Categories for Ethics

Ethical Dilemma Essay

Ethical Dilemma Essay

What Dr. Schneider is doing by putting crowns on teeth that could be treated with two surface amalgams is unethical. It is obvious that she is doing this to increase revenues during a downturn in her financial condition related to her divorce. Two surface amalgams have a long history for use for fillings for decayed areas of teeth and for general repairs of chipped or cracked teeth. Although its use is declining in the U. S. it remains the first choice for posterior direct restorations.

(1) Other bonding techniques are now being employed by dentists in lieu of two surface amalgams that are gaining in popularity for esthetic reasons and because they use no toxic metals such as mercury. To crown a tooth requires a dentist to grind away all of the enamel of the tooth so a crown can be put on the remaining dentine layer of the tooth. This procedure is six to seven times more expensive than two surface amalgams or other bonding techniques to repair teeth.

A general rule in dentistry is that you preserve as much enamel on a tooth as possible. So Dr.

Schneider is not only performing a procedure that is unnecessary and expensive but is detrimental to the patient because a tooth’s enamel is being destroyed needlessly. Sharon should discuss this with Dr. Schneider and tell her that this improper, unethical and not in the best interests of the patient. If Dr. Schneider persists in this unethical practice then Sharon should threaten to resign and report Dr. Schneider to the American Dental Association and appropriate state licensing agents.

(1) http://www. bethesda. med. navy. mil/careers/postgraduate_dental_school/comprehensive_dentistry/Pearls/Pearlsc6. htm

Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Essay

Ethical Dilemma Worksheet Essay

Include any important | |potential economic, social, or political pressures, and exclude inconsequential facts. | | | |The most important fact about this case is that officers never saw the male suspect driving while intoxicated. The fact that two | |different police reports were made one stating the officer saw the male driving and the other stating officer did not see the male | |driving. | |Identify each claimant (key actor) who has an interest in the outcome of this ethical issue.

From the perspective of the moral | |agent—the individual contemplating an ethical course of action—what obligation is owed to the claimant? Why? | |Claimant |Obligation (owed to the|Perspective (What does the claimant hope will happen? ) | |(key actor) |claimant) | | |Officer Rook |Designated officer to |Officer Rook wrote the original police report and followed policy and turned it in to | | |write original report |the D.

A. ffice to let the process begin for the individual male arrested for driving | | | |while intoxicated. | | D. D. A. Acute |To ensure that laws are| | | |upheld and the process |D.

D. A. notices the differences between both police reports and make notes of them. | | |serves all parties |The D. D. A. has the responsibility to uphold all laws and rights of individuals and | | |involved. |wants to ensure that the criminal justice system is just and fair. |Officer Nixon |Turning in second |Officer Nixon turned in the second the police report that made note that the officers | | |police report |saw the individual male driving. This officer wants a conviction of the individual | | | |male for driving while intoxicated. | |Wife |Wants to take husband |Wife wants to take husband home after being processed. Wife reported that her husband| | |home |had bad experiences while in Somalia and it would best for him to go home. | | | | | | | | Evaluating Alternatives |What are two alternatives for the scenario? One alternative can be a wild card that you ordinarily may not consider an option | |because of potential implications. Both should be within free will and control of the same moral agent. |Alternative A |Alternative B | |Use report without seeing intoxicated male driving |Use report with seeing intoxicated male driving | |Respond to the following questions based on your developed alternatives. | | |Alternative A |Alternative B | |What are the best- and worst-case | | |scenarios if you choose this |Best-Original report is used charges are |Best-male is convicted of driving while | |alternative? |dropped. |intoxicated | | | | | | |Worst- the male individual is drug through |Worse-Male is convicted of driving while | | |the criminal justice system and tax payer |intoxicated.

The original police report is | | |money is wasted. |never shared | |Will anyone be harmed if this |No harm will come. |Yes harm may come when convicted and sentence to| |alternative is chosen? If so, how | |serve time incarcerated. | |will they be harmed? Consider | | | |families and derivative effects. | | |Would honoring an idea or value—such | | | |as personal, professional, or |No |Yes | |religious—make the alternative | | | |invalid? | | | | | | |Are there any rules, laws, or | | | |principles that support the |Yes the law of needing to see the driver of |no | |alternative?

Are there rules, laws, |driving while intoxicated. | | |or principles that make the | | | |alternative invalid? State the rule | | |or principle and indicate if it | | | |invalidates or supports the | | | |alternative. | | | Applying Ethical Guidelines |Consider each ethical guideline and explain whether it would support or reject your alternative. |Guidelines based on the action itself |Alternative A |Alternative B | |Should this alternative become a rule or policy that everyone in this|There is law in place to avoid|No, this is wrong and | |situation should follow in similar situations in the future? (Kant) |making arrests like this. |unethical | |Does this alternative result in using any person as a means to an end|No |Yes the Officer Nixon wrote a | |without consideration for his or her basic integrity? Kant) | |bad report and is using the | | | |court system to enforce his | | | |false report | |Is the intent of this action free from vested interest or ulterior |Yes |No, conviction is wanted | |motive? Kant’s good will) | | | |

Does this alternative demonstrate a genuine concern for others |No |No | |affected by the decision, and is the moral agency responding to a | | | |perceived need? | | | |Guidelines based on consequences |Alternative A |Alternative B | |Is the good hat results from this alternative outweighed by the |Yes, the good being that the |No, falsifying reports is | |potential harm that might be done to others? (Mill’s harm principle) |charges are dropped. |unethical and can have | | | |rippling effects on all | | | |officers. |Is any harm brought about by anyone other than the moral agent? |No |Yes, the husband and the | |(causal harm) | |rookie officer who wrote the | | | |first report. | |Will anyone be harmed who can be said to be defenseless? No |No | |(paternalism) | | | |To what degree is this alternative based on the moral agent’s own |This is the truthful report |This should never be used, | |best interest? (ethical egoism) |and should be used regardless |based on it being falsified. | |of the outcomes. | | |Which alternative will generate the greatest benefit—or the least |Because this alternative is | | |amount of harm—for the greatest number of people? Select only one |the truth it will only have | | |alternative. (utilitarianism) |the best possible outcome. | Ethical Decision Making |Choose to proceed with either Alternative A or Alternative B and explain the reasons for your decision. | | | |I would go with alternative A, because it is the truth and the original report turned in. I would allow the court system work | |their process and except the outcome reached. I would then address the facts of a falsified police report and the officer who tried| |to used it. |

South African Investment Essay

South African Investment Essay

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Caltex (an affiliate oil refinery of Texaco and SoCal) started their operations in South Africa. In this paper, I will identify and explain the benefits and the negatives as to why Caltex should build there plant in South Africa. I will also discuss how I would vote on three of the resolutions made by the stockholder’s as well as discuss how the managers of Texaco and SoCal should have responded. Finally, I will address the management responsibilities as it relates to this case.

Utilitarian benefits of building the Caltex plant in 1977 When Texaco and SoCal decided to build there refinery plant, Caltex, in South Africa in 1977, there was much to consider. First of all, the South Africa was ruled by government upheld apartheid legislation. According to the textbook, Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, the apartheid system, “deprived the entire Black population of all political and civil rights: They could not vote, could not hold political office, could not unionize, and had no right to freedom of assembly,” (Velasquez, p.

8). Despite this obstacle, Caltex was built and began operations. Caltex believed that by opening operations in South Africa they could provide the people with some economic opportunities that they could not have if they did not. According to the case study, “the managements of both Texaco and SoCal argued that Caltex was committed to improving the economic working conditions of its black employees and their continued presence in South Africa did not constitute and ‘endorsement’ of South Africa’s ‘policies’,” (para. 5).

By declaring that there presence in South Africa was in no way evident in support with the government policies, Caltex gave the impression of a utilitarianism approach. According to the textbook, utilitarianism is “a general term for any view that holds that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society,” (Velasquez, p. 61). Caltex upheld the belief that the benefits they provide to its employees outweigh the fact that they are conducting business in an oppressed nation. In my opinion, I think that that the benefits outweighed the negatives.

Even though the South African government was morally wrong for oppressing the majority of its citizens, Caltex brought an opportunity to the region that had the promise of not only economic promise for the organization, but also the opportunity to show the people of South Africa what it is like to be equal and not discriminated. Also, there presence no doubt brought on political change and opened the eyes to the other nations of the world as to the oppression present in South Africa. If I were a stockholder in Texaco or Standard Oil

Despite of all the benefits and the promises that Caltex could have provided to the people in South Africa, the shareholders still encouraged management to withdraw their operations from South Africa. As a result, the stockholders proposed three resolutions to which they would vote on and decide the future of Caltex’s operations in South Africa. The first resolution (A) was asking Caltex to terminate its operations in South Africa. The second (B) asked Caltex not to sell to the military or police of South Africa. The last resolution (C) asked Caltex to implement the Tutu principles.

I believe that as a shareholder invested in my company, I would want to portray us as a responsible organization that will work with the host country to find a common ground rather than be charged with a serious crime. C. FAVOR. Tutu’s principles are something that I would definitely be in favor for. According to the case study, Bishop Tutu’s principles “outlined several conditions of the investment which would enable Caltex and other U. S. companies to make such a ‘positive contribution to improving economic and social opportunities’,” (para. 4). These principles would be exactly what I would like my company to portray because they contribute to human rights and equal opportunities to all races. Manager’s responses In regards to the resolutions proposed by the stockholders, I believe the manager’s responses should be as follows: A. The manager’s should have also not been in favor of this resolution. In this case, the management needs to consider that the utilitarian benefits do actually outweigh the negatives and oppression the South African government has over its citizens. B.

The manager’s responses to this resolution should be weighed very carefully. Even though they may not agree with the practices of the government and may think they are an aid to unwanted practices, they still need to consider there reputation and the consequences that can result from not being cooperative. In my opinion, the manager’s should have responded by communicating the need to work with the government to their stakeholders as well as find some type of resolution with the government. C. The management should embrace the Tutu principles.

If the management is really dedicated to the ideals and principles of their institution then they should know that these principles are about the people and their well-being. They should make any adjustments necessary to make sure the principles are upheld. Management responsibilities (i. e. , duties) In my opinion, I believe the management of a company does have the responsibility beyond ensuring a high return for its stockholders. In this case, the responsibility of the management is to make sure that the principles and business ethics that they have developed as an organization is upheld at all costs.

Just because the stockholders wanted to see their company disassociate themselves from a country that they did not see as ideal, it is still imperative that the management stick to there own ideals and principles regardless of where they are. On the other hand, I do not believe that the management of a company should look primarily to the law and to the rate of return on its investment as the ultimate criteria for deciding what investments it should make.

Companies should always consider the economical and social circumstances in the region to which they decide to invest their company. Conclusion This paper outlined why I believe the utilitarian benefits outweighed the negative circumstances for the building of Caltex in South Africa. I have also provided my own views as to what I would do if I were a stockholder in the company as well as what the manager’s should have done in response to the resolutions.

Finally, I gave my point of view as to what the manager’s responsibilities are when dealing with stockholders and investments. Caltex was in a difficult place as they had to deal with their stockholders and the government of South Africa in order to conduct their business, but the most important thing they had was the opportunity to show the oppressed people of South Africa what it was like to be an equal member of an institution.

Ethics in Urban Planning Essay

Ethics in Urban Planning Essay

What is the law on eminent domain all about? Eminent Domain is the power of the State over all the properties within its jurisdiction, both public and private. The purpose being to empower the State to appropriate property for public use – for new and road widening projects, bridges, military installations, public parks and even urban renewal (Larson, 2004). In case of private properties, how does eminent domain apply? Well, properties that the Government deems as vital for public use and welfare can be seized from private owners based on the provisions of the law on eminent domain.

But the Constitution, particularly the Fifth Amendment, guaranties that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (Hornberger, 2005). Is the law on eminent domain ethical? The answer is an absolute no. It may be legal but it does not hold any moral definition. It is still classified as large-scale theft that is backed up by legal parameters.

We live based on the principles of morality that abhors theft. In fact, the customs and laws of all civilized societies prohibit any form of banditry.

In the exercise of our individual freedom, we as a people have the right to use our property in ways we deemed fit – unless we infringe on the rights of other people (Tenney, 1995). In our democratic system, do we exercise our right of suffrage to make stealing legal? It sounds like people casting their votes simply because they wanted your property sequestered. Where do ethics apply then? What are the consequences? Basically, the law on eminent domain was enacted to provide a leeway for the government in the planning of its developmental projects.

Projects include road improvement, probably runway extensions or perhaps public hospitals. Private lands are purchased by the government for this purpose, based on a fair market value and as guaranteed by the Constitution. This provision becomes necessary so that the government can proceed with development without the process of lengthy litigation. Lately however, the scenario has been altered with the law on eminent domain applied even on urban renewal. This is where the abuse of discretion engages a number of government officials, all in the guise of development.

This scheme is morally repugnant though it does not end at that point because with the eminent domain as the carrot stick, this marginally reduces the purchase price of the property. What has government got to do with it (Tenney, 1995)? Remember that development plans rests solely on the hands of government, so a slight deviation on the zoning area reclassification would normally affect property values. Imagine if your property lies on a commercial zone and the government suddenly establishes it as part of an industrial zone, the real estate property value is likely to plummet due to rising environmental concerns.

The consequence is you are likely to sell it at much reduced price. But this scheme is just the tip of the iceberg, as more devious schemes are in the offing. The most unforgiving plan of government involves the declaration of a specific area as suffering from urban blight. Blighted areas, for purposes of urban renewal, refers to areas that in the process of deterioration being a haven of uncontrolled vices (drug addicts, alcoholics and other scum of society) where the crime rate is really high or an area that is already rendered useless which may include vacant lands and air rights.

Who will then determine if the property falls under the category of blighted areas? This will be up to the discretion of the government and most likely this is where abuse is glaringly documented, particularly in cases where the government is in cahoots with property developers. When this happens, government has the right to raze the property and sell it to developers with the intention of making it into an attractive urban development (Blight, 2001). In most instances areas that are declared “urban blights” normally conforms to urban redevelopment.

Areas that suffer from these types of classifications are low-cost housing communities with correspondingly low revenues where homeowners who have been in domicile for years while paying regular amortization to secure rights to the property. In these instances, these homeowners are suddenly met with the prospects of relocation. With the area categorized as such, the real property value is extremely low that the proceeds of the sale are not even enough to pay for the downpayment for another unit in a new housing development site (Parlow, 2007). What about areas in commercial districts that have been subjected to the process of eminent domain?

The owner may have lived or conducted business in the area for the past twenty years but the government has the temerity to invoke the provisions of eminent domain to take control of said property simply because the adjacent school needs a playground or perhaps a football field. Where do ethics come in or is this just plain common sense? If you are the owner of the property, will you be not in arms to stop the proceedings? Where is morality then? We trumpet the virtues of democracy to the outside world and yet in our own backyard we practice anarchy (Parlow, 2007).

This will all redound to displacement of all families affected by the claws of eminent domain. Families will be evicted from their properties – good if there is a ready site for relocation at least people can endure the inconvenience. But in most cases no relocation areas have been secured. Families will now be subjected to the task of searching for a new place as a consequence of eviction. What about their transportation need to and from work, school for their children and perhaps the affordable medical services that were readily available in their previous area (Blight, 2001).

The final consequence maybe and I hope that this will not be met by evicted homeowners or storeowners or they could be relegated as the new scum of society, being degraded to a bunch of homeless citizens that have the potential of creating troubles for the government. The government shall have increased the problems associated with the housing needs and get the ire of the population. What then has this accomplished for the government in the end? Nothing, except perhaps that it compounds the problems of the locality (Hornberger, 2005).

The law really smacks moral decadence, for how can you humanly evict families from their abodes without paying them fairly. Some may have inherited the property and as an ancestral abode, no amount would suffice in return for its sentimental value in the same way that no amount could compensate for the Statue of Liberty, being the symbol of freedom that Americans deeply treasure. How can you possibly sell an heirloom – a gift from the people of France, this is no longer a question of ethics, not even morality though it borders on bad taste and greed. What are the effects?

Proponents of the measure on eminent domain will always sing the sad melody of development. Be that as it may, we can never stop development from happening because it is dictated by the social status of the locality. But can we not negotiate with property owners so they can also profit from the property they have tenuously preserved and paid for? It is more of a question of fair value for their property, an issue that is often ignored. Even for this gesture alone, the government, particularly the developers will benefit from the support and approval of the property owners.

Let us not bully our neighbors by invoking the right of eminent domain, because that simply will not work. Who then does not desire physical development? When it means convenience to the inhabitants, particularly interchanges, super-highways, a modern airport terminal, a dazzling sports arena, an upbeat school campus or a modern hospital. Urban development on formerly blighted areas will be a big boost to the local trade as new shopping malls, five-star hotels, office towers and condominiums will be constructed. The local labor force will benefit as well, since hundreds or maybe thousands of jobs will be made available.

It will be a shot in the arm for the local economy since development will encourage a lot of investors to take a chance on the improved infrastructure facilities. The government will likewise benefit from increased revenues and create more funds to finance the needs of local inhabitants. But most of all, this would drastically alter the locality’s image and skyline for the better. With a booming economy, the government can now plan ahead. Maybe exploit some more the bonanza that the new development concurred and build additional facilities to meet the increasing population requirements.

As the citizen’s quality of life improves, new facilities will be needed, housing shortage will be felt, traffic congestion is possible as more and more cars will ply the streets and entertainment will be the call of the majority. The problems associated with crime and security will quadruple, new personnel will be added, police cars and gadgets will be required by our law enforcement agencies. There will be no stopping, once the wheel of development starts to roll. Then when everything seems to have settled and everybody is accustomed to the set-up, the arms of development will try to break the already serene environment.

So the government will now invoke their right of eminent domain and the result, chaos strikes once again. It will be an unending cycle. The population will simply have to bear inconvenience and unfair treatment in the name of development. It is in the outlying implementation of eminent domain that government failed because officials can be motivated only with the expected revenues from the urban renewal project to disregard their main advocacy and moral obligation to its constituents – to promote, protect, and upheld the rights of the populace.

Conclusion The moral and ethical question of the law on eminent domain had been subjected to criticisms from all sectors of society. It may be an effective tool for government to spice up development, but it oftentimes falls oppressive to many property owners. Sadly, the people’s right to their property has been trampled once again with no less than the Supreme Court of the United States stamping its approval on the right of government to invoke the provisions of eminent domain. Consider this.

In 1954 the Supreme Court gave a ruling in a controversial case that “effectively gave government officials unlimited power to confiscate and redistribute lands”, arguing that “the concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic and monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled” (Tenney, 1995).

The comment of the High Court was indeed a chilling premonition since this gave government officials the legal right to evict anybody from their properties when necessary and at their convenience. In effect this erased the intentions of our forefathers and the framers of the Constitution the absolute right of individuals to hold on to their properties (Tenney, 1995). Just recently, in a new and daunting case of Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut, the High Court upheld the previous ruling of 1954.

In fact after due proceedings, a notice was posted at the door of the petitioner’s home stating that the petitioner have four months to vacate the property or else power police power will be used to prosecute the order based on the power of eminent domain (Larson, 2004). Is the ruling even fair? Is it morally correct to inflict undue suffering to the respondents? And is it ethical? The answer is no. That is why all the States of the Union are putting up legislations to curb the damning influence and abuse on the power of the law on eminent domain. How it will affect the future, your guess will be as good as mine!

Ethics & Philosophy Essay

Ethics & Philosophy Essay

Free markets can be said to be the markets which have no government interference or regulation. The only regulations present are the ones which involve protecting property rights and maintaining the legal system. Free markets are markets in which the product prices are solely set through market forces, as opposed to interference by external forces. There is also free competition in free markets, and the law of supply and demand is used to fix prices of goods and services in such markets.

There are various philosophers who support free markets while others are opposed to such markets.

The paper will analyze the contributions of Adam smith, Karl Marx and Milton Friedman on the issue and will give a brief conclusion on the issues discussed. Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a German philosophers who is considered to be amongst the most controversial philosophers in history. He was against capitalism and free markets, which he viewed to be a means with which property owners or the rich use to maintain control over the peasants or poor.

Karl Marx viewed the capitalist system as a system meant to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

He explained that initially, capitalism was meant to be a means with which people exchanged commodities which they did not have. However, after money was created, it evolved and became a means with which people could make profits as opposed to satisfying the demand for products. Over time, capitalism undermined the human development and well being, and products created could now dictate how interactions between human beings would be. Soon, the relations between society became material as everything was treated in terms of its monetary worth, as opposed to creative and artistic qualities possessed.

Capitalism led to the alienation of workers since they were separated from owning the means which was used for production, and they became slaves to the people who owned those means. This led to the emergence of two economic groups; the property owners and the workers, and the latter were oppressed by the former. This is the reason which made him predict the collapse of capitalism and its replacement with socialism. Socialism is a system in which the government or authority controls production so that it may be mutually beneficial to all members of the society or state.

Karl Marx was opposed to free markets since they tended to favor the rich and oppress the poor. Free markets are a feature of the capitalist system, which made Karl Marx oppose them. Weaknesses of this argument. Karl Marx is opposed to free markets due to the weaknesses which he views in capitalism. Karl Marx views capitalism to be a system where the rich oppress the poor. He therefore opposes all features of capitalist systems which he views to be a means which promote the exploitation of the poor .

However, Karl Marx does not consider the model which combines both capitalism and socialism in order to take advantage of the positive attributes of the two models. Since socialism has its weaknesses, combining both models may be more beneficial to the economy. In this respect, moderate government interference in trade by the government is an option which Karl Marx should have pursued. Adam Smith. He is considered to be the father of the modern economics and he contributed a lot toward the modern capitalist system.

Adam Smith was of the opinion that production was the key to economic growth and that this could only be achieved through economic liberalization. Adam Smith therefore supported unregulated markets since he saw them as a means of stimulating economic growth. He explained that free markets would enable individuals to develop a business without having government intervention, and that the people who consume the products developed would do so at prices which have been determined by demand and supply forces .

Adam Smith added that free markets enabled the most competitive producers and consumers to survive, which was beneficial to the economy. He viewed free markets are independent problem solvers which did not require government interference, since market forces eventually address any surpluses or shortages which are inherent in the market. Adam Smith uses the ‘invisible hand’ theory to explain the way in which different parts of the economy are integrated. Smith explains that each individual is guided by an invisible hand in making their decisions which benefit the economy, without their knowledge.

He explains that individuals carry out actions which are meant to benefit themselves, but they end up benefiting the society at large, which is not the initial aim of the individual. Smith gives an illustration of the creation of a wool coat. He says that the coat is developed after a series of processes which are undertaken by different people. The shepherd who owns the sheep, the spinner who develops the coats, and the shipper who transports them to the market all play a role in the creation of the finished product.

He explains that this subconscious process by the different parties involved achieves higher levels of efficiencies than would be achieved had the process been planned by the players involved. It means that markets which are regulated by the government have lower efficiency levels compared to markets which are not regulated . This is the major reason why Adam Smith supports the free markets as opposed to regulated markets. Weaknesses of this argument. Adam smith is of the opinion that free markets enabled the most competitive producers and consumers to survive, which is beneficial to the economy.

He gives many attributes of free markets, most of which are true. However, he does not discuss the weaknesses of free markets. Free markets suffer from certain weaknesses such as inhibiting the growth of small firms. Free markets may also experience monopolistic and oligopolistic tendencies which adversely affect the economy. The economy may also suffer certain effects attributed to unfair practices in trade. Other effects like inflation, market downturns and others require regulation by a central authority. Adam Smith does not discuss these situations, which makes his argument inconclusive.

Milton Friedman. Friedman made major contributions to the economic crisis during the early 20th century. He viewed the 1920s as a period of sustainable and vital growth. Friedman believed that economic growth and freedom had a direct relationship. He used several principles and arguments to further his support from free markets. The political principle was used by Friedman to define the features of free markets. He explained that in free markets, individuals cannot coerce each other and that there is voluntary cooperation between the parties involved .

He further explained that parties which are involved in transactions under such circumstances benefit in one way or another, otherwise they would not participate in these transactions. In free market transactions, there are no social responsibilities and values; there are only shared responsibilities and values. However, Friedman was also of the opinion that the government should intervene in the economy if there is threat to it. One of the instances when Friedman supported government interference was during the Great depression which occurred in 1929.

The Great Depression changed the view that the United States economy was robust and that it should be totally free from government control, after the US Stock Exchange collapsed due to various factors. Friedman supports the market regulation and explains that if the Federal Government had intervened and applied the right policies, this depression would have been avoided. He explains that the Federal Government should have suspended payment for the withdrawals being requested by people. The policy which was used at the time, which involved printing more money to supplement the increased demand, is blamed for the Great Depression.

This reveals a more soft approach to the initial stand that government intervention should not be allowed, and that the markets should be allowed to operate as free markets. However, it does not completely change the stance which had been taken by Friedman regarding free markets. Government interference is allowed only under special circumstances where lack of intervention would lead to severe effects to the economy. This was the case during the Great depression and is also currently the case in the event of the global financial crisis being experienced.

Weaknesses of this argument. Friedman is categorical that there should be free markets if economies are to grow. He argues that the absence of social values and responsibilities and the presence of shared values are factors which facilitate economic growth. However, he appears to take a soft stand when discussing the Great Depression where he advocates for government interference, but using the right policies. This is a deviation from his stand that the government should not interfere with the business environment.

It also reveals that free trade has weaknesses which he does not effectively address. Personal view. In my opinion, free markets do not lead to serious political, social, or environmental problems as explained by some philosophers. This is because free markets are the most effective and natural means in which prices should be set to ensure effectiveness. On the contrary, a wrong approach of interference by the government may lead to serious political, social, or environmental problems as was seen in the Great Depression.

The current financial crisis which began in the United States can also be said to have been accelerated by the government failure to limit the borrowings by investors and excess lending by financial institutions using predatory lending practices. This is a similar problem which led to the great depressions, and the government interference is seen to have led to adverse effects rather than positive effects on the economy. However, in extreme cases of economic problems, the government should intervene. This should only be done to save the economy in cases where the market forces are clearly unable to rectify the situation.

For instance, the current financial crisis facing the world requires the government’s intervention. This does not mean that the government supports the regulation of markets since in the absence of economic crises, the market forces would usually be used to set the product prices. My major reasons for supporting free markets is that regulated markets usually discourage investments, especially if the regulations are too strict. Investors prefer investing in countries where there is free trade since they can predict their future earnings or returns on investment, due to the absence of external factors in the business environment.

Regulated markets may also adversely affect the economy especially if the policies which are applied are retrogressive. Summary and conclusion. It is evident that the three philosophers made major contributions to the modern world. Their theories are still in use several years after some of them passed away. However, it is important to note that their arguments relating to free trade are inconclusive since some of the facts which they used to support their arguments have changed. It is also important to note that none of them has a wrong view, it is only that they looked at free trade from different perspectives.

The contributions which each of them has made to society should be appreciated since they all talked about various issues affecting the society, and not just free trade. It is important that other scholars improve on the theories which were advanced by Adam smith, Karl Marx and Milton Friedman. This will reflect the market environment as it is today, and the arguments developed can be used to improve the policies in the current business environment.

Works cited.

Amadae Samuel. Rationalizing capitalist democracy: the Cold War origins of rational choice liberalism.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003, p255-261. Gagnier Regenia. The insatiability of human wants: economics and aesthetics in market society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, p25-35. Machaj Mateusz. Friedman for government intervention: the case of the great depression. Mises Daily. Retrieved on March 18, 2009 from <http://74. 125. 95. 132/search? q=cache:s8QYmlyzr-4J:mises. org/story/2442+Milton+Friedman+and+support+of+free+markets&cd=8&hl=en&ct =clnk&gl=ke>. Sunderlin, William D. Ideology, social theory, and the environment. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002, p23-33.

Ethics Social Justice Essay

Ethics Social Justice Essay

The ethical issues that were identified in the case study of Guerrilla Government in EPA’s Seattle Regional Office were cumbersome. The first of many to create unethical situations was the administrator of EPA’s Seattle regional office in 1981, John Spencer. His staff remembers his tenure for all the unethical actions he took such as using tax payer’s money to buy a membership for the EPA in the Chamber of Commerce (O’Leary, 2014 p. 48). His actions continued even after numerous attempts to advise him that his actions were against federal guidelines and caused serious conflict of interest questions.

He also allegedly took several personal trips to Alaska to handle affairs related to his previous job on public expense. In addition, he requested as personal driver to take him to and from and requested modifications to the EPA office building without getting prior approval from the General Services Administration thus violating federal law (O’Leary, 2014 p. 48-54).

There was also unethical conduct displayed by Ernesta Barnes ‘successor, Robie Russell.

In March of 1987, Russell made his unethical behavior known when the local media announced that a veteran engineer had quit his job due to being angry that he was being transferred involuntarily to another job. At that point, Russell began making decisions that had once been a group effort behind closed doors. Workers who were once performing analysis, were cut out of the decision making process. He was even believed to have removed important comments in reports before they were released to the public. He was also known to back out of his support for the development of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and then recall that support later in a testimony to the U.S House of Representatives who were considering the proposal. He stated that “The EPA does not oppose the environmentally acceptable development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge”.

Relativistic Theory of Ethics Essay

Relativistic Theory of Ethics Essay

One relativistic theory of ethics is situationism. Situationism (also known as situation ethics) was devised by Joseph Fletcher, who was strongly against absolutist theories for instance; legalism and also disliked how religions were taught implying there were some rules that could never be broken, as he thought these rules are too demanding and restrictive. He then created this theory of situation ethics which is seen as the ‘mid way’ because it lies between antinomianism and legalism. Antinomianism is very anti law whilst legalism emphasises the important of law.

However, situationism lies between the two as Fletcher was very enthused by making a decision on individual situations. Situation ethics maintains that it’s the consequences of actions which determine whether an action is right or wrong, so it is very much a consequentialist position. Situationists enter each decision making situation with ethical maxims of their community and culture, each they treat with respect. Fletcher proposed that not only the situation guides an individual on what they should do but also the principle of agape (love).

In Fletcher’s book he suggests that Christians should make the right choices without blindly following rules but rather by thinking for themselves. Decisions should be made on the sole basis of one rule – agape. Such love involves doing the best thing possible for the other party involved. So maxims could be ignored if they don’t serve agape, for example if a priest is presented by a young lady who is having underage promiscuous sex, the right thing to do would be to insist the young lady uses contraception.

This is because the most loving thing to do for the other person is to ensure she is safe. For the situationist the rule of agape is always right. Fletcher created 4 working principles which outlined how situation ethics works. The first one is pragmatism, which states that what you propose must work in practice. Second is relativism, so Fletcher eliminates words like ‘always’, ‘never’, and ‘absolute’. He states there are no objective rules but all decisions must be relative to agape. Thirdly is positivism, which states a value judgement needs to be made, giving the first place to love.

Finally – personalism, people are put in first place; morality is personal and not centred on laws, this emphasises the idea that morality is relative to situations. Fletcher put forward 6 propositions which also aid the theory. The first proposition is “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love; nothing else at all” Thus, only love is good in itself; action aren’t intrinsically good or evil. Instead they are good or evil dependent on whether they promote the most loving result.

Fletcher rejects any statements like “Adultery is wrong” as the circumstances are always different, and sometimes it may be right for adultery to take place. The second proposition is “the ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else” Fletcher claims Jesus replaced the Torah with love, also the Ten Commandments are not absolute even Jesus broke them when love demanded it. Love replaces law. The third proposition is that justice will follow from love, because ‘justice is love distributed’. If love is put into practice it can only result in justice.

Fourth is that love has no favourites and does not give whom we like preferential treatment. “Love wills the neighbour’s whether we like him or not” The fifth fundamental principle, love must be the final end, not a means to an end. For Fletcher, the end must be the most loving result. Finally the sixth proposition is that the most loving thing to do will depend on the situation and since situations differ, you can’t say an action will be right in every situation. Fletcher, the good result is that which serves agape love best. Any action that leads to that end is right.

Ethics and Islam Essay

Ethics and Islam Essay

The interpretation of secular vs. religious ethics is always interesting, when we try to understand which of the two deserve our support. Obviously, both ethical philosophies have the right to exist among us, but the provisions of the religious ethics in Said Nursi’s vision are not only unique, but are sometimes surprising, and are sometimes unacceptable to those, who keep to secular ethical traditions. Said Nursi insists on ethics having religious foundations. His ethical vision is based on the assumption that religion is the source of reliable ethical knowledge.

“For Nursi, the ultimate source of all ethical reflection is the Qur’an” (Markham 69). In this situation it is possible to suggest that Qur’an should be simple and understandable to the common people, so that they should be able to follow its provisions. The assumption is rather debatable: on the one hand, there seems to be nothing negative or threatening in the fact that Said Nursi keeps to religious foundations of ethics.

On the other hand, I may suggest that those who refuse to accept the life of the prophet Muhammad as the source of ethical knowledge, risk facing opposition from religious ethics’ supporters.

This ethics loses its relevance as soon as it is faced with the fact that there are possible other sources of ethics in other cultures of the world. Moreover, and I would agree with Markham, in that there is no guarantee that being obedient to Qur’an means seeing its wisdom; in case we do not understand the provisions to which we should keep in our ethics, it loses its relevance and meaning. The strong side of religious ethics in Said Nursi’s words is in accepting violence as weakness in trying to resolve various disputes.

“Nursi is committed to handling disagreement with peaceful means not because he shared a western skepticism about the truth of religion, but because of the truth of religion” (Markham 72). Secular ethics would easily reject these religious attitudes. While Nursi tries to justify the strength of religion, he obviously forgets that this strength is relevant only within the limited religious circles. Secularism exists and cannot be denied. For those who consider themselves being secular the strength of religion is closely connected with the power of metaphysical phenomenon.

In the absence of the latter, the power of the former becomes debatable. Thus, religious foundations of ethics can be applied within the limited space of extremely religious eastern countries, which keep to Islamic religion. Especially interesting is Nursi’s ideas about personal ethics and social equality. His interpretation of a person in illness is rather curious, though is also natural within the eastern religious framework. “O ill person who lacks patience! Be patient, indeed, offer thanks! Your illness may transform each of the minutes of your life into the equivalent of an hour’s worship” (Makrham 74).

The question is whether patience is equal to inactivity. Recognizing the religious value of pain and suffering is what Nursi tried to convey in his ethical teaching (Markham 75) but this also risks confusing ethics with religion, without creating any distinct border between them. Social ethics in Nursi’s vision tends to support equality through rejecting interest and recognizing the importance of redistribution. In these terms, Nursi seems to reject the pluralism of social status in the society. Moreover, rejection of interest is closer to rejecting secularism, than to supporting religious foundations of ethics.

Conclusion The whole ethical theory created by Nursi deserves attention but seems to be founded on the grounds, which do not justify the strength of religion but better protect it from the intervention of the external knowledge. In this light religious ethics seems even more vulnerable, than Nursi tried to represent it.

Works cited

Markham, I. “Secular or Religious Foundations for Ethics: A Case Study of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi”. In I. Markham & I. Ozdemir, Globalization, Ethics and Islam, Ashgate Publishing, 2005, pp. 65-78.

Ethic Simulation Essay

Ethic Simulation Essay

This week I participated in two Ethic Game Simulations; The Mysterious Blogger and The Veiled ID. The Mysterious Blogger was about the leaking of confidential information by an employee and the actions of a second employee. The Veiled ID presented an issue that arises as the company tried to implement more strict security issues.

The “Mysterious Blogger” had me playing the part of the Director of Information Technology for G-Bio Sports Company. During a routine check the department finds there is an employee that is posting blogs about the company and although 90% of the information is not confidential and questions safety this is a clear violation of the company policy.

An anonymous email is also received by me this note indicates the name of the person posting the blogs. This information was obtained by hacking this person’s personal computer. My department was able to identify the name of both employees involved. There is an ethical issue on both cases one employee is violating the NDA policy and the other is violating the privacy of another employee.

The action of both employees can cause major harm to the company. It is important to identify everyone that needs to be informed of the situation and decided the proper way to handle the situation. Both employees have been with the company for a while and are an asset to the company. Based on this information I do believe that both employees need to be discipline and made aware of the seriousness of their actions at the same time ensure safety concerns are address.

My next step is to involve the proper stakeholders, our HR Director and our Legal Counsel they will help me validate my position and outline next steps. “The Veiled ID”, I play the part of the Associate Director of Operations. The company has recently suffered a breach in security a former employee broke into a lab causing not only damage to the equipment but harmed another employee in the process. A new security system is being put in place to protect employees and our clients. Every employee will be required to carry a work Identification that will include a photograph without the ID they will not be allow in the building. Although the solution seems to very easy I did not take into consideration that some of our employees cannot be photograph due to religious beliefs. After, determining who will be affected by my decision and discussing the issue with a representative of our Human Resource Department, Training Manager and, other employees. We decided that the photo ID will still be require however, there will be some measures put in place to accommodate people with special needs.

In conclusion, by utilizing the Rights and Responsibility Lens and the Baird Ethical model I was able to determine the best decision for each separate situation. The decision was the result of a serious of steps that help me first identify the issue, the people affected and the effect that my decision would have had in the community. Each steps helps you understand what is morally right and fair for the primary stakeholders and the community and how your decision making impacts others. Making sure that you understand everyone that will be affected either directly or indirectly is important prior to making your final decision. Doing the right thing is not just to following company procedure; it is also about protecting the shareholders interest and the interest of the company.

In the case where the company’s policies were violated, the company must make a sound decision that that produces an outcome in the best interest of the company and its stakeholders. The ethical perspectives used to make the decisions during the simulation were based on options given in each scenario. In the simulation, you were to determine the best outcome for each scenario based upon the information given. Neither one of the scenarios had a right nor was wrong answer it just the best ethical decision you consider fair for all parties involved. The important part is to make sure that each situation it’s analyzed and all the components are taking into consideration prior of making your final decision.

Reference
Treviño, L. K. & Nelson, K. A. (2011). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (5th ed.).

Being Virtuous Though Confucius, Krishna and Socrates Essay

Being Virtuous Though Confucius, Krishna and Socrates Essay

From the beginning of time, the quest of all humans has been to discover how to live the good life. What is a good life exactly? This term will mean different things to different people, and yet I believe there are the same ingredients that all “good lives” share, even from the classic Eurasian time until present day. Virtues of character, which are also called ‘moral virtues’, seem to be more complex and are an integral part of the completeness of life that is said is necessary for a good life.

There seems to be a pattern with people of always trying to achieve being a good person.

Is being a good person the answer to having a good life? The Author, Robert W. Strayer makes the point that Confucius, Krishna and Socrates had opinions of ways to a good life but they are all different from one to the other. I will argue that there is a pattern between the three and that the belief to the good life is the same throughout the writings.

The saying that history repeats itself is certainly true, but it is also true that people all want to live good lives. Confucius believes living a good life is being virtuous and treating others with respect creates the kind of person that then is given the good life.

Being a leader he believed that ruling under an iron fist didn’t create people that respected him and that listened to the law, instead using kindness and sincerity gave the people an example of how to live. He says, “Let him be ? nal and kind to all; then they will be faithful to him. Let him advance the good and teach the incompetent; then they will eagerly seek to be virtuous” (pg. 218). He also goes on to describe forgiveness which is an essential component in all of the opinions on what is a good life.

If one is not being virtuous they can change, which tells us that people are never intended to be perfect but to continue to strive for goodness is always better than to never attempt to be good. That same ideal is true to our modern world. “To subdue one’s self and return to propriety is perfect virtue. If a man can for one day subdue and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe perfect virtue to him” (pg. 219). According to Confucius seeking to be virtuous will bring the good life. In Strayers words he associates the ideas of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita as being different than those of Confucius.

I believe that essentially they are one in the same. Krishna says, “a man possessed of a pure understanding, controlling his self by courage discarding sound and other objects of sense, casting off affection and aversion, who frequents clean places, who eats little, who’s speech, body, and mind are restrained who is always intent with meditation and mental abstraction and has recourse to unconcern who abandoning egoism, stubbornness, arrogance, desire, anger and all belongings, has no thought that this or that is mine, and who is tranquil becomes fit for assimilation with the Brahmah” (pg. 21).

Krishna is telling us that controlling one’s self and the environment one keeps one’s self in, the abandonment of being stubborn and arrogant all contributes to a virtuous soul, which in turn leads to the good life. This point is exactly what Confucius and Krishna share the same opinion finding that mean or middle ground, that balance or yin and yang, is essential to establishing a completeness which develops virtue is vital in order to lead a successful, fulfilling life ultimately leading to happiness.

Socrates also collaborates these same thoughts He states, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but ? rst and chie? y to care about the greatest improvement of the soul” (pg. 223). He spent his life trying to convince people to strive to be better people. This is one of the most important things to do in order to find happiness. Socrates believed that the state of one’s soul is the answer to happiness and that there is always improvement that can be made to one’s soul.

His mission was to encourage people to think for themselves and thus become more virtuous. Socrates was sentenced to death and as he is near his final moments He says, “The dif? culty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness” (pg. 223). He also shared the same ideas of Confucius and Krishna that living righteously is the key to the good life. In conclusion what creates a good life for an individual person? It appears to be the same answer that Confucius, Krishna and Socrates had during each of their lives.

They learned the same thing that people look for and believe in today. We continue to search for the same answers, but I think the answers are very clear in what history tells us and we learn from these brilliant men, Confucius, Krishna, and Socrates. To be virtuous is having a life with moral integrity and having or showing moral goodness or righteousness. It means being honorable to others and yourself in which will gain the honor and respect from others. Virtue is a belief used to make moral decisions.

It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. Virtue has more to do with the character of a person than their earthly riches and possessions. As people continual strive to become a better people, practicing virtuous acts regularly helps develop the good life and they are examples to others striving for the same thing. I believe in what Confucius, Krishna and Socrates taught us, that being a good person is the foundation on which everything else in life is built on, and this I believe is the answer to having the good life.