IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v13y2025a8406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Synderesis vs. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism in Workplace Bullying Prevention

Author

Listed:
  • Jolita Vveinhardt

    (Vytautas Kavolis Interdisciplinary Research Institute, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania)

  • Mykolas Deikus

    (Faculty of Catholic Theology, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania)

Abstract

The existence of workplace bullying in modern organizations is, first of all, a serious moral challenge. Since bullying characterized by intense and long‐lasting persecution of the target causes serious negative consequences for organizations, there are proposals to base the prevention of this phenomenon on utilitarianism. However, some studies show that the ethics that judges the goodness of an action by consequences causes many problems at the level of interpersonal relationships. Therefore, in the context of workplace bullying, it is proposed to consider the scholastic idea of synderesis. The article theoretically examines three alternatives to bystanders’ decisions based on the ideas of consequentialism, utilitarianism, and synderesis: to act constructively actively (to support the victim), to act destructively actively (to support the persecutor), and to act destructively passively (not to intervene in the conflict). Considering that different schools of consequentialism and utilitarianism cannot guarantee constructive behaviour of bystanders, the decisions inspired by the conscience guided by synderesis can be a suitable alternative that can be easily implemented in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Jolita Vveinhardt & Mykolas Deikus, 2025. "Synderesis vs. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism in Workplace Bullying Prevention," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:8406
    DOI: 10.17645/si.8406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/8406
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/si.8406?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v13:y:2025:a:8406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.