Morality

Morals determine greater social good. The purpose of law Is preserving greater social good. With this being said, putting morality In legal decisions brings out a greater social good as a whole. Fundamental agreement about what Is bad and what Is good (morality) is essential for the survival of collocation. So morality can be viewed as quintessential Judgment factor when It comes to law. Morality Is determined by the majority of civilization.

Legal moralist encompasses the views of the majority and thus, Is more democratic. Society Is held by common thoughts of Individuals. The bondage of such common thoughts Is necessary to preserve collocation. Legal moralist upholds the decision of the societal common thoughts. Cons: Infringes Individual freedom Morals are often religious than not. Thus, groups with different religious orientation than the dominant will not be treated fairly by legal moralist based on he dominant religion. Populist views and opinions overshadow less known views and opinions. ; Diversity of thoughts are suppressed As much as I think legal moralist should be part of the legal process and decisions, in my opinion do not agree that it should be the predominant decision factor in legal system. Legal moralist interferes with the individual freedom and forces individuals to adhere to the predominant social norms. Take for an example, the marriage teen two homosexuals are banned in many states.

This example clearly infringes the freedom of homosexuals to get married and have a family like heterosexuals. As time passes, society changes and values change. Legal moralist does not have the flexibility to keep up with the ever changing values and traditions of the society. Hence, I believe that legal moralist is too rigid to accommodate with the changing society, beliefs and values and cannot Justify as groundwork for the greater good of society.

The three classifications I believe then can be placed into are biological, psychological and sociological. I personally think people commit crimes for a variety of reasons: peer pressure, opportunity, greed, poor moral Judgment and character; They fail to see the benefits of adhering to the law conventional social values; The opinion that everyone commits some type of crime; The more that society perceive a particular criminal behavior as reasonable or acceptable, the less likely that It will be considered evil two prime examples are the legalization of marijuana. r prohibition. Is it biological, hereditary is it in our genes? Is it psychological or due to traits in our personality? Is it due to solicitation – do we learn it, from other people? Is it explained by our bonds to society? Is it because of where you were raised; or is it because of imbalances In our society? Does a lack of religious morals have anything to do with It? I have always been fascinated with why people commit crime in our society we can answer who, what, when and where but the last question why usually goes unanswered and drives us mad!

The first category Is biological I know most- illogical theories have faded as society becomes more enlightened. I am saying brain damage, bad genetics, poor diet, and gender. Males are the predominate class of criminal offenders due to aggressive behavior that is encouraged in our society. While I believe some crimes are caused by biological imbalances, I believe there has to be a tipping point from society. The opportunity the victim the time and place and an imbalance in the odds which favor success. Like most detectives, I find the study of psychology of criminal behavior fascinating and the most-dangerous kind of rimming.

This leads us to the second part of my theory. The second category I will put forward Is psychological. I think this class or reason to commit a crime Is the worst and most dangerous. I place psychopath and sociopaths in this category. I put people who are Impulsive enjoy the power of controlling others these criminals get a rush of adrenaline high. Serial killers and rapist fall Into this category. Most of these people are loners whether it is due to the nature or nurture. I become criminals. The last category on the list is sociological.

I think where you grow p and your socioeconomic status, peer pressure and education make a great deal of difference in whether an individual will become a criminal. Gang fall into this category, petty crime I personally think our prison system makes this worse because all it does is make better criminals. I think most criminals start in this class. This leads me to my theory. My theory after a lifetime in criminal Justice and my education in college is very simple old Caesar Baccarat had it right people weigh the good against the bad, in other words, is a crime worth the time. It all boils down to personal choice.

Who are you? Kind, loyal, inspiring, different, loving in my own way, charismatic, fierce, ambitious, family oriented, responsible, reliable, thoughtful, outspoken, love to learn, forgiving, accommodating. ; What do you believe? DO WHAT IS RIGHT! , respect others both humans and animals alike, put family first over all things, personal integrity, taking time off, been honest and fair, trust others, be compassionate towards others, always do my best and commit to excellence in everything I do, to be courageous and stand up for what I believe. ; How do you relate to people? Homeopathic, good listener, kind, good attitude, Why do you believe these things? Because of my diverse background, my personal values and believes allow me to distinguish between right or wrong on most situations. My family and the schools I attended throughout my upbringing helped shaped and influenced who I am today, my morality and personal integrity. Define the purpose for your personal code of ethics. Purpose of personal code of ethics (for example, direct behavior or set goals) ; My personal code of ethics will be he guidelines set forth to help me decide what Is right from wrong.

I will honor this code of ethics In order to continue to grow both personally and professionally. I understand that in the future ethical decisions will be more complex and these guidelines may no longer apply; I will update and make changes to my code of ethics accordingly. ; To be respectful To be responsible ; Develop the “I will” section of your personal code of ethics. ; I will always be honest and forthcoming In everything I do. ; Why: Because If I am not sincere and airtight with others, I should not expect others to behave the same way towards me.

Whether your elbows feel offended if they are asked to leave the table, or your fingernails constantly suffer from being the victims of your mouth, bad habits, will always haunt us. It is not easy to totally eliminate or cease continuance of these habits. However, what we need to do to get rid of our habits, is to maintain the ability to weigh the pros and cons of our dreadful practices. More importantly, we need to keep our nation, and our people away from the horrid habit of marijuana usage. It is not necessary to say yes. It is not necessary to encourage legalization.

As of today, the nation stands behind three basic ideas of what to do with marijuana; legalize it, make it legal for medicinal purposes only, or keep it as it is, illegal. Through the development of society and the advancement of technology, humankind has constructed many ways to make bad habits appear good. Many argue that the legalization of marijuana will improve our economy, and aid those suffering from diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis and various cancers. This article is designed to cut through the fog of misinformation and manipulation with cold, hard facts.

The proposal of legalization has been approached without carefully considering the negative impingement on a person’s psyche, one’s societal values, the impact on a person’s health, and the detrimental effect on one’s basic ethics and morals. When the issue of legalization is debated, the medical aspects are always the first factor that is brought into the light of day, while other imperative portions of the issue are left to lie in the dust. Though when it is looked upon, there are many aspects concerning marijuana that can be considered harmful.

When marijuana is consumed, it is taken into the body and affects the brain directly, disabling it to think normally. When someone on a “high” is spoken to, they seem very relaxed and carefree. This, to some may be a positive effect but in reality has been thought of as a definite negative. Paranoia and panic invade the users mind, giving them an unreal perception of reality. Short-term memory, coordination, learning, and problem solving are all factors that negatively affect the brain. How can all these destructive ideas be good?

How can the unpleasant possibly succumb and overtake the “supposed” positives”? Marijuana is a very potent chemical compared to other psychoactive drugs. All the effects listed previous are long term, damaging effects that an individual will be left with. If a person were to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, it can be proposed that in the short term it may be doing good, but in the long term, with all the side effects being left behind; the arguments in support outweigh the disadvantages. The damaging effects of this drug have short-term effects as well, that disturbs and contorts the minds thinking.

Research shows that marijuana is not physically addictive, but it can be psychologically addictive. When a person believes he or she is addicted, the feeling stems into a higher usage causing a cycle of detrimental effects. Some short term effects that may be caused by the dangerous drug are problems with memory and learning, distorted perception, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, loss of coordination, increased heart rate, anxiety, paranoia and panic attacks. All these things clutter the mind causing chaos and can lead to dreadful occurrences.

Staring at all the things that are able to happen to the mind psychologically, gives the understanding that just because it may be useful in one case does not mean it will be valuable in senses of the overall case. With this said, the question of legalizing marijuana comes into play. Looking at the facts laid out in front of you thus far, the conclusion of what to decide can be made easy. Ethics are defined as a set of principles concerning correct conduct and moral values. One must realize that every single person has a different interpretation of ethics.

However, how can society conclude that legalizing marijuana is ethical? It stands to reason that if this behaviour is currently prohibited by law and follows with a severe punishment, it must be widely and clearly judged to be immoral. Canada is on the verge of facing a drug problem, and this problem extends towards all citizens. The children of today, the future leaders of our society will be open to drug usage because inevitably, marijuana smoking will be just as common as the smoking of cigarettes.

And why will the government let children grow up in a legal drug-abusing world? Only for selfish and immoral reasons like money. The most potent question to ask is; if marijuana is legalized, is it really worth it to throw all known morals into the trash, and let children be nurtured in a drug filled society? Marijuana promotion is also unethical. If this drug is legalized it will also be promoted, maybe not directly but just the fact of legalization will affect the decisions of millions worldwide.

Rules and regulations are what hold civilizations together. When rules are broken there is a certain shaking of the society in consequence of the broken rule. If marijuana is legalized, there will be no more rules to enforce the usage of the drug, thus slowly leading to a deterioration of society. To legalize or not to legalize? That is the question. A question that is running through many peoples’ thoughts. The legalization of marijuana is a controversial debate that may never satisfy those in favour of it and against, in the end.

Although the final decision is one made by the Ontario Government the impact the new law will have on society is heavily taken into consideration because of the influential role Marijuana has on our modern day society. The legalization of marijuana will have a negative impact on our society mainly because it becomes an invitation for children and adults to use the drug regularly. Children are not one to argue with what is legal, giving them an incentive to smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes negatively effecting their education and future.

Although there are many children using marijuana, as it remains illegal, the difficulty of getting a hold of the drug and using it continues to be high. Some people argue that the legalization of this drug will increase the economic conditions of our nation not taking into account the increase in the number of people dependent on the drug. Thereby increasing the amount of money needed to run drug addiction programs, welfare for those who spend away their lifesavings on the drug and an increase for hospital beds and emergency rooms for those who get themselves overdosed or in a medical bind because of the drug.

Where would the government find the time and money to support the needs and uses of marijuana? Through a social perspective the legalization of marijuana is detrimental to our society as it corrupts the lives of our children who are our future. When marijuana enters the bloodstream it acts significantly on the brain and the nervous system. Many physical effects take place such as; the heart rate is elevated from an average of 70 beats per minute to 130 or more due to the marijuana smoke containing carbon monoxide.

This smoke impairs the oxygen carrying ability of the blood resulting in extra stress placed on the heart because it must work harder to move the blood throughout the body. Marijuana smoke also contains high amounts of tars and irritating chemicals, which damage the throat, windpipe, and lungs. Fungus infections have been found in 50% of marijuana smokers in a study at the University of Wisconsin. These infections (caused by aspergillis fungus) may lead to allergies or serious lung infections from inhaling the fungal spores into the lungs.

In addition, marijuana also affects the body’s system of fighting infection and its production of hormones, which control important body activities. You begin to have trouble with motor skills, walking, talking, and coordination. It is clear that there are many powerful and complicated immediate effects, which take place when marijuana is absorbed into the bloodstream. This leaves an individual unaware of his/her surroundings and actions, thus making them unfit to make decisions on their own.

In addition, smoked marijuana contains more than four hundred different chemicals, including most of the hazardous chemicals found in tobacco smoke. However, a substance called Marinol has been developed for patients who suffer from diseases marijuana can ease. This substance has been studied and approved by the medical community and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the nation’s watchdog over unsafe and harmful food and drug products. There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked.

Though many persistently argue that medicinal marijuana will relieve the pain of those who suffer from various diseases, it is clearly proven that they are wrong. In essence, marijuana does not need to be legalized for medicinal purposes. There is already an FDA approved drug being administered to those who need it. Legalization for even medicinal purposes will not drastically ease pain. Ironically, the smoking of this drug threatens to increase the health issues of these patients. Marijuana has often been touted as one of the safest recreational substances available.

This is perhaps true. Nonetheless, It would be fallacious to conclude that because the chemicals in marijuana have been found to present fewer dangers than some very harmful substances, the medical or recreational use of marijuana is perfectly safe. In fact, it is simply ridiculous. These arguments and presumptions concerning the legalization of marijuana are more fictitious than a fairy tale. In fact, legalizing marijuana will cause a deterioration of one’s health rather than restoring it. There is still a great deal of research to be done concerning the effects of marijuana on humans.

This is due to the fact that widespread marijuana use has only become prevalent in this country within the last two or three decades. Therefore, the effects of long-term use are just beginning to become apparent. Should Marijuana be legalized? It is evident that many people who support this bill generally try to construct this horrid habit into something good. Psychologically, ethically, socially and medically, studies and debates are continually pointing a thumbs-down sign for the plan of marijuana legalization to be executed.

Richard Funnyman Is a world renowned physicists, he is known especially for his help In the development of the atomic bomb. Considering that he Is the creator of the worlds most dangerous weapon, The Value of Science can be interpreted on an entirely different level as Funnyman goes back and forth on the concepts of good vs.. Evil as a way to reflect his moral conscience. Richard Funnyman’ morality can be seen through his passages about good and evil in the world of science and the world outside of science.

During Funnyman’ opening point he states that when good things re created because of science It Is because “moral choice” (Funnyman 64) led them to that discovery. In other words, when someone makes something beneficial in science it is simply because while they were making it they were considering what is right and wrong. He continues by saying that each scientist is given the power “to do either good or bad” (Funnyman 64). However, there are no instructions on how to decipher which one you are doing.

Therefore, you could create something disastrous due to the lack of direction. In addition, he references a Buddhist proverb, “To every man Is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell” (Funnyman 64). He is relating this quote to the good and bad choices that can be made in science. For example, in the proverb the “kef’ would be the science, “heaven” would be the good that can come from science, and “hell” would be the bad that can come from science.

However, whether it be the power to do something good or bad or the key to heaven or hell there are never and instructions on which choices will lead you here. If you don’t have Instructions, “the key may be a dangerous object to use” (Funnyman 64). Based on the diction he uses In this section It suggests that he Is feelings guilty for the effects of the atomic bomb since he is using words such as “bad”, “evil”, and “dangerous”. It suggests that perhaps Funnyman feels as if he opened the gate to hell rather than the gate to heaven through his invention.

His guilt is further shown with his comparison of science to the world outside of science. Richard Funnyman uses things outside of science to compare and Justify his morals about what he has done In science. For example, he states that education, communication, and applied science can be a “strong force, but for either good or evil” (Funnyman 69). It can be interpreted that he is referencing the atomic bomb by the repetition of the words “strong force” because the atomic bomb is the most feared bomb in the world due to how much power it is has.

Also, when he says that these strong forces can be used for “good or evil” (Funnyman 69) it could mean that the mob could be used for good, In which cases It wouldn’t harm any civilians, or It can be used for evil, like how It was used In World War II where the bomb was used and killed 80,000 people instantly. He is using these examples outside of science as a way to show that, yes, science can create horror, but there are so many other things in the world that can create the same outcome. Following this further, he states that “nearly everybody dislikes war and continues by saying that “our dream today is peace” (Funnyman 69).

However, he further explains this point by giving an example of how eventually peace turns Into a bad thing also. This rationale used by Funnyman war. If this is the case, his example of peace being a bad thing would reference the fact that, the atomic bomb ended the war, but there was so much horror in the way it ended that it is impossible to actually have peace. The passage “Education, for Good and Evil” as a whole suggests that he is trying to take attention off of science alone being bad, by bring other things into the equation.

This section of his writing shows his morality through his diction and repetition, if there were no remorse for his decisions the whole piece would take a completely different purpose. Origin, an ancient theologian, once said, “the power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all. ” Richard Funnyman shows that this is entirely possible to do, given that the person making the decision is in touch with their morals. Good things can be created from knowledge, but the biggest part of creating something great is the use of moral choices.

Morality (sometimes called “true morality” or “high morality”) should be distinguished from those rules which are simply those which are considered necessary for the efficient running of a society. Such rules of a society are enshrined in law, custom and convention; and are supported and enforced by society through the legal system and public opinion. These rules are usually obeyed because of self-interest, a kind of “social contract” in which, for example, we agree not to steal from anyone else in the society if they agree not to steal from us.

In very early societies these social rules were supported by religion, and presented as behaviour which the gods insisted humans obeyed. It is arguable that some (ie numbers 5-9) of the Ten Commandments (13th Century BCE) are just such social rules.

However such a system of social rules may break down, particularly in a secular or pluralistic society. For example some people may consider that the society in which they live is unfair, and only benefits certain groups in it; or the legal system may be too inefficient to prevent other people stealing. In such situations individuals may think it is no longer beneficial for them to continue to agree to the social contract, and then there would be no compelling reason why they should continue to obey society’s laws.

What we consider to be true morality is different from social rules in two important respects:

1. It is based on real concern for others as human beings of equal value to ourselves

2. Our motivation for behaving morally is that such behaviour is “right” and we feel we “ought” to do it, even when it is inconvenient to ourselves.

Is Morality dependent upon Religion?

The evidence to support this view is:

* All religions insist upon a moral code as a central part of the religious life.

* Even non-religious people when discussing where ethical values came from will refer to religious sources, such as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20. 2-17), or the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5. 3- 7.27).

* When people (eg newspaper reporters) require an expert opinion on moral issues they will ask religious leaders.

* People expect higher standards of moral behaviour from religious people (a story of an adulterous vicar is more likely to appear in the newspapers that a similar tale about a bank manager – unless, of course, the latter is a churchwarden!).

* Even in our largely secular society, “high” morality is often referred to as “having Christian values”.

* When people talk of someone being “a good Christian” they are usually referring to their moral behaviour (ie how they treat others) and not to their doctrinal orthodoxy (ie whether they hold the traditional Christian beliefs).

* True morality sprung up within religion. Arguably the first clear and unequivocal expression of true morality was the insistence by the Israelite prophet Amos in the 8th Century BCE that Yahweh (God) required honesty, truth and justice among his people more than religious observances (sacrifices, etc): “Even though you offer me [Yahweh] your burnt offerings…I will not accept them;…but let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5.22-4).

* No society developed morality without having developed religion first, and all morality was originally proclaimed in the name of religion. It could be asserted, therefore, that morality is a product of religion, and true morality can only derive from religion.

* Conscience can be interpreted as the voice of God telling us what is right and wrong.

* It can be argued that even when societies lose their interest in practising a religion, they still maintain the moral values which that religion originally instilled into the society. Thus it can be claimed that in Britain today, where about 1 person in 30 is a practising Christian, the moral values which the society proclaims, believes in and tries to live by are Christian moral values (secularised).

* It can be claimed that people will not chose to be moral unless encouraged to do so by religion.

Is Morality independent from Religion?

The evidence to support this view is:

* Religions existed for many thousands of years before they developed a real morality. This suggests that morality is not an essential part of religion.

* Atheists and agnostics, who do not believe in or follow any religion, can still live truly moral lives, with a selfless compassion for other humans.

* Whole societies (eg China and the former Soviet States) can be officially atheistic, and there is no evidence that such countries or governments are necessarily more wicked than ones which claim to be religious states.

* The origin of moral values can be explained in terms of Evolutionary Ethics (ie as societies develop and become more complex and sophisticated so social rules become more demanding, evolving into true morality).

* Conscience can be explained in other ways (eg Sigmund Freud’s concept of the internalisation of parental norms).

* Agriculture, families, medicine and learning all developed within a religious context, as did morality. They have now all entered the secular domain, and are considered independent of religion, so the fact that morality developed in a religious context does not mean that it is necessarily dependent upon religion.

* Plato posited the “Euthyphro Dilemma” which raised the question that good must be independent of God, or there would be no way of knowing if God’s commands were actually good or not.

Can we come to some kind of conclusion?

How you evaluate the above evidence, and the conclusion you come to about where the balance of the evidence lies is something you have to do for yourself; but you must do it honestly, thoughtfully and intelligently.

You may like to consider the following thoughts:

* All people have some kind of beliefs concerning the nature of humanity, what is of real importance and value, and what one should do with ones life.

* Religious people will refer to these beliefs as their religion, and associate with groups of like-minded people who share the same religion. Atheists and agnostics will tend to refer to their beliefs as their philosophy of life, and may consider them a more individual matter.

* These beliefs (whatever we call them) affect our behaviour, and we legitimately judge a person’s philosophy of life by how it affects their moral decisions and actions.

* So ones beliefs determine ones morality.

Bee and Buckley (2001) state that over the past few decades, corporate codes of ethics have proliferated. These codes have proved useful In Informing employees about legal requirements of the firm, addressing specific concerns and serving as guidelines for accepted practice within the organization. However, unethical acts continue to occur, as Is evidenced by the recent recall of Firestone tires and the 103 deaths that forced It. (p. 73) It does not matter if corporate executives are told millions of times of codes of ethical conduct as some still will conduct illegal activities.

These individuals are looking to make themselves rich while other ethical individuals are looking out for the good of the organization and its stockholders. This paper will discuss the purpose statement, problem statement, topic background, necessity of study, importance of topic to the field of education as well as the potential significance of the study to scholarly literature with regard to my research study entitled Employees’ Perspectives of Ethics in the Workplace.

Purpose Statement The purpose of this study Is to determine whether employees demonstrate ethical behavior In the workplace Problem Statement Research is needed to explore the experiences of employees with regard to ethics or the lack thereof in the workplace today. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of employees in the workplace and to examine the differences and similarities of their experiences with regard to ethics in the workplace. The methodology and design of this study were derived by using the structure to establish “goodness” advocated by Armenia and Haltered (2002).

Topic Background Pain’s (1994) statement that the ethical composition of the individual defines the ethical composition of the organization Is described In his article entitled “Managing for Organizational Integrity. ” Therefore, who you are will Influence the values of the organization due to the following reasons. First, Individuals’ personal values become part of the organization. Second, the supervisors’ influence over the employees’ actions. Third, senior management influence over lower management and employees. Fourth, internal drive of the individual to succeed.

Fifth, performance pressures within the organization. Sixth, lack of punishment within the organization. Seventh, friends and/or coworker influence over other employees. Furthermore, the organization’s culture influences the values of the organization as the culture of an organization defines the ethical behavior of this particular organization by defining what is right and wrong. In order to reconcile Inconsistencies between your own values and the values of the organization, an Individual must choose whether to advance his/her own interests, the organizations, or the Interests of others.

For example, bribes or personal payments, gifts, or special favors Intended to Influence decision making. Individuals should report other employees for such acts as lying to supervisors, entertainment receipt in violation of company policy. These acts are violations against the organizations Code of Ethics which is a formal statement of what an organization expects in the way of ethical behavior (what behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable) and reflects senior management’s organizational values, rules, and policies.

However, many individuals do not report fellow co-workers for fear of not being considered a team player, do not think corrective action would be taken, fear of retribution (from management) as well as not trusting the organizational to keep the report confidential. Based on the literature, Beams, et al. (2003) experiment found that “guilt had the greatest effect on intent to trade based on insider information. Expected gain, cynicism, and perceptions of the fairness of laws were also significantly associated with the intent to trade based on insider information” (p. 320).

The study also found that individuals do not necessarily engage in insider trading to gain money but to avoid a possible loss. Furthermore, the study found that insider trading was not necessarily acceptable by society as well as likely to be caught and punished for the crime. Bee and Buckley (2001) state that over the past few decades, corporate codes of ethics have proliferated. These codes have proved useful in informing employees about legal requirements of the firm, addressing specific concerns and serving as guidelines for accepted practice within the organization.

However, unethical acts continue to occur, as is evidenced by the recent recall of Firestone tires and the 103 deaths that forced it. (p. 73) It does not matter if corporate executives are told millions of times of codes of ethical conduct as some still will conduct illegal activities. These individuals are looking to make themselves rich while other ethical individuals are looking out for the good of the organization and its stockholders. Dungaree and Jeep’s studied six individuals who engaged in criminal and unethical activities in the corporate business world.

Dungaree and Speedup’s findings as related to these six individuals definitely support the Beams, et. Al. Experiment as these individuals knew that their activities were illegal as well as unethical. Furthermore, these activities were definitely not viewed favorably by society. Dungaree and Jeep’s (2001) state that “all six certainly knew that they were reeking the law and most went to extra-ordinary lengths to cover up what they were doing” (p. 51).

These individuals were also in high level positions, which caused individuals who knew about the criminal activities to look the other way. These individuals engaged in these activities because they were greedy and definitely not working toward organizational goals. Fell (2001) states that evidence shows that firms with ethics programs have a lower percentage of inside directors on their compensation committees than do firms without ethics programs.

Firms in which boards are actively involved in the programs have more independent roads (higher percentage of independent directors and lower percentage of inside directors and are more likely to compensate outside directors with equity than are firms in which boards are not actively involved in the programs. Taken together, the evidence indicates that a board actively involved in an ethics program, and not the simple existence of an ethics program is related to the incidence of potential conflicts employees must adhere to.

Maybe these ethical standards will make individuals think before they conduct illegal and unethical activities which harm stockholders and the organization. McCall (2002) states that there should be an “alternative model for adjudicating between stakeholders’ conflicting claims of rights and it applies that method to determine what responsibilities corporate management might have to employees and how management might be held accountable for discharging those responsibilities” (p. 133). Management certainly has responsibilities to the organization, the stockholders and the employees.

They are supposed to conduct business in the best interest of all. Whetstone (2003) states that (1) virtue ethics and virtue language is fluently used by practicing managers, (2) virtue engage is important to understanding managerial excellence, and (3) whereas the set of virtues defining the excellent manager can be expected to be dependent on the societal, industry, and organizational context, such a set of manager virtues can be identified and prioritize within a particular organizational milieu.

The implication is that, once an organization’s management better understands the meaning of the excellent manager in terms of the virtue language already used by its own employees, it is better equipped to implement a practical ethic of virtues, one helpful toward recognizing and developing excellent managers. Ethics researchers are challenged to increase their understanding of extant virtue language as the basis for a renewed development of virtue ethics theory and applications (p. 343). All organizations should train and retain managers as well as requiring all employees to attend ethical seminars and conferences on a yearly basis.

This will ensure that these individuals understand the code of ethics and their responsibilities to adhere to this code of ethics. Study of Topic Importance to the Field of Education The topic of ethics is important to the field of education as well as all other fields as well as the business world. Béchamel and Bowie (2004) identify three primary arguments on the practice of preferential treatment: (a) It is Just, (b) it is unjust, and (c) it is not Just but it is still permissible. The argument that is the most consistent with typical American business practices is (c) it is not Just but it is still permissible.

In other words, executives and employees in the business world today take the position that unethical behavior on their part is Just the way business is conducted today. Béchamel (2004) “argues that even some forms of reverse discrimination can be Justified as a means to the end of a nondiscriminatory society” (p. 27). This type of behavior is illegal and known by the executives and employees to be wrong but individuals tend to lend a blind eye when this type of behavior is noticed in the corporate world. For example, At the heart of the Enron scandal is a failure of corporate governance.

Senior executives who permitted or encouraged misleading accounting treatment. An audit committee that signed off on misleading accounts. Individuals enriched by transactions with the company that employed them. A board that was ineffective in supervising senior managers’ actions. Weightlessness’ complaints that was ignored r whitewashed. (http://www. Uncharacteristically. Com/cars/try. CGI? Articled=1679) the Board of Directors which led to its failure and bankruptcy. I believe that these individuals were only out to make themselves rich and did not care in the least about the stockholders.

If the weightlessness were not disregarded, maybe Enron could have been saved before it turned into one of the largest corporate scandals in the history of the United States. The major theory that underlies workplace ethics is the stakeholder theory. According to this theory, management has an obligation to the stakeholders to make profit for the stakeholders as well as conducting business ethically. Furthermore, management must answer to the stakeholders for any wrongdoing and unethical behavior. For example, Enron executives had to answer to the stockholders as they lost their investments when the company declared bankruptcy.

It is difficult for corporations to be ethical because some managers and executives are looking to profit themselves instead of what is in the best interest of the stakeholders. The trends with regard to ethical issues in the workplace are those of employees and management who are acting unethically. For example, stealing supplies, reaching the internet during work hours, leaving early and arriving late as well as management profiting for their own best interest. As time progresses, this type of behavior will grow worse as individuals in the workplace will have less morals than they do today.

Potential Significance of Study to Scholarly Literature Developing theory from the data without preconceived ideas is an appropriate technique for this study on ethics in the workplace. Since studies examining the affect of ethical experiences are not documented in current literature, the data collected will be use to generate an original theory. The data obtained in this study Anton verify preexisting theory because this is not a relevant preexisting theory on this topic to be verified. This fact further substantiates a grounded theory methodology is an appropriate methodology for this study.

Necessity of Study I believe that this is an important subject as ethics is lacking in individuals, groups, workplaces and the world today. I believe that most leaders, managers and employees act unethically in the workplace. Béchamel and Bowie (2004) identify three primary arguments on the practice of preferential treatment: (a) It is Just, (b) it is unjust, and (c) it is not Just but it is still permissible. The argument that is the most consistent with typical American business practices is (c) it is not Just but it is still permissible.

In other words, executives and employees in the business world today take the position that unethical behavior on their part is Just the way business is conducted today. Béchamel (2004) “argues that even some forms of reverse discrimination can be Justified as a means to the end of a nondiscriminatory society” (p. 327). This type of behavior is illegal and known by the executives and employees to be wrong but individuals tend to lend a blind eye when this type of behavior is noticed in the corporate world.

I am currently employed at The Travelers Companies as a Senior Paralegal in its Special Liability Group where I handle large commercial claims. I make my own decisions on the files that I handle including setting the reserves on a claim and supervising outside counsel until the for fifteen years. Travelers is a large company with offices all over the world so there is high growth potential as well as advancement opportunities within the Company. My department at work consists of seven claim attorneys, two secretaries and myself (the senior paralegal).

My secretary, in particular, comes to work late everyday, calls in sick frequently, surfs the internet all day long, gets her hair done during work hours every four weeks, attends a weekly doctor’s appointment during work hours and socializes with coworkers for long amounts of time. Furthermore, we enter our own time into our human resources database, and I know for a fact that this secretary does not account for all the time she takes off, etc. In other words, she is getting more days off then she is allowed as I kept track of when she took off last year.

All of these actions are a violation of my company’s honesty and ethics policies. Han Cheesy Koch, El Tree H Y Boo (2004) states that organizational ethics is positively associated with not only financial performance but also employee attitudes. While it is obvious that organizational ethics are intended to guide and influence employee behavior (e. G. , in dealing with ethical dilemma and avoiding unethical situations), it is not obvious what relationship exists between organizational ethics and employee attitudes. (p. 77) Furthermore, I know that my secretary could care less about her job or the company as she has told me so on several occasions. She does not really ant to work but has to because her husband does not make much money. She would much rather sit at home and watch television. In fact, that is all she does when she is not at work. I would say that she does not have a high level of Job satisfaction and is not motivated toward company goals. I Just do not understand her lack of motivation as my company is a great place to work and we get very competitive raises each year.

I believe that the situation that I have described is both an ethical decision and a moral decision. First, my secretary is not behaving to the standard which I was taught to act and behave. I have a conscious and was raised to be an honest person. My father always said that taking even a pen from work was stealing. Second, my secretary actions are morally incorrect as they go against every value that I was ever taught. When we go to work, we should be productive and work toward the goals of the organization. We should adhere to the standards of the organization as well as our own standards.

My secretary is clearly not adhering to any standards whatsoever. She is taking up space and collecting a paycheck she does not deserve. Furthermore, my secretary actions since I have been with this department (for he past five years) are causing me a high level of dissonance because I believe that a person’s work ethic should be of the highest degree. I wish every day that I was her supervisor so I could terminate her employment. I Just cannot believe that our supervisor does not see what she does everyday and those human resources do not scrutinize the time entries more closely.

I have thought about saying something to my supervisor but what this secretary does or does not do at work is none of my business. Furthermore, my secretary’s actions makes me want to come in late, surf he internet instead of working, take long lunches everyday and cheat on my time also. If she can do it, so can l. However, I cannot be unethical as I was raised to be honest. Also, I have a high regard for my organization’s success. However, my hotlist which you can call reporting any violations of its ethics and honestly policies. It is an 800 number and you need not give your name.

I reported my secretary using this hotlist. This report is forwarded to her direct supervisor as well as human resources and an investigation is conducted. I Just could not let this activity continue as it does against every belief and value that I have. I do not feel that this type of behavior in the workplace or anywhere else for that matter should be allowed to occur. I was raised to be an honest person who worked to achieve what I desire as well as the goals of the organization. Frankly, I hope she is terminated even through she has been with my organization for twenty-five years.

I do not think she adds any productive resources to my organization and is Just taking up. Conclusion In conclusion, this paper discussed the purpose statement, problem statement, topic background, necessity of study, importance of topic to the field of education as ell as the potential significance of the study to scholarly literature with regard to my research study entitled Employees’ Perspectives of Ethics in the Workplace. I believe this topic is important because if individuals and the world around us continues in its current state, there will not be an ethics whatsoever when my children grow up.