Sie sind auf Seite 1von 23


Submitted by: - Rupam Jha


(a) Ethics has no place in the business. Discuss this statement


BUSINESS Organizational ethics is a tool that shapes an organization as a community.
In every organization, there is something that works well, which can serve as a
foundation for significant progress toward a desired future. Organizational ethics pays
special attention to the best of an organization's past and present to ignite its
collective imagination of what might be. It builds from what is working well now
toward where the organization and its stakeholders truly desire to go. Organizational
ethics sees an organization as a community to be valued and explored. It strives to
quicken and intensify existing individual capabilities and organizational capacities,
extend their number and scope, organize them so that their conflicts will be
harmonized, and mobilize their energies of will and intellect to bring them to selfrealization. Organizational integrity is the end sought. It is a dynamic state of being
and process; it both shapes and improves. It is about moving the organization toward
its guiding image of the future.
Ethics is two things.
First, ethics refers to well based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what
humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society,
fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose
the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and
fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion,
and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the
right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards
are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well
founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As
mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical.
So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are
reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of
studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we,
and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and
A Framework for Thinking Ethically in decision making
This information is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. We all have an
image of our better selves-of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best."
We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business,
an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all
these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and
Page 1

governments, and making our society as a whole ethical in the way it treats everyone.
What is Ethics?
Simply stated, ethics refers to standards of behavior that tell us how human beings
ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents,
children, citizens, businesspeople, teachers, professionals, and so on.
It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:
1 Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings provide important information for our
ethical choices. Some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad
when they do something wrong, but many people feel good even though they are
doing something wrong. And often our feelings will tell us it is uncomfortable to do the
right thing if it is hard.
2 Ethics is not religion. Many people are not religious, but ethics applies to everyone.
Most religions do advocate high ethical standards but sometimes do not address all
the types of problems we face.
3 Ethics is not following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical
standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt,
as some totalitarian regimes have made it. Law can be a function of power alone and
designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may have a difficult time
designing or enforcing standards in some important areas, and may be slow to
address new problems.
4 Ethics is not following culturally accepted norms. Some cultures are quite ethical,
but others become corrupt -or blind to certain ethical concerns (as the United States
was to slavery before the Civil War). "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is not a
satisfactory ethical standard.
5 Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help
us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to
do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides
reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or
technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.
Why Identifying Ethical Standards is Hard
There are two fundamental problems in identifying the ethical standards we are to
1. On what do we base our ethical standards?
2. How do those standards get applied to specific situations we face?
If our ethics are not based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or
science, what are they based on? Many philosophers and ethicists have helped us
answer this critical question. They have suggested at least five different sources of
ethical standards we should use.
Five Sources of Ethical Standards
The Utilitarian Approach
Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most
good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance
Page 2

of good over harm. The ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the
greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees,
shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare balances the good
achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death, injuries,
and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to
increase the good done and to reduce the harm done.
The Rights Approach
Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best
protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the
belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their
ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they
have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to other ends. The list of
moral rights -including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to
lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely
debated; some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that
rights imply duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
The Fairness or Justice Approach
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals
should be treated equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all
human beings equally-or if unequally, then fairly based on some standard that is
defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work or the greater amount
that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate over
CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask
whether the huge disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the
result of an imbalance of power and hence is unfair.
The Common Good Approach
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a
good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests
that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and
that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements
of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that
are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective
police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public
recreational areas.
The Virtue Approach
A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with
certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These
virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest
potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty,
courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, selfcontrol, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action,
"What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my
acting at my best?"
Page 3

Putting the Approaches Together

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be
considered ethical. There are still problems to be solved, however.
The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific
approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights.
We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on
what is a good and what is a harm.
The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question
"What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important
information with which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And
much more often than not, the different approaches do lead to similar answers.
Making Decisions
Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a
practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the
considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method
for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When practiced regularly, the
method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting
the specific steps.
The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on
discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of
the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make
good ethical choices in such situations.
We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method
for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Recognize an Ethical Issue
1. Is there something wrong personally, interpersonally, or socially? Could the conflict,
the situation, or the decision be damaging to people or to the community?
2. Does the issue go beyond legal or institutional
concerns? What does it do to people, who have dignity, rights, and hopes for a better
life together?
Get the Facts
3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are unknown?
4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Do some
have a greater stake because they have a special need or because we have special
obligations to them?
5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been
consulted? If you showed your list of options to someone you respect, what would that
person say?
Evaluate Alternative Actions From Various Ethical Perspectives
6. Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm?
Utilitarian Approach: The ethical action is the one that will produce the greatest
balance of benefits over harms.
Page 4

7. Even if not everyone gets all they want, will everyone's rights and dignity still be
Rights Approach: The ethical action is the one that most dutifully respects the rights
of all affected.
8. Which option is fair to all stakeholders?
Fairness or Justice Approach: The ethical action is the one that treats people equally,
or if unequally, that treats people proportionately and fairly.
9. Which option would help all participate more fully in the life we share as a family,
community, society?
Common Good Approach: The ethical action is the one that contributes most to the
achievement of a quality common life together.
10. Would you want to become the sort of person who acts this way (e.g., a person of
courage or compassion)?
Virtue Approach: The ethical action is the one that embodies the habits and values of
humans at their best.
Make a Decision and Test It
11. Considering all these perspectives, which of the options is the right or best thing
to do?
12. If you told someone you respect why you chose this option, what would that
person say? If you had to explain your decision on television, would you be
comfortable doing so?
Act, Then Reflect on the Decision Later
13. Implement your decision. How did it turn out for all concerned? If you had it to do
over again, what would you do differently?
Ethics Filters
Until now we have been discussing a generic decision model similar to those taught in
every business school and management training program. But our concern is not just
decision making; it is ethical decision making.
The ethical component of the decision making process takes the form of a set of
"filters". Their purpose is to separate the sought after elements from their containing
At key steps in the process the decision maker can stop and run his/her considerations
through these filters and thereby separate the ethical conations from the remainder of
the decision. This ensures that the ethical issues imbedded in the decision can be
given consideration.
In their academic form, the language for these filters is too complex and academic for
most employees. In simplifying the process we risked losing some of the finer points
but dramatically increased the utility of the ethics filters process.
To make it easy to understand and apply these ethics filters we have adapted to
mnemonic word PLUS.
Page 5

1 P = Policies
Is it consistent with my organization's policies, procedures and guidelines?
2 L= Legal
Is it acceptable under the applicable laws and regulations?
3 U = Universal
Does it conform to the universal principles/values my organization has adopted?
4 S= Self
5 Does it satisfy my personal definition of right, good and fair?
PLUS presumes effective communication with all employees so there is a common
understanding of:
1 the organization's policies and procedures as they apply to the situation.
2 the applicable laws and regulations.
3 the agreed to set of "universal" values - in this case Empathy, Patience, Integrity,
Courage (EPIC)
4 the individual's sense of right, fair and good springing from their personal values
PLUS also presumes a formal mechanism, provided by the organization, to allow
employees access to a definitive interpretation of the policies, laws and universal
values when their own knowledge of these PLUS factors is insufficient for them to
make the decision with a high level of confidence.
The PLUS filters work as an integral part of steps 1, 3 and 6 of the decision making
process. The decision maker applies the four PLUS filters to determine if the ethical
component(s) of the decision are being surfaced/addressed/satisfied.
1 Step 1
2 Define the problem (PLUS surface the ethical issues)
3 Does the existing situation violate any of the PLUS considerations?
4 Step 2
5 Identify available alternative solutions to the problem
6 Step 3
7 Evaluate the identified alternatives (PLUS assess their ethical impact)
8 Will the alternative I am considering resolve the PLUS violations?
9 Will the alternative being considered create any new PLUS considerations?
10 Are the ethical trade-offs acceptable?
11 Step 4
12 Make the decision
13 Step 5
14 Implement the decision
15 Step 6
16 Evaluate the decision (PLUS surface any remaining/new ethical issues)
17 Does the resultant situation resolve the earlier PLUS considerations?
18 Are there any new PLUS considerations to be addressed?
The user should realize that the PLUS filters do not guarantee an ethical decision.
They merely ensure that the ethical components of the situation will be surfaced so
that they might be considered.
Page 6

While PLUS suggests a process for assessing the ethical impact of a decision,
ultimately whether or not the decision meets the ethical standards of the organization
or the individual decision maker is a matter of personal responsibility. After all, ethics
is about choices.

(b) An ethic of caring conflicts with morality because morality requires

impartiality. Discuss this criticism of an ethic of caring

Page 7


(a) From an ethical point of view, big business is always bad

business. Discuss the pros and cons of this statement


Benefits Include:
-Maximize Sales and Profit:
*brings return on investment for the stakeholders.
*brings job opportunity for the community.
*brings better living for the job holders.
*brings more products for better lifestyle etc.
-Growth Path:
*career opportunties for many aspirants from the community.
-Collaboration and Productivity Enhancement:
*Big Business helps the employees work together and share lifestyle information.
-Easy to Use:
*Big Business helps the employees to learn/ develop themselves
with easy to use knowledge/skills.
*Big Business helps to add value to your life by providing
resources support like superannuation.
-Advanced Technology:
*The latest technologies are integrated into Big Business to automate the entire
business process and infrastructure and make you more productive. This enriches
your life and your own knowledge.etc



Page 8

-sometimes big business focus too much on finance and less on human resources
-Sometimes big business try to go for bigger profit at the cost of the
consumer--some kind of exploitation.
- sometimes pay very little attention to the local community needs.
-sometimes exploits the workers.etc

(b) Equality, justices and a respect for rights are characteristics of the
American Economic System. Would you agree or disagree with this
statement? Why?
AnswerThe American economic system is a capitalist, free-market system, benefiting from
the size and uniformity of the market, and resulting from its social and cultural
systems. It is very competitive when scale matters, such as large industries, and often
very creative in new industries. But with the relatively lowly educated American
population, especially in matters of selling to other cultures, America will struggle to
compete internationally.
The American economic system has many characteristics that are reasons for
optimism. Here are three:
No matter what some critics assert about "an America that's changed forever" or "an
America on the verge of Armageddon," the U.S. remains one of the freest, fairest
nations in the world -- and this has led to wave after wave of innovation. Critics speak
of an America in the current and future decades not being conducive to business
start-ups and entrepreneurs. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of foreign
citizens/businessowners who would jump at the chance at U.S. citizenship. This
country will continue to attract talented, industrious, enterprising people from abroad
and others pursuing their dreams, and many of these individuals will contribute to the
innovation that will revitalize the U.S. economy.
Another characteristic you can trace across centuries is the American economy's
ability to adapt, reorganize and find new engines of growth. The early period of
mechanization was supposed to lead to economic decline because all the local
craftsmen who made things by hand were displaced. The rise of Japan's electronics
industry in the 1960s and 1970s was supposed to do the same because the U.S.
couldn't possibly survive without a domestic TV and radio manufacturing sector. Now
it's the rise of China, India and other emerging nations that's supposed to lead to the
great American decline. But investors will carefully note that during each period of
Page 9

structural change, the U.S economy adapted and retooled, workers retrained and new
sectors were created where Americans performed value-added jobs.
Job Mobility
Another overlooked advantaged -- perhaps because the current recession has reduced
its prevalence -- concerns job mobility. Among industrialized economies, U.S. workers
are highly mobile. Of course, that has a big downside: Unless workers have a contract,
companies can eliminate jobs quickly. But the reverse is also true: Employees can
secure employment in better/more suitable positions more quickly than they can in
many European economies. True, job scarcity and the excruciatingly high U.S.
unemployment rate have reduced this natural flow of talent to its highest and best
use. But that flow will increase again once the economy starts adding jobs in a
sustained way.
The new U.S. health care system could further unleash this talent pool. Many
professionals, blue-collar employees and others stay in their current job, not because
it's their preference but because they get employer-provided health care. However,
because the new system gives everyone the opportunity to buy health insurance at an
affordable price, regardless of preexisting conditions, workers will likely feel much
freer to pursue the most suitable employment. That could unlock creativity, increase
productivity and spark a new wave of business start-ups.
So when you hear the dueling diatribes on 24-hour cable news shows, it's worth
remembering that more people still want to come to the U.S. than to leave it. And that
most international investors still consider the country an excellent place to invest their
money. The reason is the American economic system itself.
Equality, justices and a respect for rights are provided by the economic system.
Q3(a) Do you agree with the claims that (i) future generations have no
rights, and (ii) the future generations to which we have obligations
actually include only the generation that will immediately succeed us?
Explain your answer. If you do not agree with these claims, state your
own views and provide arguments to support them
Answer- Future persons not have right claims
The Re-Population Paradox.(8)
The first objection must be treated briefly, though not because it can be easily and
quickly disposed of.
-argues that any effective attempts to "improve" the living conditions of the remote
future will so alter "genetic shuffle" of future meetings, matings, and births, that such
policies will, in fact, "repopulate" that future with different individuals. Accordingly,

since none of the individuals in "Future A" will exist in ("improved") "Future B," no
individual will be benefited ("made better off") as a result of this policy. It follows that
since any attempts to "improve the future" will, strictly speaking, "benefit" no one,
there are no obligations to future generations.(9)
And if there are no duties to the future, it follows that future generations have no
The Time-Span Argument against the rights-claims of posterity objects that duties and
rights cannot meaningfully be said to hold over long periods of time and between
persons with non-concurrent lives, who are thus denied reciprocal communication and
interaction. But with this argument, time itself is the foremost reason for this moral
Do long durations of time erode moral responsibilities? For the moment, consider,
causal and epistemic connections through time, rather than moral connections.
According to informed scientific opinion, some technological innovations and social
policies enacted during the last few decades, and others now being contemplated,
may result in both short-term advantages for some of our contemporaries, and
devastating long-range effects for our successors. Such long-term effects, which are
tied to their remote causes by quiet, continuing, and accumulating processes, are
called, by ecologists, "time-lag effects." Consider some possible cases: First, the
manufacture of thousands of nuclear weapons, and the decision to invest heavily in
nuclear fission energy, has resulted in the production of highly toxic, long-lasting,
radioactive by-products. Some of these substances (i.e., the actinides) must then be
isolated from the biosphere for hundreds of thousands of years.(12)
If, in the intervening time, a geological event should cause the release of these
materials into the biosphere, the results could be catastrophic. The "time-lag"
between the disposal of these substances and their possible reappearance is unknown
and unknowable.
The "No-Claims" Argument. Another common objection to the claim that future
generations have rights, is that posterity, being "merely potential," is incapable of
claiming these alleged rights. And without claims, it is argued, there can be no rights.
The Non-Actuality Argument. Among the most common objections against the rights
of future generations is the contention that since posterity does not exist now, it
makes no sense to speak of posterity having rights now.
The ascription of rights is properly to be made to actual persons -- not possible
persons. Since future generations can only be viewed as consisting of possible
persons, from any vantage point at which the description "future generations" is
applicable, it would follow . . . that rights cannot properly be ascribed to future
The "non-actuality argument" might be subdivided into two interpretations: (a) the
charge that posterity is "merely imaginary," and (b) the contention that posterity's
rights apply only in posterity's own time. We will examine these points in order.

(a) There are no duties owed to imaginary persons.

(b) "Future generations . . . should correctly be said to have a right only to what is
available when they come into existence, and hence when their possible future
rights become actual and present."
The final objection to the notion of the rights of posterity might be called "the
indeterminacy argument."
While it is appropriate to ascribe rights to a class of persons, in general, such
ascription is inappropriate when the class in question has no identifiable
members. Now the class describable as "future generations" does not have
any identifiable members -- no existing person or persons on whose behalf
the specific right can be claimed to exist.

(b) Discuss the arguments for and against the 3 main theories of a
producers duties to the customer. In your judgement, which theory is most
adequate? Are there any marketing areas where one theory is more
appropriate than the others?
Answer- Producers' Duties: Producers are obliged to place only safe products on the
market. Within the limits of their respective activities, producers shall:
1.provide consumers with information to enable them to assess the risks inherent in a
product throughout the normal or reasonably foreseeable period of its use, where such
risks are not immediately obvious without adequate warnings, and to take precautions
against those risks. Provision of such warnings does not, however, exempt any person
from compliance with the other requirements in this Directive; and
2.adopt measures commensurate with the characteristics of the products that they
supply, to enable consumers to be informed of risks that these products might present
and to take appropriate action, including, if necessary, withdrawing the product in
question from the market.
3.The measures include, for example, whenever appropriate:
*marking of the products or product batches in such a way that they can be
*sample testing of marketed products; and
*investigating complaints made and keeping distributors informed of such
-these producer's duties helps the consumer
1. the right to safety;
2. the right to be informed;

3. the right to choose; and

4. the right to be heard
-the implementation of the regulations is always questionable.
-the monitoring is always shaky.
In your judgment which theory is most adequate?
3.The measures include, for example, whenever appropriate:
*marking of the products or product batches in such a way that they can be
*sample testing of marketed products; and
*investigating complaints made and keeping distributors informed of such

The producers can be partner in protecting the consumer rightsby adopting the
following responsibility :
- Quality of Material;
- Safety and precision of material;
- After sales service;
- Training if needed;
- Warranty and Gauranty to be properly implemented;
- Insurance against non working or accident;
- Businesses and Producers have responsibilities
RIGHT to expect laws and regulations to be essential and efficient
-RESPONSIBILITY to provide safe products and services, information choice and a fair
-RESPONSIBILITY to practice and promote ethical marketplace behavior
Are there any marketing areas where one theory is more appropriate than other?
3.The measures include, for example, whenever appropriate:
*marking of the products or product batches in such a way that they can be
*sample testing of marketed products; and
*investigating complaints made and keeping distributors informed of such
-new product development.
-customer service.

Q4(a) In your judgement was the historical shift in emphasis from

intentional/ isolated discrimination to non-intentional/ institutionalized
discrimination good or bad? Justify your statement
Answer- Action programs are means to bring about equal justice in several ways:
(i) Prejudices which are not intentional but nonetheless widely shared and subtly
institutionalized still operate to produce discriminatory results. Affirmative Action can
counteract this situation.
(ii) The lack of equal material opportunity as children--which has gotten worse, not
better since the first edition of Velasquez's text in the early 1980's--results in
unequal education and lack of equal opportunity as adults. Affirmative Action
programs can counteract this.
(iii) The lack of suitable role models (as a result of past discrimination) also
undermines the possibility of adult success in oppressed groups. Affirmative Action
can counteract this.
Objection 1. Affirmative Action programs discriminate against white males. (To
choose a woman or minority male when the white male applicant is equally or
slightly more qualified is discrimination.)
Response to Objection 1. It is not wrongful discrimination because it is not motivated
by the assumption that the white male is inferior but by the assumption that
otherwise the white male has an unfair advantage.
Objection 2. Affirmative Action programs violate the fundamental principle of justice
itself. Equals in the relevant respects should be treated equally.
Response to Objection 2. In a society with a history of discrimination and a
continuing legacy of discrimination black or female employes can contribute to
society in a way that white males cannot. Just as some people are chosen for some
jobs (TV news anchor, say) because of their good looks (largely an inherited quality
beyond one's control), so other people may be chosen for jobs because they can be
much needed a role model for black or female youth. This would cause real ethical
problems only if race or gender were to be the sole or primary qualifi-cation, or if the
results of past discrimination had been finally overcome.
Other arguments for Affirmative Action are less effective.
1. Compensatory Justice. People have an obligation to compensate those whom they
have injured. (Some, but not all, and perhaps not the oldest traditions, say
intentionally injured.) The dominant groups in society have injured minorities and
women; therefore they have a duty to compensate these groups.
Objection to 1. Compensatory justice applies to individuals not to groups. The people
being "compensated" by Affirmative Action are usually not the individuals most
injured by past discrimination. Discrimination as a past practice was unfair, but
present members of the same group have no right to compensation because of what
was done to people now dead. Also, Affirmative Action helps mainly those members
of the minority or female group who already fairly well off (most of the time a
minority or female applicant has to be more or less tied with other applicants before
Affirmative Action gives the individuals an edge), and these are just the individuals

whom discrimination has injured the least.

2. Utilitarian Argument for Affirmative Action as a Means to Achieve Greater Public
Welfare. In this case, the end (reducing poverty, a sense of helplessness and lack of
self-esteem, social division, etc.) justifies the means (giving female and minority
applicants a slight edge when they are competing with members of other groups for
similar jobs).
Criticism of 2. Should we give up Affirmative Action programs if the total social
happiness produced by them is outweighed by the social unhappiness produced by
them? Utilitarian reasoning would seem to justify that decision. That would imply
that if members of the dominant group felt injured sufficiently by Affirmative Action
programs, then such programs would have to be curtailed. Affirmative Action
defenders would respond that this allows the privileged group to demand that their
possible loss of an unjust advantage be treated as more important than the injured
group's reacquisition of equality.
(b) Kohlbergs views on moral development show that the more morally
mature a person becomes, the more likely it is that the person will obey the
moral norms of his or her society. Discuss
Answer- Kohlberg's theory argues that just as a child grows up and develops
physically, people as moral beings also grow up and develop. He argues that humans
who fully grow up morally progress upward in three levels, and each level has two
stages. However, it seems that this statement is true until a person progresses to the
5th and 6th level. People who operate out of the third level of Kohlberg's moral
standards may not be perceived by society as being as morally obedient as those
who only progress to the fourth stage on the second level.
In the first level, which he calls the "preconventional stages" young humans are
motivated to do what's right because either they want certain rewards or want to
avoid certain punishments (Punishment and Obedience Orientation). Children do
what's right, not because they understand it will hurt others if they don't, but just
because they don't want to be punished. The second stage in this first level is called
the "instrumental and relative orientation" stage (38). In this stage, the child is
practical in a way. The child might think, "I won't do X to my brother, 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 stages one or two) because they never progress
beyond their fear of punishment or loss of reward, while there are other adults who
behave a certain way to avoid someone doing something the same to them. If a
person gets stuck 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". In the first level of this
development of ethics a young adolescence does what's right because they are being
loyal to their family, friends or ethnic group or they do what's right because they
have a duty or allegiance to the law. I have seen that most middle class Americans
get stuck right here. These are the good citizens of the society. In 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 people who they value. This is a
good stage for an adolescent if they are in good company. However, we can see this
in a negative or deviant way too: kids who are loyal to their gang members, suicide
packs or pregnancy packs that teens take with other teens to do terrible things
together, mafia families in which teens choose to cooperate with their family's illegal
acts over what they know is right. However, if teens have a good family background
this can be a blessing that they do what's right because they want to be well thought
of and accepted by their families and the society. In the second level a loyalty to the
society, nation and law develops. There is a sense of group and community that if
they don't honor, they will not fit well or be a responsible member of the group.
Overall, I guess that most government officials are very pleased if people get here
and remain here. They would
not call it "stuck" if a person's conduct and motivation stayed right here.
Kohlberg then describes a final level with two stages of maturity. This of course
should happen
to everyone .After reading this,I had to even reflect on myself to see if I have
progressed beyond level two/stage four as a Christian male and as a Cuban American
Having come from Cuba, I know so many people who come to this country and
because there was a mindset of poverty
and government blame, many people I know, even my family members, may be
stuck on level one in stage one or stage two. I thought because I value obeying the
laws and I don't want to shame my family name, My Savior, or the country that took
me in and gave me the chance to be productive and an entrepreneur, I thought this
was a high level of development. But now I see stages five, "social contract
orientation" and stage six "universal moral principles orientation" and I realize that
these are both in the Bible. And furthermore, if you live them, you actually may be
considered dangerous to the existing power structure as Jesus and the Apostle Paul
were considered dangerous to the Jewish leaders of that time.
In stage five, a person realizes that reasonable people disagree over what is right and
try to reach "a consensus" to achieve change or action. I think that when the Greeks
came up with the first democratic system involving the city state - one man, one
vote, this was a reflection of this kind of ethical system that recognizes that
conflicting moral views are best settled by a vote that allowed majority ruling. Of
course the American system is much more complex than this now with the Electoral
College and the weight each state has in an election, but the basis of the Greek's
ancient system is still in place. But the best example I saw of this in the Bible was in
John chapter 8. In this chapter Jesus responds out of this level of ethics. The
Pharisees brought Jesus a woman who was caught in adultery. They brought her, and
not the man, to see if Jesus would uphold their law and stone her to death. They
created this dilemma to accuse him of not being loyal to their group or not obeying
the known law of that day (stages three and stages four of Kohlberg's model).

However, Jesus, being more developed ethically because He always operated out of
eternal/universal principles 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 stone at her (John 8:7). From the oldest to the youngest,
they all walked away. This was a kind of consensus. He even got the woman to walk
away by showing her that her level of moral standards failed her - "Woman, where
are your accusers? Does no man accuse you?" (John 8:10) She probably was
motivated only by stage one, level one: she did not want to be caught and punished.
In that day, violating marriage laws meant death by stoning.
In stage six, " universal moral principles of orientation" a person who has developed
to this level behaves out of a moral certainty because he is sure that the principles
he follows are reasonable, universal and consistent (Velasquez, 39). Usually on this
level, the person acts wholly out of these beliefs and is able to analyze and reason
out of this level of moral development. Most people guess that only moral superstars
of the human race are able to attain this. However, I guess along with people who
have died for their principles, there are many unknown heroes who act in a daily way
out of their convictions and ability to act in universal, rationale ways in spite of what
it may cost them. If we are looking, we have seen this over and over again during
crisis situations all throughout history. An example of this, for Christians, is shown
when Jesus is dying on the cross. He asks His Father to forgive those who were
crucifying Him: Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34). He
chose this because He chose to treat "people as a (eternal) end in
themselves"(Velasquez, 39). He saw from His Father's perspective that this was
"reasonable, universal and consistent" with what He was sent here to do.
Q5(a) In view of the contractual agreement that every employee makes to
be loyal to the employer, do you think whistleblowing is ever morally
justified? Explain.
Answer-''In view of contractual agreement that every employee makes to be loyal to
the Employer''
The employment relationship is a legal notion widely used in countries around
the world to refer to the relationship between a person called an "employee"
(frequently referred to as "a worker") and an "employer", for whom the employee
performs work under certain conditions in return for remuneration. It is through the
employment relationship, however defined, that reciprocal rights and obligations are
created between the employee and the employer.
The employment relationship has been, and continues to be, the main vehicle
through which workers gain access to the rights and benefits associated with
employment in the areas of labour law and social security. It is the key point of
reference for determining the nature and extent of employers' rights and obligations
towards their workers.

Is there an employment relationship?

There are a number of key elements to establishing if an employment relationship
exists between two parties.
A contract of employment exists where an offer of employment at a given rate of pay
has been accepted. The terms of a contract may be verbal, written, implied, or a
combination of all three. Some types of contracts, for example for an apprentice, are
required by law to be in writing.
A contract of employment will come into existence as soon as employees start
work and by doing so, demonstrate that they accept the job on the terms offered by
the employer.
An employment relationship, established by a contract of employment, places
certain rights and obligations on employers and employees. Some of these
obligations will have been expressly stated in the contract itself, either verbally or in
writing, and others are legal obligations that come from legislation, awards or
agreements or from common-law employment principles. For example, employers
must comply with State and federal laws in relation to pay rates, working conditions,
taxation, workers compensation, occupational safety and health, equal opportunity
and superannuation, in addition to any agreed conditions in the contract. If there is
no employment relationship established, most of these laws will not apply. This would
be the case with a volunteer, a trial worker or a subcontractor. However, as each
piece of legislation provides a different definition of employees or workers, it is
important that employers check which obligations they have in each particular
Employment law also regulates the nature of pay and conditions within a
contract of employment. Any condition agreed to is invalid if it conflicts with a legal

A worker is more likely an employee and not an independent contractor if

the worker:
1. Is required to comply with the employers instructions about the work.
2. Receives training from the employer.
3. Provides services that are integrated into the business.
4. Provides services that must be rendered personally.
5. Hires, supervises and pays assistants for the employer.
6. Has a continuing relationship with the employer.
7. Follows set hours of work.

8. Works full-time for the employer

9. Works on the employers premises.

Does the work in a sequence set by the employer.


Submits regular reports to the employer.


Receives payments of regular amounts at set intervals.


Receives payments for business or traveling expenses.


Relies on the employer to furnish tools and materials.


Lacks a major investment in facilities used to perform the service.


Cannot make a profit or suffer a loss from the services.


Works for one employer at a time.


Does not offer services to the general public.


Can be fired


Can quit at any time without liability.

Duties and Obligations of Employees

* To work
Employees must be ready, willing and able to perform their job as specified in
their employment agreements.
*To obey instructions
Employees must obey instructions so long as the instructions are lawful, are not
dangerous, and are within the scope of their employment agreement.
*To take care
Under the Health and Safety in Employment Act employees are also required to
ensure a safe working environment. They must also take care not to damage the
employers property and equipment.
*To show fidelity
There are many ways in which courts have held that employees have breached
this duty.
Employees can not :
work for their employer's competitors in their own time.


use information gained at work for personal gain or disclose the employer's
confidential information unless it is an act of whistleblowing.
fail to report misconduct by other employees
do anything in their free time to damage the reputation of their employer. Many
employees have been fired for committing crimes that were unrelated to their job.
try to take away an employer's customers for when they go into business for
Compensation is typically among the first things potential employees consider
when looking for employment. After all, for employees, compensation is the
equivalent not to how they are paid but, ultimately, to how they are valued.

What is a compensation package?

It's easy to think "dollars per hour" when thinking about compensation.
Successful compensation packages, however, are more like a total rewards
system, containing non-monetary, direct and indirect elementsNon-Monetary
Compensation can include any benefit an employee receives from an employer
or job that does not involve tangible value. This includes career and social
rewards such as job security, flexible hours and opportunity for growth, praise
and recognition, task enjoyment and friendships.
Direct compensation is an employee's base wage. It can be an annual salary,
hourly wage or any performancebased pay that an employee receives, such
as profit-sharing bonuses. Indirect Compensation is far more varied, including
everything from legally required public protection programs such as Social
Security to health insurance, retirement programs, paid leave, child care or
Employers have a wide variety of compensation elements from which to choose.
By combining many of these compensation alternatives, progressive mangers
can create compensation packages that are as individual as the employees who
receive them. The general consensus of recent studies is that pay should be tied
to performance to be effective. However, with traditional BUSINESS operations,
that is not easily done. Business performance can be affected by many factors
over which employees have no influence, specificallyEXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT . Successful managers must search for things employees
influence and base performance objectives on these areas. Your operation may
benefit from the following: tenure bonuses for long-time employees, equipment
repair incentives to encourage good equipment maintenance, or bonuses for
arriving to work on time.

The more production information data your business has, the easier this is to
Direct Compensation Alternatives
Basic Pay: Cash wage paid to the employee. Because paying a wage is a
standard practice, the competitive advantage can only come by paying a higher
Incentive Pay: A bonus paid when specified performance objectives are met.
May inspire employees to set and achieve a higher performance level and is an
excellent motivator to accomplish BUSINESS goals
Stock Options: A right to buy a piece of the business which may be given to an
employee to reward excellent service. An employee who owns a share of the
business, is far more likely to go the extra mile for the operation. Bonuses: A gift
given occasionally to reward exceptional performance or for special occasions.
Bonuses can show an employer appreciates his/her employees and ensures that
good performance or special events are rewarded.

(b) In your judgment, is it wrong, from an ethical point of view, for the
auto companies to submit plans for an automobile to China? Explain
your answer.


(a) Utilitarianism is the view that so long as an action provides with

more measurable economic benefits than costs, the action is morally
right. Identify all of the mistakes contained in this definition of



(b) Any pollution law is unjust because it necessarily violates peoples

right to liberty and right to property. Discuss.
Answer- Pollution is the contamination of air, water, or earth by harmful
substances. Concern for pollution developed alongside concerns for the
environment in general. The advent of automobiles, increased chemical wastes,
nuclear wastes, and accumulation of garbage in landfills created a need for
legislation specifically aimed at decreasing pollution.
Among the landmark acts designed to preserve our environment is the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
-a comprehensive regulatory statute aimed at controlling solid waste disposal.
-The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 aims to safely dispose of nuclear wastes.
-The Clear Air Act was first enacted in 1970, it was later amended in 1977 and
again in 1990; with its present form embodied in. Like this examples
demonstrate, most environmental regulations are federal in nature. Among the

types of pollution, the one that has existed longer than any other is water
pollution. Its consequences are readily seen when pollutants reach groundwater
reservoirs, creating serious health hazards to people drinking the water. The
current version of the Federal Clean Water Act is another tool.
environmental law: an overview
were passed in 1970.
The main objective of these federal enactments was to assure that the
environment be protected against both public and private actions that failed to
take account of costs or harms inflicted on the eco-system.
The EPA is supposed to monitor and analyze the environment, conduct research,
and work closely with state and local governments to devise pollution control
policies. NEPA has been described as one of Congress's most far reaching
environmental legislation ever passed. The basic purpose of NEPA is to force
governmental agencies to consider the effects of their decisions on the
State laws also reflect the same concerns and common law actions allow
adversely affected property owners to seek a judicial remedy for environmental
THESE LAWS DO NOT violate people right to liberty and right to property.