Ethics

Exporting capital Is the removal of capital from the country in which it Is originally held and It’s transfer for Investment In an Importing country willing to meet the demands of the company. (encyclopedia. Overconfidently. Com). At the basic definition of this practice, I take a libertarian way of thinking on this. If this Is what a company needs to do to be profitable, government should not have the ability to interfere with this system.

However, this is not how exporting capital happens in today’s world or at any time in history for that matter. Companies are getting away with low wages, long hours, little to know regulation on labor laws and unfavorable working conditions. For these reason, I do believe constraints are not the answer because exporting capital is good for both parties when executed in an ethical way. Taking the utilitarian theory, this is finding the greatest good over bad for the majority of the people.

Exporting helps companies remain profitable and help the people and the economy of the country receiving the export. If both side benefit and there are no extremes to either side then exporting can be beneficial to all parties. . Export commodities which have been banned from sale In the united States I believe there should a ban on commodities that are banned in the United States simply because it is a dangerous practice. If it’s not safe for citizens in the US then it is not safe for citizens anywhere.

That is Just common sense and ignoring this logic is clearly unethical. According to act utilitarianism, we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected. (Shaw & Berry 2013). It may save money to for the companies that produced the reduces and they may even make a profit but exporting a commodity that Is banned is unsafe for those receiving the goods. Cant’s theory also states, the basis of obligation – must not be sought In human nature, or In the circumstances of the world.

It should be a parlor. (Shaw & Berry 2013). Just because we don’t know what the result of use of a banned commodity in another country doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to do. Sometimes downsizing is unavoidable in order for a company to survive economic times of difficulty. As unpleasant as it may be, laying off hundreds people so more can keep their Jobs is seen as a small sacrifice. If downsizing is done for this reason and in this manner, it helps more people in the long run. The maxima rule is applied in these situations.

Making a decision based on the worse possible outcome of one action is the better than the worse possible action outcome of another (Shaw & Berry 2013). Utilitarian theory also supports the decision to downsize in the face of economic difficulty. The action that will produce the greatest happiness, we must consider unhappiness or pain as well as happiness. (Shaw & Berry 2013) If the act of downsizing will save Jobs for others, keep the company from going bankrupt and verbal add to the overall stability of the economy, than this is best action to take.

During the 2008 economic downturn, many companies had massive layoffs. At the time, many people did not see this as a small sacrifice but as the higher executives staying rich while the people on the bottom suffered the most. These executives were not depicted in a good light for keeping the companies open for business but greedy because they were awarded millions in bonuses for these actions. It seems as if they had their own economic interest in mind and not the interest of all. This is offered to as business egoism which is defended on utilitarian grounds. (Shaw & Berry 2013).

However, according to John Rail’s theory of distributive Justice, social and economic inequalities these executives acted unethical because their gain did not benefit all Just themselves (Shaw & Berry 2013). Their actions are not supported by this theory. 4. Break union contracts in the face of economic difficulty This question is a difficult one for me to answer because I am not in the union but I have friends and family that are unions. I see the benefits of the unions but as someone that works in the private sector, I also see it as unjust. Unions leave the people they service at their mercy when things do not work in their favor.

In New York we also experience the effects of labor strikes because of union contracts being negotiated like Toronto experienced with their transit strike. I beg to question if unions benefit the community they provide services for or Just the community that work within the unions. In my personal opinion, breaking union contracts in the face economic difficulty should be treated like any company that is experiencing economic difficulty. If a company without a union has the right to lay off employees to save the many, then I don’t feel like union workers are above this rule.

Lay-offs are unfortunate no matter how they happen and if they can be avoided then all parties involved should do so. Rule utilitarianism would make decisions based on strictly upon morals that would make everyone happy. That is the purpose of union contract negotiations. (Shaw & Berry 2013) For unions, who is the “everyone” that is being considered during these negotiations? Are union workers simply looking out for their am answering a question with a question but this is a moral dilemma that doesn’t have one answer.

As permitted by Vietnamese law and labor regulations, Vietnamese subcontractors are permitted to employ hillier between the ages of 15 and 18 within their factories. This fact has infuriated children’s rights activists in the united States (U. S. ) who feel that Nikkei is exploiting children in Vietnam to increase revenue. These activists protest the employment of children under the age of 18, and argue that children would have an opportunity to attend school and further their education if they are not forced to work.

An opposing view of this argument is that children who accept employment within Vietnamese factories are doing so out of their own free will and feel fortunate o be earning an income to help contribute to the welfare of their family. Furthermore, secondary education in Vietnam Is not free as In the U. S. ; therefore, children who accept employment are most likely In a financial deficit and would likely not be able to afford to get a secondary education even If they had the time to attend.

Utilitarian model philosophy suggests that you should act in a way that generates the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Applying the utilitarian model to each of the prominent stakeholders from above gives a clear depiction of the pros and cons for both alternatives. A. Alternative #1: Continue to hire/employ underage workers For Alternative #1, in which Nikkei continues to hire and employ underage workers, there are more quantifiable positive outcomes than negative.

Positive outcomes include increased income for Vietnamese workers and their families and reduced prices of Nikkei brand products, which is beneficial to both consumers and shareholders. There are several negative outcomes from continuing to employ children workers, which include Nikkei Corporation, Nine’s CEO, and U. S. Global images remaining under scrutiny. Additionally, and most importantly, choosing to continue employing children in factories will likely to cause a consumer backlash, reducing overall product sales.

Alternative #1 : Continue to hire/employ underage workers Increased income for children’s families Nine’s public image suffers * Reduced prices for consumers U. S. Global image remains tarnished * Increased shareholder earnings* Reduced sales / consumer backlash *Increased revenue for Nikkei Increased scrutiny for CEO b. Alternative #2: Ban underage employment Applying the utilitarian model to Alternative #2, banning underage employment in Nine’s factories, produces a negative quantifiable outcome. If Nikkei announced that it would no longer hire children, the corporation’s public image, as well as the image of the U.

S. N general, would improve, and Nikkei is likely to increase and expand its and increased consumer product costs) outweigh the positives for Alternative #2. Alternative #2: Ban underage employment Nine’s public image improves * Increased poverty in Vietnam U. S. Global image improves * Costs of products increases Customer base expands Vietnamese children subjected to more harsh work environments Alternative favored: The Utilitarian Model, as displayed in the balance sheets above, favors Alternative #1, which is that Nikkei should continue to hire and employ underage workers. . Golden Rule Model The Golden Rule Model reflects the alternative that each of the key stakeholders would choose if given the choice: Key Stakeholder Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Employed/eligible Vietnamese children Yes No Families of employed/eligible Vietnamese children Yes Nikkei Corporation Yes No Other outsourced companies Yes No Consumers Yes No Nikkei CEO yes NO No Alternative favored: Alternative #1 is the clear choice for all of the key stakeholders using the Golden Rule Model. 3. Kantian Model a.

Children in Vietnam are often depended upon in their society to go to work and ran an income in order to provide food and shelter for themselves and their families; therefore, they would argue for their right to do so by choosing Alternative b. Nikkei Corporation and other multinational companies are entitled to run their in which they operate. Nikkei would prefer Alternative #1 . C. Children’s rights activists would argue that these child workers have the right to education, and that are prevented from doing so by being “forced” to work.

These advocates for the Vietnamese children would be in favor of Alternative #2, banning all child labor in Nikkei factories. Alternative favored: The Kantian Model illustrates three significant societal values or rights that would be affected, with the majority in favor of Alternative #1 . 4. Enlightened Self-Interest Model Nikkei Corporation would view Alternative #1 , continuing to employ children in their overseas factories, as the most economically beneficial option.

This alternative will reduce prices for consumers, increase shareholder earnings, and increase revenue for Nikkei. These benefits exceed the risks associated with Alternative #1, which mostly involves tarnished images of Nikkei and its CEO. Alternative favored: Since the benefits to the decision maker (Nikkei) outweigh the harm caused to all other stakeholders, the Enlightened Self-Interest Model favors Alternative #1 .

Moral Models – Best Fit The Utilitarian and Golden Rule Models are the most effective in determining which alternative is the best choice: Utilitarian Model: Alternative #1 has three (3) quantifiable pros vs.. Only one (1) con, whereas Alternative #2 zero (O) quantifiable pros as opposed to one (1) con. Golden Rule Model: All six (6) of the key stakeholders in this decision would benefit from Alternative #1 .

Moral Models – Not a Good Fit Whereas the Utilitarian & Golden Rule Models clearly demonstrate that Alternative #1 is the best choice for all key stakeholders, the Kantian and Enlightened Self-Interest Models are not as convincing because they reflect the views of only a small portion of all stakeholders: Kantian Model: Alternative #1 positively affects two (2) out of three (3) social values or rights, whereas Alternative #2 only positively affects one (1). Comparisons within such a small sample size are not as convincing as the Utilitarian and Golden Rule Models.

Enlightened Self-Interest Model: Although the most prominent stakeholder, Nikkei, would be positively affected by Alternative #1 , and said benefit outweighs any harm caused to all other stakeholders by choosing this alternative, the model advocates for the benefit of a single entity. The Utilitarian and Golden Rule Models take into consider a larger portion of all stakeholders who would be affected by this decision. Nikkei has been employing children in overseas factories for decades, during which time it has enduring many years of ridicule and criticism for doing so.

Nikkei should try to improve its image to the public by taking the initiative to educate opponents of child labor with regard to the cultural differences between third-world countries and the U. S. They should specifically address the issue that it is not only the norm for children in those locations to work, but also that it is often a crucial for their survival. Additionally, Nikkei should enlighten critics about the educational norms of these children, emphasizing that most children over the age of 1 5 are not able to attend school because it is extremely costly and not enforced.

So naturally, if we did not seek these ends, it will lose prescriptive force upon the ends a person seeks. Thus a moral rule is not contingent upon ends. Therefore a moral rule must prescribe to us independently of our ends, that is categorical. B. For a rule is moral rule, it must be consistent, universalism. Thus, such a rule can be prescribed as a guide to everyone’s conduct without involving a self-contradiction. Such a rule has a general applicability almost without exception.

If any exception at all Is to be made, then It Is to be made exceptionally. The possibility of an exception should be extremely remotest. C. For a rule to be a moral rule, It must be such that, If all men were to follow it, they should treat each other as ends in themselves and never as means only. D. For a rule to be a moral rule, it must be a capable of being self- imposed by the will of each person when he is universally legislating.

His argument for the existence of God follows: We all have a sense of innate moral awareness – from this we are under obligation to be virtuous An ‘average’ level of virtue is not enough, we are obliged to aim for the highest standard possible True virtue should be rewarded with happiness There Is an Ideal state where human virtue and happiness are united – this Kant called the ‘ Osmium Bonus’ Moral statements are prescriptive – ‘ought’ Implies ‘can’ Humans can achieve virtue In a bedtime but It Is beyond us to ensure we are rewarded with happiness.

Therefore there must be a God who has the power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide in an afterlife. Moral qualities exist as separate entities. We are contingent and flawed beings and cannot achieve osmium bonus. Osmium bonus must be achievable Morally necessary to postulate God’s existence.

God is required for morality to reach its end Kant rejects PURE reason – Critique of Pure reason (1791) Develops the Idea of PracticalL reason – a common sense approach, based on a reflection of what It means to be human Four premises of practical reason All human beings except that we ought to be as good as possible (osmium bonus) think about ‘Inhumane’; being a human being implies being “good” ” Ought implies can therefore osmium we can think of must include two things.

Virtue + Happiness

We can be obligated only to be virtuous (practical reasons would suggest that we cannot have an obligation to be happy – it does not make sense to say you must be happy or you OUGHT to be happy . Three postulates of practical reason If we have an obligation, this implies a responsibility; this implies human freedom

Happiness and virtue are not necessarily aligned with this life; this implies that there is life after death (where happiness is aligned with virtue) If happiness is to be aligned with virtue, then there must be some mechanism, force, or person that makes this happen – this is God. I. E. There must be some potent thing / person / force that aligns happiness with virtue ” Therefore, it is morally necessary to assume the existence of God. “

Emmanuel Kant

Cant’s argument is inductive and a posteriori because his premises is based on a series of observations and seek to prove God’s existence with high probability. Criticisms of Kant: Why must virtue be rewarded with happiness? Morals are clearly inconsistent from the TO to the NT E. G.

In TO we have a God who orders a massacre through Joshua but in the NT we have the forgiveness and agape of Jesus. Morality could be man made? This argument only strengthens a belief in God for those who already believe? Our conscience could be part of our moral upbringing? There is no proof of objective laws actually existing. The existence of morality may be due to a being that is not God, or at least the Jude – Christian God. Objective laws exist through human construct not from God. Kant: The Moral Order Having mastered epistemology and metaphysics, Kant believed that a rigorous application of the same methods of reasoning would yield an equal success in dealing with the problems of moral philosophy.

Thus, in the Kristin deer practices Overturn (Critique of Practical Reason) (1788), he proposed a “Table of the Categories of Freedom in Relation to the Concepts of Good and Evil,” using the familiar logical distinctions as the basis for a catalog of synthetic a priori Judgments that have bearing on the evaluation of human action, and declared that only two things inspire nine awe: “Deer bestir Hummel јbeer Mir undo ads moralistic Sestets in Mir” (“the starry sky above and the moral law within”). Kant used ordinary moral notions as the foundation for a derivation of this moral law in his Grueling cur Metaphysic deer Sixteen (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals) (1785). Morality and Peace: Cant’s interest in moral matters was not exclusively theoretical. In Die Metaphysic deer Sixteen(Metaphysics of Morals) (1797) he worked out the practical application of the categorical imperative in some detail, deriving a fairly comprehensive catalog of pacific rules for the governance of social and personal morality.

What each of us must actually will as universal, Kant supposed, is a very rigid system of narrowly prescribed conduct. In Gum Gwenn Friend (On Perpetual Peace) (1795), Kant proposed a high-minded scheme for securing widespread political stability and security. If statesmen would listen to philosophers, he argued, we could easily achieve an international federation of independent republics, each of which reduces agrees to be governed by the notion of universal hospitality.

Supporters of Moral Law Theory

Based largely on the 4th Aquinas way – There Anton be an infinite regress of goodness. It must have a purely good source. H. P Owen – “It is impossible to think of a command without also thinking of a commander” Moral laws cannot explain themselves.

Assume objective moral laws exist Cardinal Newman – “If the cause of these emotions doesn’t belong to the visible world the objects to which the perception is directed must be supernatural and divine” Conscience must have come from somewhere – Voice of God. C. S Lewis – “l think Kant argues that our sense or morality implies that the world is ordered in a moral way – and this in turn implies the existence of God.  Explain the term social orientation of business? NAS. : A business perspective whereby a company operates in the best interests of the society as a whole. For example, a company that sells food items with ingredients that are sustainable farmed.

Social orientation refers to the theory that explains why a person has particular behaviors, relationships and adaptations with other people and/or society in general. Also referred to as social dominance orientation in some disciplines, professionals use this theory to predict behaviors, particularly with inter- group attitudes and behaviors. In law, social orientation refers to taking into account the well-being of society in addition to customer satisfaction. In many cases, theorists use this philosophy to explain the support an individual gives to the dominance of another group based on demographic factors such as age, gender, race and religion.

This means social dominance orientation measures how much a person shows a preference for inequality when that inequality works in his group’s favor. In other words, those people who hold this preference believe in a system in which one or a small number of social groups dominate one or more social groups as the correct social order. In some cases, researchers have the ability to use social orientation theory in order to predict negative behaviors in some groups. The theory aims to help researchers understand the thought processes, particularly negative ones, with various social and demographic groups involved in different types of group interactions.

Many modern thinkers believe that business is something more than an economic institution. As such, it should not focus on attainment of economic goals. Minimization of return on investment is, no doubt, an important economic function of the business. But that cannot be treated as the sole objective or basic purpose of equines. A business is established basically in serving the society. The business basic purpose of business. A business is established basically in serving the society. The business, identifies the needs of the society and produces and supplies suitable goods and services to satisfy these needs. The business, however, does not do this free of cost.

It anticipates a return for rendering this useful service to the society. This return is its reward which is called profit. This profit can be looked as motivating reward offered by the society to the business rendering a useful service of satisfying very business is to offer a service to the society. When this service is useful and satisfactory, it yields profit for the business. Thus profit arrives in business at a later stage. Let is the outcome of business efficiency. Profit does not exist, in business, at its very inception. On the contrary an objective or purpose happens to exist prior to the activity. A purpose leads to an activity and not an activity leads to the purpose.

A purpose or on objective provides for an action, And obviously an expected reward cannot become substantial and valid cause of an action. For example, a student searing to learn more and more has an objective of acquiring more knowledge and becoming a knowledgeable person. During this process, he may get good marks in test and examination as reward for his continued and sincere study. But a good percentage cannot become a valid objective of making studies, Examination success alone cannot prove his depth of knowledge, assimilation, of knowledge, level of subject understanding as well as how he has internalized what he learned. Education, as we believe has an objective, scope and expectation beyond examinations.

A student is not supposed to be only an examine, but his true role is hat of the knowledge seeker. His examination success acts as an incentive, but does not replace his profound urge for knowledge which is the basic cause his learning efforts and therefore it is the primary motive of its labor for education. The above example applies to business quite suitably. The profit expectation cannot substitute service motive of business. The business man is entrusted the scarce resources of the society to make their productive use for the satisfaction of the needs of the society. This useful service which the business offers entitles it to expect some profit.

So a business makes a profit through service and not by way of neglecting and displacing the service aspect. Any business organization which has forgotten or ignored the service motto has not only lost its profit possibilities, but also brought its survival at a stake. One should always remember that we eat to live and do not live to eat. Likewise profit is essential for business survival and continuity, but profit is not sole and primary objective for which the business is run. As Peter Drunker has rightly put it there can be only one valid definition of business purpose and that is to create a customer and then as we try to create a want testifiers at the lowest price and attempt continued to raise and retain his satisfaction.

In essence, every business continuously strives to serve the customer in particular and the society in general in the best possible manner. It does this because this service- motto is the cause and basic purpose for which a business is always established and run. Factors affecting social orientation of an enterprise details are as below Promoters, Directors and Top Management. The values and vision of promoters and top management is a key influencing factor. Stakeholders: Attitude of various takeovers like shareholders, creditors, employees, etc. Also affect the social orientation of a company. Societal Factors: Social orientation could also be affected located in a poor community may be expected to contribute to the development of education facilities in the locality etc.

Industry and Trade Associations

They influence the behavior of firms by establishing professional and ethical codes and norms. Government and Laws: Laws to curb corruption, unfair practices, etc. And the government’s view of social responsibility also acts as an influencing factor. Write the characteristics of values? NAS. The characteristics of values are as follows: 1Values provide standards of competence and morality. Our moral standards are based on our value system.  Values are in fewer number. We do not have too many values. Rather, we have selected for few values. These selective values decide and determine our concept of virtuous life.  Values transcend specific objects, situations or persons. Values acts as a criterion.

This criterion of evaluation is applicable to all, irrespective of persons, situations or objects. For example, honesty, if taken up as value, any kind of dishonest; behavior by any person in any situation at any time comes objectionable.  Values are relatively permanent and resistance to change. Values describe the concept of the ideal for the individual. It explains what ought to be. And as such values are relatively stable and permanent. Values are in the form of strong belief in respect of an ideal situation in life and such strong beliefs or values are so deep rooted in individuals and societies that they are very difficult to change or eliminate. This does not mean that values never change.

Values too, change over time. However, the process of change is gradual and lengthier. Sometimes are as a exult of social crisis, the value systems undergo a change. Values are at the core of personality. Values are the most powerful force driving decisions and actions and directing human behavior. As we have seen that whatever we decide and do is always compatible with our value system. Values contain normal and provide for us a list of doing and donor’s. They tell us what is permissible and what is not on the basis of standard for good, right and desirable. Values carry a Judgments element. This judgment of desirable is subjective as well as objective.

That is subjective as they describe an experience which is personal. At the same time values are objective because they exist for all persons and through proper training such Judgment can be brought to a common standard.  Values have content as well as intensity and attributes. As such values are central to the core of a person, many a times we distinguish two persons from one another on the basis of their value systems and concept of values. People decide differently, express differently and are differently largely due to their different values. Values are central to individual personality. Values make each individual distinctive in terms of the thinking and expensiveness .

As values are Judgment of what ought to be; they describe our ideals and moral standards. This belief in ideals standard influence our complete behavior and guide all our actions across objects and situations. Values are central to our ethical perceptions. Values decide our criteria of right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable. From the value system emerges our moral standards. Simultaneously, we observe that our value system is widely influenced by the social and cultural norms.

Ethical Values

Business ethics are concerned with morality in its action are bond to have a direct impact on the wellbeing and welfare of the society. Business affects society in terms of what products it supplies. Therefore, it is necessary that business community conduct its activities with self control, self check, and self scarifies. I. E. Acting with less concern for you than for the success of the Joint activity. And keeping always in mind the interest of the community at large signifies ethical values. Relative term: Ethics is a relative term in the concept of morality and immorality. It differs from one individual to another or from society to society. What is moral to one may be immoral to another. The interest of society: Business ethics implies that business should first do good to the society and then to itself.

Business is an important institution and has a social responsibility to protect the interest of all those groups who are directly or indirectly related to the organization like employees, shareholders and consumers etc. To contribute to the success of business.  Business social relationship: Business ethics set the terms and standards to understand the societal relationship of business. It indicates what society expects from business and what it thinks about the business. Provides the ramekin: Like an individual, business is also bound by social rules and regulations. Business is expected to restrict its activities within the limits of social, legal, cultural, and economic environment.

Facilitates protection of social groups: Business ethics give protection to consumers and other social groups such as shareholders, employees and the society at large. The business should give priority to social interest or social good. Such ethical approach creates good name, add status to business and helps in its growth and expansion.  Not against profit making: Business ethics is not against fair profit making. However, it is against making a profit by cheating and exploiting consumers, employees or investors. It supports expansion of business activities, but by fair means and not through illegal activities or corrupt practices.  Needs willing acceptance: Business ethics cannot be imposed by law or by force.

It must be accepted as self-discipline by businessmen. It should come from within. Businessmen should go for ethical trade practices on their own and not by force of law. Code of conduct: Business ethics is a code of conduct. It tells what to do and what not to do for the welfare of the society. All genuineness must follow this code of conduct. Based on moral and social values: Business ethics are based on moral and social values. It contains moral and social principles (rules) for doing business. This includes self-control, consumer protection and welfare, service to society, fair treatment to social groups, not to exploit others, etc.

Gives protection to social groups: Business ethics give protection to different social groups such as consumers, employees, small businessmen, government, shareholders, creditors, etc. Voluntary: Business ethics must be voluntary. The businessmen must accept business ethics on their own. Business ethics must be like self-discipline. It must not be enforced by law. Requires education and guidance: Businessmen must be given proper education and guidance before introducing business ethics. The businessmen must be motivated to use business ethics. They must be informed about the advantages of using business ethics. Trade Associations and Chambers of Commerce must also play an active role in this matter.

New concept: Business ethics are a newer concept. It is strictly followed only in Explain the two important criteria for promotions. NAS : The two important criteria for promotions are as follows: Seniority based promotions. B. Merits based promotions. Seniority refers to longevity on a Job or with an organization. In most of the organization seniority is taken up as an objective, dependable and non-controversial criterion for promotions. The advantages of seniority based on promotions make the following arguments prove ethically. It brings definite and certain in promotions. Everybody in the organization, thus knows how one will get promotion and when, B.

It removes suspicion about promotion-decisions and eliminates the possibilities of development of unethical practices for getting promotions.  It pays consideration ND reward to the loyalty and longevity of the employee with the company. Even the trade unions may support seniority based on promotions because seniority or longevity of service is the visible, measurable objective and uncontroversial criterion and so there is very little chance of injustice to employee as there is no chance for subjective evaluation of the candidate. However, the seniority based promotions are not free from criticism. The critics make the following arguments against seniority as a good criterion for promotions:-

Seniority or longevity with the company may prove the candidate’s loyalty but not viability. A candidate cannot be assumed to be capable of handling the responsibilities of a higher post, simply because he/she is the senior employee in the lower cadre. The seniority based promotion system discourages the ambitious, industrious and intelligent employee. Such employee, instead of waiting to become senior, may quit the organization in search of a better opportunity outside. Under such circumstances, the firm may face the problem of employee turnover and further the shortage of high quality manpower.  Seniority based promotions may kill the employee initiative and achievement drive.

Instead of making an outstanding and remarkable performance, people would concentrate on stocking up to the organization and making a longer tenure of service.  In such organizations, the employee may try to maintain their minimum performance level. So that they would not have to face any disciplinary action or lose their Job. They may shirk responsibility by making their conduct rule-bound, rather than end based. Naturally the employee’s potential may remain under utilized. Seniority as a singular criterion may injure employee morale and productivity.  Seniority may be a confusing criterion. Which seniority will form the basis for promotion?

Is it the seniority in the entire organization or in the respective unit/ department or in the present cadre of the employee? These questions may give birth to friction and conflict. So the management has to define what is meant by continuous service and how it will decide seniority. After having analyzed the limitations and of seniority as a sole criterion for promotions and its ethical promotion implications, the management scholars promotions consider the performance and eligibility of the candidate and do Justice with the capable candidate. After all a promotion decision must take into account the candidate first ridicules oneself and then paralyses and injures the entire organization. 2.

Merit-based promotions develop an atmosphere of performance and productivity. It provides incentive for development and enhancement of capability. It induces people to work hard for personal growth. It develops a culture of progress, growth and commitment. The people in the organization are then are encourages to utilize them fullest potential in the best manner. This is always good and beneficial for the individual, organization and society in general. Promoting an incapable candidate is not only an injustice to the capable candidates, but is also a social sin. It initiates of deterioration. It suppresses human talent, achievement drives, sincere effort and urge for productivity-enhancing.

It neglects the principle of fairness and justice and slaps down the human dignity, The merit-based promotion observes the basic of fairness and making Justice if offers the individual what the individual deserves, it gives, what is due to the person. Unless one deserves something, one should not be desirous of the benefit. Capability is a very logical and Justifiable test or deciding whether the employee really deserves a promotion or not. Further the theory of capability-responsibility suggest that both these concepts go hand in hand. If one is capable then only he/she should be held responsible. Thus, no responsibility be assigned to any person who is incapable. The critics raise the following two objections against merit- based promotions.  It neglects the loyalty and seniority of a person. This may produce an adverse effect. The senior employee may quit the organization.

However, this fear is unrealistic. Because only the exceptional and extreme cases such things may happen. The employee takes up such a decision only when the employee feels strongly that he/ she is treated unfairly and unjustly. This injustice is felt when one does not get what is due to him/her. Every employee knows quite well one must always deserve something. One is entitled to get what be felt only when one is capable and senior and still does not get promotion. Such an employee will definitely feel insulted to work under someone who was previously him/her Junior. Merit is very difficult to decide. The term is confusing and may lead to subjective interpretation.

This objection can be replied by precisely defining the concept of merit and by establishing a merit evaluation system. At the heart of the concept of merit is the capability of the person. The capability of an employee is to decide in the light of the duties and responsibilities interwoven in the Job. In order to find out whether a candidate is capable or not, ask a simple question- can she/he effectively and successfully fulfill the duties and responsibilities involved in a particular Job position? The reply to this question will also help us to enlist the qualities and qualification. If two or more candidates have equal merit, then the management should promote the one who is senior-most amongst them. But seniority singularly and regardless of capability cannot be taken up as a Justifiable criterion for promotions.

The Effects of Merit-Based Promotion

Seniority details are as follows: favoritism. Employers typically won’t have to worry about a newer worker coming in and quickly leapfrogging them to obtain a promotion simply because they are friends with an upper-level supervisor or because of the way they dress or that they are more effective at playing the game of corporate politics. Instead, workers have a sense that if they pay their dues, they will be rewarded at some point in the future. Workplace Harmony: Promotion based on seniority can also help maintain a more harmonious workplace.

Workers who know they need to put in the necessary time with the company before advancement opportunities present themselves are less likely to resent those who attained promotion because they worked for the organization longer. This can eliminate the backstabbing often associated with merit- based programs where employees may attempt to present themselves in the most favorable manner possible, sometimes by attempting to make coworkers look incompetent.

Motivation Boost

A merit-based program, on the other hand, can revive motivation leading to increased productivity. Workers who recognize that the best performers are the ones who get ahead may put forth the extra effort they believe it takes to receive promotions. For instance, salespeople who realize that a sales manager position is awarded to the person with the highest sales numbers may strive to produce the desired results, generating additional revenue for the company in the process.

Reward for Ability

Workers possess varying levels of skills and abilities, and a merit-based program rewards those who may have the most to offer the organization in the long run. While tenured employees offer the benefit of greater experience, this does not necessarily equate with more ability. A less experienced worker possessing a greater flair for innovation or creativity may be more likely to generate ideas that will help the company move forward in the future.

Conclusion

Generally, speaking of promotion, we can identify two distinct types of promotions, which may be called real and nominal promotion. A real promotion results in a person being assigned substantially higher levels of responsibilities in the hierarchical structure of the company. A nominal promotion results in changes elevating the person to a higher level of employment grade that determines the persons pay and other benefit, is not accompanied by any significant increase in responsibilities. Companies may use many different processes and criteria for promotion of staff of the company, and generally these are different for these two types of promotions. Therefore, we will discuss them separately.

Criteria For Real Promotions

Real promotions are given based on existence of vacant posts to which a person is promoted, and on the assessment of the ability of individual employees to handle the enhanced responsibilities. The vacancies for promotion are created in several ways, includes promotion or transfer of persons at higher posts, expansion in operations of the company, and people at higher posts retiring or resigning from the company. The assessment of the ability of the candidate for promotion is determined by his current performance, as well as level of capability as demonstrated in current position. In addition, consideration may also be given to the aptitude of the person judged by other means.

Criteria for Nominal Promotions

Nominal promotions are more like a reward to employees for their current performance and for continued reference in the Job and length of service in the current grade. In addition, the Job market also influences this decision substantially. When the demand for people performing a particular type of Jobs is high, may become difficult to retain existing employees at their current level of remuneration and designation. In such cases nominal promotion is giving to retain the employees in the company. Criteria for promoting primarily personnel are the same as the selection criteria: education, seniority, Job previously held and qualities, knowledge, skills and abilities.

Depending n how are used the criteria for promotion in today’s businesses they are manifesting three main trends. 1 . Promotion based on age and seniority in service. Such a trend generalizes the role of experience, considering that the passing years automatically determine amplification of employees’ potential. This approach is typical of small firms,where conservative trends are very strong. In general, in recent years , there was a decrease in the number of companies that give absolute priority to age and seniority, because of non-stimulating character, directly generated tensions, specially among youth.  Promotion based on the results, trend with the largest spread.

The strength of this trend is the use of verifiable criteria for promotion,non attacking, based on last measurable results,a crucial element for avoiding the appearance of conflicting situations. Also, promoting the results is staff stimulating towards a higher level of tasks assigned, which has important positive implications for attaining the current objectives.  Promotion based on the potential of staff is a tendency that manifests itself management of personnel in modern companies. In other words, are promoted as a priority those employees, taking into account current levels of training, their responsiveness to change, their capacity of effort, the training base, the resilience, the sense of forecast, present actual or latent potential which to allow them to the response to the complex requirements of some top posts .

What are the dangers in respect of a Profession? NAS.  The following are some important possibilities where the professionals may act contrary to the public interest and the profession may lose its glamour, respect and usefulness:  The professionals may start acting in minded way, making centralization of the profession. When the professionals give more importance to their personal gain and start using their skill and knowledge for selfish purposes for getting the service motto of the profession then there is a danger of centralization of the profession. A profession may be turned into a conspiracy against the public and disregard the social welfare and social responsibility.

This happens when the professionals start misusing their knowledge for selfish purposes and neglect the norms and standards of public morality and social responsibility. The professional and their association need to maintain and preserve the high standard of the profession. This is possible when there are strict norms for admission and membership in the profession. Such norms should insist and emphasize on the acquisition and possession off high level of certain knowledge , skill, expertise and character of the person who wants to be that type of professional. If there is a compromise on the quality of skill and character expected from the professional, the profession, later on, start losing its social status and public respect.

Administrative Ethics Paper HCS/335 December 19, 2011 Administrative Ethics Paper There are many factors that are affecting our everyday lives but none as important as the ethics of healthcare. Healthcare is one of the largest personal care services provided in our civilization today. In order to provide this type of care adequate and qualified personnel must have access to personal information both medical and at times non-medical. Preserving patient confidentiality has become more increasingly difficult to do.

The desire to guard patient privacy is apparent with all the legal ramifications imposed by the federal and state laws. I will be discussing the ethical and legal issues of healthcare while stating the responsibilities and facts that could lead to solutions. According to “American Medical Association” (1995-2011), “The U. S. Constitution defines a physician’s legal obligation to their patient(s) by federal and state law, regulation, and by the court although access to patient information has become more accessible”(Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs).

In 1996 Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and was recently amended under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act ( “AmericanCollege of Healthcare Executives”, 2009). HIPAA was to put safety measures to shield a patient(s) health information and keep it private.

In February of 2009 on the 17th, President Barak Obama authorized the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with the objective to support the acceptance of electronic medical records (EMR) by physicians and medical facilities. The law symbolizes a reassurance to privacy by giving them actionable remedies in an event that their personal private medical records are misused or abused (“ResourceLibrary: The CBS Interactive Business Network”, 2002). The lack of safeguards for patients and their information is a big disadvantage because physicians, medical facilities, and patient(s) have oncerns as to whether or not their information will be protected and stay private. Health information being used electronically has increased medical access as well as transmission between health data and other physicians allowing admission to all a patient’s medical information in their network if needed. The expansion of technology in the healthcare industry has helped to give better patient care to ensure healthier and more productive people I society but the challenge comes into play with respecting and honoring a patient’s confidentiality.

Doctor’s have always been obligated to keep their patient’s information private by not divulging and medical or personal information exposed by the patient or ascertained by the physician while treating the patient. According to “American Medical Association” (1995-2011), ” the purpose of a physician’s ethical duty to maintain patient confidentiality is to allow the patient to feel free to make a full and frank disclosure of information to the physician with the knowledge that the physician will protect the confidentiality nature of the information disclosed” (Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs).

Sustaining a patient’s medical and personal information is a legal obligation as well as the ethical sense of duty. The American College of Healthcare Executives feels that besides following HIPAA and all applicable state and federal laws, healthcare executives should also have a ethical and moral duty to respect privacy and protect the security of patients’ medical records.

Doctors, nurses, and anyone that may come in contact with a patient’s records should become familiar with the laws involving the obligation to maintain confidentiality because any breach of confidentiality no matter how small can result in misappropriates, a lawsuit and/or disciplinary action. The HIPPA privacy protection in its present state is inadequate because it allows the sale of patient information to third parties without written consent even though there are consequences for it.

The American Recovery Reinvestment Act has begun to stipulate some safety by making a cutoff point for use of information for promotion and fundraising and for the sale of records. According to “AmericanCollege of Healthcare Executives” (2009), “As patient advocates, executives are required to guarantee their organization acquire appropriate patient authorization to give personal information or follow the correct procedures as carefully characterized in the policies and relevant laws in such cases for when the elease of information without consent is indicated” (Health Information Confidentiality). In conclusion with all the different and new technology in society today everyone more so doctors and medical personnel are extremely cautious about relinquishing and personal patient information regardless if it is to a another doctor or family. Every physician and medical facility must make every effort to guarantee the patient’s information will remain confidential regardless of how it is kept in a file or electronically.

Technology will progress as the years get older and so will the rise on patient information being misused. Technology can improve the quality of care by all means but while it is improving care it also needs to be steps and measures taken to improve the patient’s privacy and confidentiality of their medical information. References AmericanCollege of Healthcare Executives. (2009).

Retrieved from http://www. ache. org/policy/hiconf. cfm American Medical Association. (1995-2011). Retrieved from http://www. ama- assn. org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/ama-councils/council-ethical-judicial affairs. page ResourceLibrary: The CBS Interactive Business Network. (2002). Retrieved from http://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2689_131/ai_92691019/? tag=content;col1

Children in Jamaica and the world at large are surrounded by opportunities to develop and use emergent literacy skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Based on a research conducted by the Sesame Street Media, “Once children get to 7 and 8 years, they are able to focus on activities for longer stretches of time. Their memory, logical reasoning, and problem-solving skills sharpen. Children at this age are also starting to form stronger, more complex relationships outside the family, especially with same-sex peers. The power of media on the society is taken as a axis that media representations are not simply a mirror of society but rather, they are highly selective and merely an example. Therefore, active decisions should be taken at every stage of the process of producing and transmitting media material, regarding what should be included and what should be omitted and how and when a content should be presented. Possible effects such as such as violent or aggressive behavior, substance use, sexual activity and decreased school performance are major issues.

In an aid to prevent this, necessary measures need to be taken in order to mitigate these potential problems. In Jamaica there are directives that electronic media, broadcast radio and television, as well as subscriber television has to follow from the Broadcasting Commission. The Broadcasting Commission role is to monitor and regulate these industries, balancing the interests of consumers, the industries and the creative community in implementing public policy and law. Ender the Broadcasting Law and Regulation Code, there is the Children’s Code for Programming. This code sets out standards for the media to rate and schedule or filter programming and provide advisories. This will assist parents and guardians to determine the types of material to which their children are exposed. The procedures in the code arise from the general principles for dealing with child audiences are detailed in the Children’s Charter for programming.

According to the code, rating is an assessment of the nature of problematic material in all programming. For the broadcast, media rating will be done of all programming including newscasts, broadcasts of sporting events, music videos, programmer trailers, songs and advertisements where as for the subscriber television services rating will be carried out on each channel. Scheduling or filtering Is ensuring that programming Is only transmitted to the appropriate audience for the type of problematic material it contains.

Therefore, the broadcast media programmer are scheduled so that potentially harmful material is not transmitted at times when children can reasonably be expected to be a significant part of the radio or television audiences. Subscriber television services material is filtered so that programming channels rated A or X are only available to subscribers who specifically choose to have that material in their homes. In an effort to do so they provide what is called a Watershed,’ established at pm daily.

This is a time each day, after which a programming might become increasingly adult oriented. Advisories are information about the nature and make informed choices about what type of programming children in their care are exposed to. For example: According to the Broadcasting Commission, on radio aired between 7:mama and 8:1 Sam, material reviewed song, “All my ladies if you got it let me know, she thick in her hips, colder than a month licking her lips; a bad ‘matchlocks’. Apple looking so right. She makes me want a piece. I give it to her all night, she doesn’t want to leave”.

They found this as being offensive sounding words, as it presents a distasteful language, sexual content and it is in Breach of Watershed, (February 6&20 2009 Directives and Children Code). Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Broadcasting Commission that obscene and indecent programming is constitutional, because of the compelling societal interests in protecting children from potentially harmful programming and supporting parent’s ability to determine the programming to which their children will be exposed to at home.

In a speech presented by Chairman of the Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica, Hope S. Dunn on July 14, 2010 at the Pegasus Hotel, he stated that, “Regarding the enforcement of the Children’s Code for Programming, there has been significant progress in the quality of the output on electronic media nationally. This is evident from the Commission’s Complaints record for the period April 2009 to March 2010, the Commission received sixty-nine (69) complaints. This was a decrease of forty-seven percent (47%) when compared to the previous period.

On the other hand the Media Association of Jamaica in partnership with the Press Association of Jamaica has reduced a Code of Ethics for Journalists to create a higher basic standard of journalism across the industry and to improve transparency and redress by media houses in the public interest. There is always that time in a media practitioner’s career, when he or she would end up at a crossroads where an ethical decision has to be made between right and wrong.

Often times, ethical choices are hard to make, but at the end of the day a decision has to be made. Professionals in various fields make choices not Just in a systematic way but most importantly in an ethical manner. With that being said, the press association of Jamaica code of practice, provides requirements for media practitioners to abide by, it also deals with matters of common concern among citizen as it relates to morality and the protection of fairness.

Under the provision of the code media practitioners should not identify children under the age of 18 who are involved in cases concerning sexual offences, whether as victims or as witnesses or defendants in a trial. In any news report of a case involving a sexual offence by an adult against a child, the child should not be identified. The adult may be identified if such identification would not cause the identity of the child to be revealed. In cases of incest, for the purposes of the protection of the identification the child, the term ‘incest’, where applicable, should never be used.

71203 Business Ethics Assignment 1 Drawing on ethical theory to critique a claim. Businesses putting something back into the local community… … Morally obligatory – or not? Utilitarian and Kantian Moral Theory Viewpoints Tanya Lundie 9118692 27 March 2009 Rainbow (2002) describes ethical theories as being “… the foundations of ethical analysis… ” because they are viewpoints from which guidance can be obtained in the interests of determining “… what counts as acting ethically… ” (The Open Polytechnic, 2009, p. 15).

This essay draws on such ‘foundations’ to critique a claim about what makes an action morally obligatory for businesses. It is presented in four parts, the aim being to clarify my understanding of the positions of two ethical theories in particular; Utilitarianism and Kantian Moral Theory (Kantianism). First, I’ll explain the purpose of ethical theory in ethics[1]; giving consideration to why only one theory can be right. Next, I’ll outline the abovementioned theories. Then, drawing on their promulgations, I’ll critically discuss the claim, highlighting general problems in the process.

I’ll then outline and assess a criticism detractors might level at each theory, and I’ll close by clarifying my position on what these theories would make of the claim. The purpose of ethical theory can be explained in terms of its role in the normative approach taken to studying ethics. This requires critically considering the basic moral norms people should adhere to in the interests of acting ethically; how they should value humans (and other beings) in their actions (The Open Poly, 2009); what should they consider in so doing; how should they act as a result; and, most importantly, why?

The ultimate aims being, to prescribe conduct; judge actions; underwrite judgements; and, justify moral beliefs. Ethical theories are proposed, criticised, defended, revised, re-proposed and-so-on in on-going pursuit of this aim; becoming reference points on a “… substantial framework… ” (Rainbow, 2002). Collectively, they “… attempt to offer fundamental justification for judgements about the morality or immorality of actions, and provide a basis for making claims about moral obligations… ” (V Scholes, personal communication, 15 March 2009).

Individually, they provide definitions, supported by reasoned arguments, laying claim to (and justifying) what is of fundamental importance in terms of what counts as an ethically correct action. They are mutually incompatible (The Open Poly, 2009). You can not logically question the morality/immorality of actions with reference to more than one theory at once because you risk finding conflicting and irreconcilable answers given their diverse, sometimes diametrically opposed claims regards just what is fundamental to account for, in valuing others in actions.

Even when more than one theory endorses the same action, the reasoning behind, and justification for, why that action ‘counts’ will not be the same. Which goes some way to explaining ‘why only one theory can be right’. I’ll clarify. If each theory claims to have encapsulated the very essence of what is the most fundamental, ethically, about judging and justifying actions, yet they all express disparate, indeed contradictory notions of exactly what that is, there isn’t need to decide which is right[2], to know that only one possibly can be. After all, what is, the most fundamental is singular, one-off… ull-stop! An analogy. Consider all the religious persuasions in the world; all means to worship God(s); all laying claim to the fundamental means to do so; yet readily distinguished by the very different ways they go about this. Now, depending on, say, life experience, we will identify with/believe in/follow a ‘personal’ preference. Can we say that it is ‘right’ and another is ‘wrong’? No. But what we can say, with certainty, is that only one can be right. The contrasting positions of Kantianism and utilitarianism epitomise the dichotomy referred to above.

Both make a monistic claim that one thing, and one thing only, is ‘a good in itself’ (Chryssides & Kaler, 1993). The non-consequentialist, deontological[3] approach of the former sees moral importance inhered in the principle (motive) of the action (a good in itself) via our rationality – consequences are immaterial. Whilst the consequentialist, teleological[4] basis for the latter provides that the consequences of the action are determinant of their morality – motives matter only insofar as they are conducive to maximising happiness (a good in itself).

I’ll now outline each in turn. John Stuart Mill[5] (1806-1873) proposed what utilitarians appeal to in moral decision-making; the principle of utility; or, the Greatest Happiness Principle which: … holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure… absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. (Mills, as cited in The Open Poly, 2009, p. 7) The general utilitarian view is that happiness is a good in itself. The greatest good is securing maximal happiness/pleasure (good consequences) and minimal suffering/pain (bad consequences) for everybody, by acting morally well. Each person’s happiness counts the same, as Bentham (cited by The Open Poly, 2009, p. 18) points out “… each to count for one, and none for more than one… ” We must assess all possible actions and all persons impacted by such.

We then judge actions as right/wrong in terms of their utility[6]/disutility; by considering the likely good and bad consequences, for all affected, equally and impartially. An action is thus morally good if it results (as far as is reasonably foreseeable) in the most good consequences and least bad ones, on balance, for all likely affected, compared with alternative actions. An agent acts morally well by doing the morally good action most likely to secure “… the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people… ” (The Open Poly, 2009, p. 6). A conventional distinction is made between the classic, act approach and a newer version of the theory – rule utilitarianism. The objective of achieving ‘greatest overall good’ is unchanged. But, due to disagreement over how best to achieve this, rule utilitarians apply the Greatest Happiness Principle to set general, morally valid, rules of conduct (the best rules, amongst alternatives, in terms achieving the greatest good (help others in distress’ ‘do not break promises’) and then judge individual actions right/wrong according to these rules.

Act utilitarians steadfastly apply the Principle to individual actions – with the added option of following suggested rules (or not); which allows for combining the good effects of upholding rules, with the good effects of breaking them, if needed (The Open Poly, 2009). Thus, if a particular situation’s right action requires breaking a rule in order to maximise happiness/minimise harm (lying to save a life for instance) the act utilitarian says ‘so be it’ – it’s morally justified.

Kantianism was pioneered by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1806) whose moral focus centred on the principle behind the action in terms of the individual agent performing it; their ability to reason; to accept the basis of moral obligations must be universal and impartial (The Open Poly, 2009); to act against personal desires and ulterior motives as a result; hence, to possess the right motivation for acting – ‘good will’ (a good in itself). The moral agent has ‘good will’ because they act solely from a motive of obligation (sense of duty) in recognition that “… ollowing the right action’s principle is morally required in itself … ” (The Open Poly, 2009, p. 27). For instance, if a promises is to be kept, it’s because a promise is a promise; kept for its own sake, fullstop. Not because being reliable might have spin-offs! Self-interest cannot be the motive nor even any laudable emotion such loyalty – that may not be immoral, but it is not morally praiseworthy in Kant’s view. How can we judge if an action is done only from a sense of duty? Well, the “… principle of the action… ” must “… respect rational humanity… ” (The Open Poly, 2009, p. 7) by way of accord with the Categorical Imperative of morality[7]; Kant’s universal rule of obligation; designed to guide moral reasoning in determining what moral obligations are, by testing the principles of the actions involved. It’s first formulation tests the rule (maxim) we are following in performing the action, for its universalisability: 1. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law. (Kant, as cited in The Open Poly, 2009, p. 28) In other words, could all humanity act on this rule, consistently, without it contradicting its own logic?

If so, it is morally permissible; if not, it means “… it’s not okay to make an exception of ourselves by deciding it’s alright just for just us to do it… ” (The Open Poly, 2009, p. 29). Kant insists we do ourselves, only that which we could have everybody else do, without it proving irrational. Consider the rule ‘when I make a promise, I may subsequently decide not to keep it’ – if everybody acted on this, all the time, promises would no longer be promises and promise-making would become completely pointless! The second formulation tests how we treat others in our actions: . Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. (Kant, as cited in The Open Poly, 2009, p. 28) Or, treat people must be as ends in themselves, never as means to an end. That is, we should treat people in ways that reflect their inherent value and never use them as tools to achieve some other purpose; because, as The Open Poly (2009, p. 29) emphasise “… the value of a person is not… dependent on how useful they are to someone else… Indeed, according to Kant, people have intrinsic value above and beyond the merely instrumental value we accord tools that we use for our own ends. Consider the action of befriending a work colleague. You actually detest them, but hope to cadge a free ride to work. You are using this colleague as means to achieve your own end. Thus, Kantianism deems morally good actions those that show respect for rational humanity; by according with the formulations of the Categorical Imperative (as above); and, the morally good agent puts morally good actions into practise; motivated solely by a sense of duty.

Now, bearing in mind the theoretical perspectives outlined above, I’ll discuss the ‘claim[8]’that: ‘Businesses[9] have a moral obligation to put something back into the local community, because this will improve their standing in the community which in turn will help their profits. ’ Do they? Milton Friedman[10] may well concur, but, neither a Kantian nor a utilitarian could agree.

Basically, the reasoning provided (making the business vehicle look good, thereby helping the bottom line) in support of the action involved (giving back to the local community) is simply incongruent with what either theory would purport to justify an action being morally obligatory – for reasons I will outline in the discussion that follows. From the Kantian perspective, having ‘consequences’ conditionally attached to the suggested action as they are (‘… because this will such-and-such… ’) means businesses would not be following a right action’s principle for its own sake, putting back, solely from a duty motive to ‘give back’.

There is no moral significance in the businesses’ ‘desires’ and associated consequences; mention of such is indeed evidence of the absence of goodwill (a good in itself) as well as ulterior motives of self-interest (‘desire’ to improve image/enhance profitability) and, emotion (fear of not being seen to be sufficiently magnanimous to achieve the ‘standing’ desired). Further, is the maxim guiding the action a categorical should? No! It has completely hypothetical basis; if you want such-and-such then you should do so-and-so.

The businesses would only be acting in such a way necessary to achieve pre-determined and self-interested ends; and, using the community(s) as means in the process! Let’s consider what the maxim for the action would be; ‘I will share my profits with those that assist my earning them, provided I benefit from certain pre-determined spin-offs as a result’. What would happen if this were acted on by all humanity? ‘Giving’ would become completely conditional on getting something in return – that is self-defeating and contradictory. It undermines its own principle; giving is not taking as well!

It could be argued that Kant did not categorically prohibit the use of persons as means to other persons’ ends? Only that they should not be exclusively treated in such a way? After all, the members of the community(s) can exercise their own powers of reason; they do need certain goods and services; if they freely choose to support the businesses, then achieving their own ends becomes part of the businesses’ image/profit goal. That said, are the community(s) really being treated exclusively as means to achieve the businesses’ goals? A Kantian would say yes! They are being manipulated. Their rational autonomy is not being respected; given the usinesses ulterior motives. For such an argument be justified, the businesses would have to have made clear the ‘giving back’ is entirely conditional on certain ‘reciprocation’ in return – would they do this, given the outcomes ‘desired’? No! I admit some support the claim on the grounds that, given the purpose of a business enterprise, self-serving/emotional motivation only makes business sense and is entirely appropriate; and, if the businesses do benefit in the ways described, they will be in a better position to put even more back into their community(s) – good consequences all round!

But a Kantian would challenge this on two counts. First, acting from emotion and/or self interest (even if the community(s) are also benefitted by/satisfied with the suggested consequences) might not be immoral, but it is proof there is not the essential duty motive required to make this action morally obligatory. Next, consequences are immaterial; good or bad, they come as they may – after acting on the principle behind the action for its own sake. Yet this claim (‘the putting back should be done because of… ’) purports to justify the suggested action with reference to… consequences!

That might make a morally obligatory action from a utilitarian perspective, but not that of a Kantian. A Kantian could only support the claim, were it simply ‘businesses have a moral obligation to put something back into the local community’ fullstop. The motivation for such would be a sense of duty – nothing else; the maxim of the action might be ‘I will share the benefit of my profits with those that assist my earning them’ – it’s universalisable; and, in their ‘giving back’ businesses would be recognising the inherent value in the community(s) by treating them as ends in themselves.

An act[11] utilitarian would not argue with the idea of businesses giving back to their local communities, indeed, it is entirely in keeping with the utilitarianism “… purpose or function… to promote human welfare… ” (Beauchamp, Bowie & Arnold, 2008, p. 18). Further, the claim does give regard to the usefulness of the action involved by way of some forward-thinking reasoning. But, that forward-thinking is so limited; the reasoning provided is entirely inadequate!

Before considering the flawed reasoning, any morally obligatory action of this nature would have to be carefully considered, weighing up all likely good and bad consequences, by the business contemplating doing it, on a case-by-case basis, each time the action were to be performed. Consider, the consequences of particular businesses giving back to their community(s), at any given point in time will vary – by the nature and circumstances of different businesses/communities; and, by nature and circumstance of one business/one community, given change over time.

For instance, if a business were to ‘put back’ to such an extent it were rendered insolvent (adopting the utilitarian ethic can be very demanding (Rachels & Rachels, 2007)) then, weighing up the consequences, the intense pain inflicted on itself would outweigh it’s community’s relatively mild, collective happiness; or, a business such as a brothel highlighting its existence in a small town community in the way suggested, would surely have only bad consequences – the alternative action would infact engender the greatest overall good.

A utilitarian would say the claim is so generalised as to render determining the action involved morally obligatory or otherwise, is impossible! Now to the justification provided, given moral significance for a utilitarian inheres in what the action is for. Is there evidence of consideration of the reasonably foreseeable consequences for all potentially affected? ’ The only consequences alluded to are those for the businesses alone. What about good and bad consequences? A utilitarian would need to be securing maximal happiness and minimal harm, again, for all affected, through any morally obligatory action taken.

Is a competitor business going to suffer bad consequences? Some might argue there are only so many dollars and so much community support to go around; if a business benefits as suggested as a result of ‘giving back’ someone else might suffer the opposite consequences. Bankruptcies? Job losses? These sorts of implications need to be considered. What about consideration of the likely consequences of alternative actions? Any right action is so, only because it better secures the greatest good for the greatest many, compared with alternatives.

Where is indication of consideration given equal and impartial treatment of all affected by this action? A utilitarian would point out there is in fact evidence of unequal and partial consideration of interests – the claim, as it reads, suggests it is only the greatest good for the businesses that is of moral significance here – what if this works against the greatest overall good for all affected? – after all, that is the ultimate good a utilitarian would be seeking in a right action. A utilitarian would caution, in view of the inadequacy of the suggested consequences, that it is simply not sufficient o simply presume that an action will bring about good (or bad) consequences ‘desired’; the assumption has to be reasonable given the circumstances – and this claim seems to risk presenting a far too optimistic, biased view of likely consequences; but, we don’t know what information is available at the time do we? Perhaps a general rule should be followed here? It would seem to make more sense, given the nature of differing businesses and the difficulties predicting likely consequences with any circumstances. The utility principle seems to have been applied

Unless, as a utilitarian would concur, promoting utility in general is unlikely to eventuate in overall unjust outcomes for all concerned, long-term; the risk is in perceiving short-term benefits at the expense of that but that is no defence for this claim – the justification provided is woefully inadequate even in support of generalised, long-term, overall benefits are envisaged. perspective is more overarching view is intended, Too general – case by case Short –term pleasure – personal comm. Action hasn’t got right justification =not accept claim at all. Cosequences for all likely affected, good and bad?

Alternatives considered? Seem like very narrow view of consequences involved – wrong ones? Predicting future Too demanding Basically, the claim takes a radically non-utilitarian approach to justifying the action involved. A utilitarian could not accept any part of it. The action alone would be inadequate; utilitarianism requires the ‘… because… such-and-such… ’ the action and the justification provided are equally inadequate in terms of justifying this action morally obligatory; there needs be a far more thorough evaluation of what will happen as a result of doing it; what is the greatest overall that can be achieved?

For a utilitarian to support the claim, the putting back would need to be done, say ‘… because… doing so will serve to best satisfy the interests of all involved (compared with not doing so) thereby securing the greatest happiness for the greatest many… ” As the claim reads, there simply is no moral obligation from the utilitarian perspective. REASONING. consider actions are not good or bad in themselves, only in what they are good or bad for. Consider the justification provided. Further, “… actions are not good or bad in themselves… nly in what they are good or bad for… ” (Chryssides & Kaler, 1993, p. 91) whilst the claim does give regard to some forward thinking reasoning. However, the reasoning provided does not make the action morally obligatory from is all wrong from the utilitarian perspective. Criticisms: Opponents of the utilitarian standpoint might well argue it deems as morally good, actions inflicting suffering on a minority in order to benefit a majority – if they engender more good overall than alternatives (The Open Poly, 2009). This seems inconsiderate of the afflicted minority.

Consider: affluent American couple and daughter illegally adopt Nepalese orphan and subject her to childhood of slavery. She sleeps in airless basement; works 14 hours plus 7 days a week; waits on them hand and foot; cleaning, cooking, gardening; no schooling; fed on scraps; treated as less-than-human. She is 25% of the equation; utterly wretched. The other 75% lead lives of indolence and sloth in their palatial home; kept pristine at effectively no cost; and, they derive sadistic pleasure from ill-treating the girl and outsmarting child protection authorities.

They are chuffed. Add up the total sum of happiness/misery as a result of enslaving this child and, yes, the ‘arrangement’ could be construed to maximise happiness given all the resources available (the alternative would make 25% a lot happier, but would not offset a marginal decrease in happiness of the 75% majority). The criticism seems valid – this is morally repugnant! But, I would argue it could be misguided; and I have two lines of defence. First, a point which Bentham himself acknowledged (Chryssides & Kaler, 1993).

Unhappiness in general/pain in particular are far more intensely felt than happiness/pleasure (consider the depths to which suffering slavery/malnutrition/illiteracy would take the child, compared with the relatively mild enjoyment of languor/financial benefit/sadistic pleasure experienced by the family). In acknowledging this, utilitarianism rules out such gross injustice. Intense suffering by a minority will always outweigh happiness the majority derive as a result of that suffering; the balance of disutility over utility would deem the situation morally wrong.

Second, a rule utilitarian would reason differently; ask ‘what general rules of conduct tend to promote greatest happiness? ’ then compare hypothetical societies, one in which the rule ‘Don’t subject orphaned children to slavery’ is observed, the other it isn’t; decide people will be happier in the first society; accept the rule against enslaving children; and, by appealing to it, conclude what the American family did to the child is totally abhorrent and morally unacceptable. Chryssides & Kaler (1993, p. 99) allude to a “… non-consequentialist inflexibility… with reference to Kantianism. I would have to agree; all the categoric moral rules that hold without exception, in all circumstances! For instance, Kant (as cited in Rachels & Rachels, 2007, p. 123) disallowed all lying; the “… the obliteration of ones dignity as a human being… ” And, as Rachels & Rachels (2007, p. 123) note in his defence “… there is something in this… ” for lies to be successful, there needs be a general belief that truth-telling prevails; so, any point in lying requires there not being a universal law permitting it!

For instance, consider a situation where telling a lie would save a life; an intending murderer asking for the whereabouts of his/her intended victim for instance. Surely it is not only reasonable, but morally obligatory, to lie, in the interests of preventing a violent end to a precious human life? Not if you hold Kantian views! You couldn’t universalise the maxim upon which you would act; and, lying would be the epitome of not showing respect for another person’s autonomy – even if he/she is an intending murder, he/she has the freedom to make his/her own decisions about how to live his/her life.

Kant himself has defended the Kantian position on lying for this sort of circumstance (Rachels & Rachels, 2007). The inflexibility is entirely justified; we are only tempted to make exceptions to the rule not to lie, in situations where truth-telling seems to have bad consequences and lying good ones; and predicting consequences is such an imprecise science! Kantianism avoids such second-guessing altogether. Consequences are immaterial. You simply avoid the confirmable evil – lying; tell the truth and let the consequences come as they may.

Even if the murderer finds and kills the victim as a result, it’s not your fault, you have done your duty! I do perceive some ‘comfort’ in this stance – one right action – but perhaps that is just because I am hopeless at making difficult decisions and weighing up consequences! Besides, I don’t think such a responsibility should (or could) be evaded so callously. Kant’s logic does seem flawed – we are be morally responsible for the bad consequences of that undisputable evil lying, but we escape similar responsibility for the bad consequences of telling the truth?

Perhaps this defence is not so convincing. Some respond to the criticism of Kantianism’s absolute, inviolable rules by suggesting there is the option of making the maxims on which we act more sophisticated. For instance, given the above example, instead of ‘I will always tell the truth’ or, ‘I will never lie’ what about ‘I will tell the truth to those seeking information for honest purposes’. The problem with this, is; which circumstances permit such qualifications being made, and which do not? Would misuse of means to ‘create maxims to suit’ result in making a nonsense of universalisation?

If so, and there is no room in Kantian ethics for bending rules, some suggest modifying Kantianism to discriminate between ‘prima facie’ and ‘actual’ duties (Chryssides & Kaler, 1993). The actual duties take precedence over those prima facie (at first appearance), so, if there is conflict, the most important duty is that actually acted on; we are morally absolved of the other. For the intended murder situation for instance, the duty not to lie could be overruled by the duty to put a stop to criminal activity? Both ‘modifications’ seem attempts to defend the undesirable effects of acting on principle alone.

Kantianism is about acting on principle; perhaps it simply cannot be defended. Conclusion Reasoning – rational respect/all the consequences References Beauchamp, T. L. , Bowie, N. E. & Arnold, D. G. (Eds). (2008) Ethical theory and business (8th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chryssides, G. D. , & Kaler, J. H. (1993). An introduction to business ethics. London, England: Chapman and Hall. Rachels, J. , & Rachels, S. (2007). The elements of moral philosophy (5th ed. ). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2009). Modules 1 and 2.

In 71203 Business Ethics. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Author. [pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic] ———————– [1] That is, the normative (prescriptive) study of ethics; as distinguished from the descriptive approach of the social scientists and/or the conceptual study of significant ethical terms such as right, obligation, justice and so on. (Beauchamp & Bowie, 2008) [2] One of the most fundamental questions in life! (V Scholes, personal communication, 4 March 2009).

Philosophers have been debating this since 6th century BCE (pre-Socrates)… they still are. [3] [Gk deon=duty} deontological theories base morality on foundational principles of duty/obligation [4] [Gk telos=end} teleological theories base morality on end results (consequences) [5] One of the most influential exponents of this theory. (The Open Poly, 2009). [6] Their usefulness (or lack of it) in terms of ‘standard’ utility as defined by Greatest Happiness Principle. [7] Imperative – it demands; categorical – commands are binding and absolute (The Open Poly, 2009). [8] It’s an argument!

The premise is relevant and internally consistent (The Open Poly, 2009) but I would challenge its veracity and argue it is highly dependent on the nature of the ‘business’ and the ‘local community’ in question. A Wairarapa brothel adopted this philosophy… heightened profile? Yes. Improved image – ‘helped’ profits as a result? Neither! It was driven out of town! [9] Businesses? We hold individual’s morally accountable. Businesses are not individuals. We cannot hold businesses morally accountable. To which Goodpaster & Matthews (as cited in Chryssides & Kaler 1993, p. 269) on ‘moral projection’ reply “… n certain respects concepts and functions normally attributed to persons can be attributed to organisations made up of persons… society finds the idea both intelligible and useful… ” I ‘morally project’ individual moral responsibility onto the ‘businesses’ in this claim. [10] On his ‘social responsibility of business’ Chryssides & Kaler (1993, p. 231) opine “… Friedman is not saying businesses must never seek to do good, they may do so provided they do it to serve the goal of profit maximisation… ” [11] The assumption is made that act utilitarianism is representative the main position of utilitarianism.

Since you have demonstrated your knowledge about criminal Justice so well, the chief of police has another assignment for you. Chief Draper wants you to review a specific case and assess the arresting officer’s conduct. To prepare your report, you consider certain factors, such as the societal factors that may have influenced the suspect’s behavior, the role of the government in terms of protecting both society and an individual’s rights, and the ethical standards that govern law enforcement.

Central police officer Lance Marion responded to a call for service from a high- end retailer, who reported that an unkempt woman wearing disheveled, dirty, and torn clothing left the store without paying for Items she selected while shopping In the Misses Clothing Department. The store manager reported that the woman failed to respond to any verbal prompts made to her by store associates. As Officer Marion drove toward the store, he noticed a woman matching her description walking along the side of the road, carrying what appeared to be clothing.

Once the officer reached the location of the woman, he recognized her?Mary Jones? s being an individual he had arrested several times before for public drunkenness, resisting arrest, possession of a controlled substance, felony larceny, and prostitution. Officer Marion anticipated that this could be a very challenging situation because Jones did not like law enforcement, tended to be aggressive, and had, In the past, run as soon as she saw a police cruiser. Marion called for backup and asked Jones to stop as he stepped out of his vehicle.

She started to run, but he caught up with her very quickly. Jones struggled with Officer Marion on the ground, although he managed to humanely subdue her and place her in handcuffs. Officer Marion called the incident into Communications and placed the suspect in his cruiser. He then gathered the clothing items dropped by the suspect along the side of the road. He noticed the items had price tags displaying the name of the retailer who reported the initial incident to law enforcement. During transport, Jones yelled and became very agitated.

When she arrived at the police department, Jones was very upset. She tried to hurt herself by banging her head on the desk as the officer tried to Interview her about the alleged larceny report, It was clear to Officer Marion that Jones was under the influence of drugs, so he discontinued the interview process. Marion requested Here’s What You Need To Do … After carefully reviewing the case details, prepare a 2- to 3-page report assessing whether the procedures (both legal and ethical) were followed appropriately.

Use the Argosy University Online Library resources to find articles that support your assessment. You may also use your textbook. Your report should address the following: Select one of the crimes Jones has been previously charged with (e. G. , public drunkenness, resisting arrest, possession of a controlled substance, felony larceny, or prostitution). What type of crime is it (misdemeanors or felony)? O How is this crime defined in the state in which you live? O How might societal factors have influenced this suspect’s crimes? Analyze how the purpose of government and the social contract might protect the rights (e. G. , safety and security) of the suspect in this case. Compare the various roles Officer Marion must play in this case. Consider that Marion must enforce the law and protect the suspect from harm at the same time. Analyze how a law enforcement officer’s actions might be influenced if he or she is arresting an “unsympathetic suspect or victim,” specifically suspect or victim who the officer has arrested before or who engages in a high-risk lifestyle, such as substance abuse, drug dealing, or prostitution.

Justify whether Officer Marion acted accordingly. How might the criminal Justice professional maintain ethical standards when working with diverse populations? Once charged, what rights does the defendant, Jones, have? Be sure to organize your paper into clear and concise paragraphs. You should read the grading rubric before starting your paper to ensure you cover all the material appropriately. Include an PAP-formatted reference page that links to your in-text citations.