity to seek for political power.
Societal corruption
The complexity of our social structure is such that those who succeed can hide their
corruption. Corruption is seen only when someone fails. If you succeed no one will know
that you have been corrupt; success will hide everything. You have only to succeed and
you will become a pinnacle of goodness, thus you will become everything that is good,
pure, and innocent. That means you can succeed in any way you like, but you must
succeed. Once you succeed, once you are successful, nothing that you may have done
is wrong.

11. This has been true throughout history. A person is only a thief if he is a small thief. If he
is a great thief, then he becomes an Alexander the Great, a hero. No one ever sees that
there is no qualitative difference between the two, that it is only a qualitative difference.
No one will call Alexander the Great a great thief because the measure of your
goodness is success: the more successful you are the more good. Means are only
questioned if you are failure, then you will be called both corrupt and a fool.
If this is the attitude, how is it possible to create an uncorrupt society? To ask a person
to be moral in this immoral situation is to ask something absurd. An individual cannot be
moral in an immoral society. If he tries to be moral, his morality will only make his
egoistic and ego is as immoral and corrupt as anything else.
This situation is a human creation. We have created a society with a mad rush for
wealth, power, politics; we go on supporting it, and then we ask why there is corruption.
Where there is ambition, corruption will be the logical consequence. You cannot check
corruption unless the whole basic structure that encourages ambitions is destroyed.
In conclusion
Our Ghanaian societies are structured in a way that respect is given to someone
according to the measure of his or her riches. Everything in our societies is controlled by
the affluent (rich men) who are citizens in that society
Wealth has been the only instrument that commands respect in Ghana. This is because
success is measured according to materiality
Ghanaians have generated the attitude of measuring success with goodness. Thus, the
more good you are the more success (deontological theory) which has been a historical
issue. This issue has driven people who engage in fraudulent means for wealth to rather
do good in their society in order for them to be seen as good citizens. Most corrupt
individuals are engaging in charity and orphanage foundations just to hide their
intensions.
Garrett provides what is termed a ‘proportionality’ framework and is usefully compared
with Ross’s prima facie duties framework.
His framework combines the utilitarian concern with outcomes (consequences) with the
Kantian preoccupation with process (intentions and means).
For Garrett, ethical decisions comprise three components: intention, means and end
In philosophy, Deontological ethics refers to ethical theories that place special
emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions.
In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some
characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good.

12. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of
their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions
as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the
heavens fall.”
Some examples of deontological ethical theories are Divine Command, Duty Theories,
Contractarianism, Rights Theories, Monistic Deontology.
A common criticism of deontological moral systems is that they provide no clear way to
resolve conflicts between moral duties
Some critics argue that deontological moral systems are, in fact, consequentialist moral
systems in disguise.
A second criticism is that deontological moral systems do not readily allow for grey
areas where the morality of an action is questionable.
Another common criticism of deontological ethical theories is the question of just which
duties qualify as those which we should all follow, regardless of the consequences.
Consequences resulting from the reverence Ghanaians give to the affluent are
Increase in Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), the creation of power, societal
corruption.
Ghanaians have revered the affluent as a result of their goodness without questioning
them the source of their wealth.
References
Alexander, L., 1985, “Pursuing the Good—Indirectly,” Ethics, 95(2): 315–332.
Brook, R., 2007, “Deontology, Paradox, and Moral Evil,” Social Theory and Practice,
33(3): 431–40.
encyclopedia
Kant, Immanuel. 1785. “First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of
Morals to the Philosophical”, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Waller, Bruce N. 2005. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New
York: Pearson Longman: 23