THE MORALLY DECENT HR MANAGER 275in words relevant to HR managers and with a few added norms derived from
my interviews with HR managers (Macklin 1999). The norms, principles,
and maxims are primarily adapted from Heller (1990) Chapter 2 (for those
in Table 16.1 see pages 44–9, 55, 107–8 and 111) and the full catalogue
of my adaptation of her norms, principles, and maxims can be obtained
from me.
Ioffer the catalogue as a set of potential guidelines but also as a starting
point for further discussion by HR managers who wish to be decent. I suggest
that decent HR managers as a group need to fashion their own moral supports
and this catalogue could be a starting point for this task.
I fear the way I have set out the principles would overstretch Heller’s
patience. The discussion of principles inA Philosophy of Morals(1990) is
more narrative in orientation and sometimes avoids the specification of lists,
perhaps because of the importance Heller places on ‘good judgement’. Heller
argues that no ethical decision can be governed fully by detailed principles.
Nevertheless, I have reproduced lists here because I wish to provide principles
for HR managers that I think they might be able to refer to when they feel
the need. It is in this spirit that I offer the catalogue, as an adaptation of her
work.
Turning finally to the debates about the constitution of the self, Heller
goes beyond the dichotomy of a completely encumbered or unencumbered
self by suggesting that no individual is a simple subsystem of society or
completely independent from it. She provides a differentiated view of the self
that stresses,inter alia, every normal individual’srelativemoral autonomy. In
Heller’s view, we are not unfettered by the moral norms of our community
but neither are we so encumbered that we cannot critically reflect on and
resist or change them. We are neither absolutely autonomous nor absolutely
heteronomous: we live with relative moral autonomy. And, by relative moral
autonomy she means a person does not automatically obey every concrete
norm but confirms them as valid or not with their conscience and guided
by abstract norms and values. Individuals are able to compare their actions
with those of others and to assess critically actions from the perspective of
abstract norms, maxims, and values. This can involve an internal dialogue
within the self, or a discussion or debate with others. Thus, the decent person
is a person whose actions are not determined by concrete norms and values or
by self-interests or blind passions. Rather the choice they have made to act in
accord with norms and values they accept as good, determines their actions.
Moreover, relative moral autonomy presupposes relative moral heteronomy.
The decent person by virtue of being a decent person is subject to situational
constraints that mean they must carry out some acts of moral relevance that
they would not be willing to carry out if nothing constrained them. That is,
decent people have to face situations where to follow moral norms means they
must choose to suffer wrong rather than do wrong.