From section 1, we learn that the affirmation Ethics has no place running a business is in fact a moral standard, as opposed to a nonmoral standard. It really is a moral standard since it consists of implied in it "the six characteristics of moral expectations" (Velasquez, 12-13). Ethics is a discipline that is exercised by individuals to judge, in a organized way, moral criteria that are realistic for someone's life (Velasquez, 13). This discipline, when exercised running a business is an applied branch of ethics known as business ethics (Velasquez, 15).
For something to be a matter of moral matter, it must concern "serious wrongs or significant benefits"(Velasquez, 12). Which means that nonmoral standards are incredibly different than moral standards because nonmoral specifications tend to be a matter of etiquette or polite benchmarks of behavior. On the other hand, moral standards are incredibly so serious that if they are disregarded or violated, they often result in harm or lack of substantial benefits for a modern culture (meaning they are really systemic), an organization (meaning they are simply corporate) or singularly (so this means for a worker or a person or the recipients of the company's goods or services) (Velasquez, 16). In other words, to say that "Ethics has no place in business" is a moral standard that condones lawlessness and chaos. If employees or owners of a business can behave at all they want so long as it maximizes their profits and encourages their home interest, regardless of the outcome of their choices, it leaves us with some sort of subjective and personal morality that is temporal rather than universal. This would of course by the book's meaning not be ethics; since ethics will need to have a universal element that extends across cultures and is also normative rather than just descriptive (Velasquez, 14). Descriptive studies of patterns will be the work of sociable anthropologists and they are intended to express what is present in cultures. Descriptive studies refuse to attract conclusions or make suggestions about how precisely people "ought" to respond.
This being the day after Obama is re-elected to his second term, I believe that the study of business ethics and ethics generally, is more needed than ever before. I personally consider and also have seen that there is a lack of organized thinking on every level (systemic, organizational and personal) in what is universally true and good. American culture is so fragmented and subjective that the teaching of ethics may become like the coaching of Latin: a matter of history without modern people who speak it as an initial language.
5. "Kohlberg's views on moral development show that the greater morally mature a person becomes, the much more likely it is the fact that the person will follow the moral norms of his or her population. " Discuss this declaration.
Kohlberg's theory argues that equally as a child matures and develops physically, people as moral beings also grow up and develop. He argues that humans who totally develop up morally progress upward in three levels, and each level has two periods. However, it seems that this statement is true until a person advances to the 5th and 6th level. Individuals who operate from the third level of Kohlberg's moral expectations might not exactly be identified by society as being as morally obedient as those who only progress to the fourth level on the second level.
In the first level, which he calling the "preconventional stages" young humans are determined to do what's right because either they want certain rewards or want to avoid certain punishments (Consequence and Obedience Orientation). Children do what's right, not because they understand it will hurt others if indeed they don't, but just because they don't want to be punished. The next stage in this first level is called the "instrumental and relative orientation" level (38). With this stage, the child is practical in a way. The child might think, "I will not do X to my buddy, because I don't want my brother to do X to me. " Kohlberg argues that there are some grownups that get stuck on level one (in either levels a couple of) because they never progress beyond their concern with punishment or loss of incentive, while there are other people who act a certain means of avoiding someone doing something the same to them. When a person gets trapped in either stage of level one, his/her moral reasoning will always function on this level motivated out of fear.
Level two is called by Kohlberg the "conventional stages". Inside the first degree of this development of ethics a adolescence does indeed what's right because they're being loyal with their family, friends or cultural group or they do what's right because they have a responsibility or allegiance to regulations. I've seen that a lot of middle class Americans get stuck right here. These are the good citizens of the contemporary society. Within the first stage, the "interpersonal concordance orientation, " a person does what they believe is right so that they will be loyal to and approved of by the folks who they value. This is a good stage for a teenager if they're in good company. However, we can see this in a poor or deviant way too: kids who are dedicated to their gang participants, suicide packs or pregnancy packages that young adults take with other teens to do awful things jointly, mafia families in which teens choose to cooperate using their family's illegal serves over what they know is right. However, if teenagers have a good family history this can be a blessing that they actually what's right because they want to be well thought of and accepted by their own families and the modern culture. In the second level a loyalty to the world, nation and legislations develops. There is a sense of group and community that if indeed they don't honor, they'll not fit well or be a responsible person in the group. Overall, I guess that most administration officials are incredibly happy if people get here and continue to be here. They might not call it "stuck" if a person's conduct and inspiration stayed the following.
Kohlberg then details your final level with two periods of maturity. This of course should happen to everyone. After reading this, I put to even think about myself to see easily have progressed beyond level two/stage four as a Christian male as a Cuban North american. Having come from Cuba, I understand so many people who come to this country and because there is a way of thinking of poverty and federal blame, many people I understand, even my children people, may be caught up on level one in level one or stage two. I thought because I value obeying the regulations and I don't want to shame my family name, My Savior, or the country that required me in and offered me the opportunity to be effective and a business owner, I thought this is a high degree of development. But now I see phases five, "social contract orientation" and stage six "universal moral guidelines orientation" and I recognize that they are both in the Bible. And moreover, if your home is them, you actually may be looked at dangerous to the existing power composition as Jesus and the Apostle Paul were considered dangerous to the Jewish market leaders of that time.
In level five, a person realizes that acceptable people disagree over what is right and try to reach "a consensus" to attain change or action. I feel that when the Greeks came up with the first democratic system including the city state - one man, one vote, this is a reflection of this kind of moral system that identifies that conflicting moral views are best settled by a vote that allowed bulk ruling. Obviously the American system is much more complex than this now with the Electoral College and the weight each condition has in an election, but the basis of the Greek's early system is still in place. However the best example I found of this in the Bible was at John chapter 8. In such a chapter Jesus responds out of the degree of ethics. The Pharisees brought Jesus a female who was found in adultery. They helped bring her, rather than the man, to see if Jesus would uphold their rules and stone her to loss of life. They created this problem to accuse him of not being faithful to their group or not obeying the known laws of this day (levels three and levels four of Kohlberg's model). However, Jesus, being more developed ethically because He always handled out of eternal/general guidelines of virtue, brought them to a point of consensus that made each of them agree to walk away from the situation. He told them, whoever of you is without sin, you cast the first rock at her (John 8:7). In the oldest to the youngest, each of them walked away. This was some sort of consensus. He even received the woman to leave by exhibiting her that her level of moral benchmarks failed her - "Woman, where are your accusers? Will no man accuse you?" (John 8:10) She probably was determined only by level one, level one: she didn't want to be found and punished. For the reason that day, violating relationship laws meant loss of life by stoning.
In stage six, " general moral rules of orientation" someone who has developed to this level behaves out of any moral certainty because he is sure that the guidelines he follows are reasonable, general and steady (Velasquez, 39). Usually upon this level, the individual works wholly out of these beliefs and is able to assess and reason out of the degree of moral development. A lot of people guess that only moral superstars of the human race have the ability to attain this. However, I assume along with individuals who have died for their principles, there are numerous anonymous heroes who work in a daily way out of these convictions and capacity to do something in widespread, rationale ways regardless of what it may cost them. If we are looking, we have seen this over and over again during turmoil situations all throughout record. An example of this, for Christians, is shown when Jesus is dying on the mix. He asks His Daddy to forgive those who had been crucifying Him: Forgive them Daddy, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34). He decided to go with this because He chose to treat "people as a (eternal) result in themselves"(Velasquez, 39). He noticed from His Father's perspective that this was "reasonable, universal and dependable" with what He was dispatched here to do.
2. A student incorrectly described utilitarianism this way: "Utilitarianism is the view that so long as an action provides me with an increase of measurable economic benefits than costs, the action is morally right. " Identify all the blunders within this definition of utilitarianism.
Well the first oversight that this learner makes is when he says "me". This is actually the first rule that someone breaks when they do not understand what utilitarianism really means. A person misuses utilitarianism if they don't realize that "an action is right if it produces the most energy for ALL People damaged by the action. " True utilitarianism is not subjective and personal in this manner. A second mistake this person made is the fact that he performed is thinking about measuring the monetary benefit and costs based on an individual action rather than taking into consideration the consequences that need to be assessed regarding the action both in the short run and the long term: what must be measured are "both immediate and all foreseeable future costs and benefits that each alternative provides for each person (which) must be studied into account" (Velasquez, 83). This is much more intricate and packed with examination than this person's declaration implies. Finally, and again, this person's affirmation is only about the expenses and benefits to himself, which is very different from what utilitarianism prescribes: "the right action [which means there is only one] is the main one whose COMBINED BENEFITS and COSTS outweigh the COMBINED BENEFITS and COSTS of EVERY OTHER ACTION the agent could carry out" (Velasquez, 79). This really puts a burden of examination and effort on the individual making the decision to make certain his choice lives up to this standard.
4. "Every basic principle of distributive justice, whether that of the egalitarian, or the capitalist, or the socialist, or the libertarian, or of Rawls, in the end is illegitimately advocating some form of equality. " Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
I find this question the hardest. The problem with this is a lack common guidelines or rules that people can consent to in this culture. And this the truth is complicated by the actual fact that humans are free will providers and the definition of what humans consider fair is so varied.
Initially, if you have a contemporary society of people who'll all work hard and value caring for the widowed and orphaned, to create "true religion" in the reserve of Adam, or if you have people who want to feed the poor and take care of the poor, then you don't need to legislate a distribution system for individuals who cannot add and "earn" a portion of the American pie. However, although People in the usa still tend to be philanthropic than other organizations, they provide to whom they want, when they need and what they need - which is the idealism of Libertarianism (Velasquez, 113). And in some ways, this kind of freedom does indeed seem just. For example, if you'd a culture of providing that almost all of people arranged with and applied of their hearts, then everyone would give without being threatened or coerced, which of course will be a utopian system. Furthermore, so long as these prices were passed down from generation to generation and each generation would affirm and bolster these ideals, then this home governance will be a high quality of living for those individuals who willing utilized it. Unfortunately, as of yet, there were real human systems that tried to set-up collective cultures and have failed: communism, the Greek polis system, hippie communes, Jewish Kitbbutz movement, along without various cults or other spiritual groups who choose to carry these ideals. But the condition with clean egalitarianism is summarized by the e book so well: "Human beings change in their abilities, cleverness, virtues, needs, wants and all the physical and mental characteristics. If this is so, then humans are unequal in every respect" (Velasquez, 109).
Humans on the whole have a problem with resentment and strife when from other viewpoint they may be more suitable than others, do more than others but have the same rewards or reimbursement than less able or willing users of a group. I believe this is why socialism doesn't work: "Work burdens should be allocated corresponding to people's expertise, and benefits should be sent out regarding to people's needs" (Velasquez, 111). Interestingly though, I think the above affirmation does work in small community situations when people are focused on each other through love. Many individuals work predicated on this principle. My children had 12 children who range in time over 24 years. I am 48 and my oldest sibling is 72. My mom had to build up ways to make system to distribute the responsibility as well as the supplying to the needy ones in the family. I believe in small ways, socialism could work when there is a very common interest and determination to people of the group which allows more competent and associates to selflessly meet up with the needs of more needy, less able members.
It seems that of the systems that are shown in the section, John Rawls' system of justice would work best with bigger cultures of individuals from diverse backgrounds and ability levels, especially for Americans. "Rawls cases that the more productive a contemporary society is, a lot more benefits it'll be able to give its least-advantaged customers" (Velasquez, 115). It uses three key points, which remind me of the three branches of authorities that make inspections and amounts in the American system: theory of identical liberty, difference concept, and process of fair equality of opportunity (Velasquez, 115). The first concept protects the real human liberties and ensures that all people's liberties receive equal value. The second principle claims a productive modern culture will contribute to and work to enhance the standard of life for the marginal groups in the world. Finally, the last principle ensures that everyone has a good chance to climb the social ladder. Together there are measures in place to ensure the entire culture is safe and profitable, at least theoretically.
I'm not sure obtaining true equality and justice can be done within a land that will not share common beliefs and concepts. I think that as America is becoming less Judeo-Christian in orientation, basic truths are in dispute and the complete groundwork of the culture is fragmenting underneath us. I wish this were not true. Ways to get a group of people who aren't "like-minded" to go in the same direction is impossible on some level. Even if "an educated elite" could be decided on and appointed to design and implement something of social justice, beyond having a distributed faith or perception system, special interest categories would insist that their hobbies weren't being displayed. Unity is a rare thing today. Without unity and agreement, meanings of justice cannot be arranged.