Final answer:
It is false that religious ethical principles guarantee decisions with few negative consequences as they involve intricate moral considerations that can lead to conflicts. Various ethical theories, such as ethical naturalism and Divine Command, interact with secular principles, and global entities like the UN prefer principles like utility to manage ethical dilemmas effectively.
Step-by-step explanation:
The assertion that religious ethical principles allow managers to make decisions with few possible negative consequences is false. While religious ethical frameworks, such as those from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, do offer moral guidance, these frameworks involve complex considerations that can sometimes conflict with secular ethical principles or among the diverse interpretations within the religion itself. For example, in managerial decision-making, ethical naturalism advocates for actions that fulfill human nature, while Divine Command theory suggests morals are dictated by a deity's will.
The Euthyphro problem challenges the relationship between divine command and ethics, questioning if something is moral because it is commanded by God or if God commands it because it's inherently moral. Moreover, ethical theories such as ethical egoism lack universalizability, suggesting that ethics based solely on self-interest cannot resolve moral conflicts effectively. Instead, global entities like the United Nations prefer the principle of utility to navigate ethical dilemmas.
Moreover, Thomas Aquinas noted the existence of various types of laws: eternal, natural, human, and divine. Intersecting these laws with modern management processes highlights potential conflicts, reinforcing the fact that religious ethics do not automatically simplify decision-making and minimize negative consequences. Managers must navigate these complexities with the understanding that ethical decisions often entail a balance between different moral principles and the practical realities of the business world.