MANAGERIAL ETHICS

Take home assignment-1 & 2

Submitted by:

Group: 11
BM-B
Batch of 2018-2020

Group Members:

Aaditya Kaul (B18062)

Akanksha Agrawal (B18067)
Anshul Khandelwal (B18073)
Ayush Mittal (B18076)
Avi Goyal (B18077)
Question 1) Read, update and synthesize all relevant materials on the market phenomenon
chosen by your group; document and reference your data by source, date, page, and the like.
Explain why you chose this current turbulent market phenomenon for your analysis. Define
also your “unit of analysis” of the market phenomenon: for instance, in respect to the Case
chosen, is it the entire Case, or any specific component (e.g., the Case from the management
side, the case from the labor or customer side, the case in its inputs versus process versus
outputs, specific major actor or action, and so on) that you choose to investigate and analyze
under the following questions. Why do you choose this unit of analysis? Justify your choice.
[Aaditya Kaul- B18062]

With the advent of the 21st century and the world turning into a global village of sorts with ‘never-seen-
before’ connectivity in transport and information, cultures of many countries and erstwhile civilizations of
the past are getting blended and appreciated by the entire globe. People move from one geography to the
other more often now (migration) in search of a better quality of life, education/employment opportunities
and healthcare among many other reasons.

However, with an ever increasing global population and limited resources that are being exploited
recklessly without reflecting on sustainable practices that can help preserve the resources for the future
generations, every country is constrained in terms of how many people it can feed and sustain and help
grow their livelihood.

Furthermore, many countries view subjects and matters of immigration in relation to national security and
therefore deal with utmost care and restrain. Two strands of thought exist, one articulates that boundaries
of countries and continents are man-made and any individual/community in dire need of help and refuge
ought to be given; others maintain that many-a-times such cases of immigration are also nefarious attempts
to change the demography and culture of that particular geography (country) and is therefore a subtle, covert
invasion that needs to be strategically understood.

Though immigration is a global issue and affects every part of the world now, we shall take a few cases to
understand this crisis of immigration and how it has adversely impacted societies and cultures and people.

UNIT OF ANALYSIS – Unit of analysis in the case is the tribe/community/population that seeks refuge

INPUT- Demand for asylum by refugee seekers

PROCESS- Consideration & thought given by countries basis their legal/political/security reasons
OUTPUT- Acceptance or refusal of complete or partial asylum to refugees

A) Migration crisis in the European Union

As per a UNHRC report for 2016-17, nearly 56,000 irregular migrants had arrived into Spain by sea that
far. Greece and Italy had seen an influx of around 29,000 and 23,000 migrants respectively. Greece had
also seen a rise in the overland arrivals by another three-times to a 14,000 migrants. One is forced to
speculate for reasons, looking at numbers such as 1.8 million migrants that have come into the entire Europe
since 2014.

Tensions between EU member states over how to handle irregular immigration form outside the bloc,
largely from the Middle East and Africa have risen. As of present EU laws, asylum seekers have to lodge
their applications in the first EU country they enter. Because of a convenient strategic position on the
Mediterranean Sea, Spain, Italy and Greece are having to face the strain of asylum requests/applications.
This has led to urgent demands for an overhaul in the immigration policy for the whole of EU.

However, the difficulty is that some countries want tougher external border controls, while others push for
a fairer distribution of new arrivals. Any solution will have to therefore balance the concerns of frontline
southern states with those of rich northern destination states, while dealing with the refusal of rigid central
and eastern countries such as Hungary and Poland to accept any migrants at all.

The broader political sentiment in the EU has been anti-immigration though. With the right-wing
governments in Italy (League party of Matteo Salvini, which campaigned on a pledge to send 500,000
irregular migrants home) and populist Freedom party in Austria are acting to drive away such irregular
immigrants. Even Germany which had earlier, under Angela Merkel’s open-door policy welcomed more
than 1 million migrants in 2015, has reconsidered her position on illegal/irregular immigration after a series
of electoral setbacks.

However, what is also important to understand are potential reasons behind such influx of irregular
immigrants into the European society.

American invasion of Iraq and thereafter the collapse of the then regime which led to a long-term conflict
caused the first wavelets of refugees and a humanitarian crisis. This war/invasion stimulated religious
fundamentalism and terrorism from the Middle East towards the West. The rigid stance of Assad’s regime
and armed rebellion among multiple fractions in Syria plagued a civil war that went out of control and
strengthened the spread of terrorist groups like the ISIS. This conflict was the second instance of refugee
movement to neighboring countries including the EU. Finally, Gaddafi’s collapse in Libya resulted in the
outbreak of civil disorder and disintegration that forced refugee from Western and Sub-Saharan Africa to
the EU via the Mediterranean.

Additionally, instability in security and politics in North African countries as well as Afghanistan apart
from the Arab world (discussed as the ‘Arab Spring’) caused due to meddling in their local political,
economic and military affairs by the US in order to, as those who follow geopolitics, contain the economic,
political rise of the EU and Asia.

Those who follow and read geopolitics also confront this pattern of irregular immigration into the
EU as a dishonorable and subtle attempt at demographic invasion and suspected ethnic cleansing,
basis which one also sees rise in conflicts and clashes between the refugees and natives.

B) Rohingya Crisis in India and Myanmar

Massive outflow of Rohingya tribe out of Myanmar into Bangladesh and now also into India has created a
humanitarian crisis and global outrage. The UNHRC chief accused Myanmar of carrying out ethnic
cleansing against the Rohingya while the Burmese claim that they have been instead fighting the Rohingya
militancy and insurgency. The issue dates back to the 19th century.
The Rohingya is a minority ethnicity that lives in neighboring Bangladesh's Chitagong District. They
constitute 90 percent of the one million people living in the north of Rakhine State in Myanmar, where
ethnic Rakhines, which are primarily Buddhists, are the majority of the state's three million population.
Burmese state authorities consider the tribe an undocumented immigrant and a source of instability.
As per the citizenship law of 1982, Myanmar recognized only 40000 Rohingya’s as official citizens. Recent
developments of violence against the state by Rohingya’s has received brutal response from the Burmese
Army but disappointment from the western and Arabic countries that Aung San Suu Kyi failed to stand up
against the army crackdown for the protection of Rohingya’s basic human rights.
India’s position on the crisis is calibrated keeping in mind its understanding of history and security/political
complexities in relation to the Rohingya tribe. Indian consulate in Rakhine has been keeping in check with
the radical/fundamentalist groups and Pakistan-funded terror organizations present in Bangladesh and
Burma seeking to use the Rohingya resentment to fuel insurgency in both Bangladesh and via its youth
wings in India. Two schools of thoughts exist in India. One articulates for the human and asylum rights of
the refugees stating how the Jews and Tibetans and Parsis were previously allowed in the country while the
rest suggests deportation of Rohingya’s claiming them to be involved in suspicious activities aimed at
dismantling and threatening the security of the country.
India’s decision to deport 40,000 Rohingya refugees makes geopolitical sense. The National Security
Council of India headed by the NSA, Ajit Doval reported that many Rohingya’s with militant
backgrounds were found to be active in regions like Jammu, Delhi, Hyderabad and Mewat.
On the other hand, it is also important for India to recognize the importance in maintaining strategic
relationship as a part of its “Act East Policy” with Myanmar, which is also refusing to accept Rohingya’s.
It has two percepts, economic development in North East India and to contain China’s influence. China has
not just declared open support to the Burmese anti-Rohingya operations but also expanded its political and
financial influence on the state. In fact, it was China that offset any major criticism or bickering from the
West and elsewhere in international circles in favor of the Burmese. China has set up an oil and gas pipeline
that runs from the Rakhine port of Kyaukphyu to Kunming.
India is also dependent on Myanmar military’s cooperation in order to contain and crackdown on
insurgency in the North East. India is also working on the Kaladan transport project believing the best way
to contain tension in Rakhine is by undertaking development efforts.
Problems for Indian administration is now the fact that some Rohingyas have acquired documents like
Aadhaar, PAN and Voter-ID which therefore raises the concern of naturalization of illegal migrants by
fraudulent means. Also, identification and surveillance of refugees will be difficult in the absence of a law.

C) Venezuelan Refugee Crisis

Since 2015, more than 1.6 million Venezuelans have fled their country for various reasons that include
economic breakdown leading to huge unemployment, food insecurity, and lack of social services. Political
violence under the government has also been a factor to this forced exodus.
Neighboring countries like Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile initially opened their borders to Venezuelans,
allowing them to enter their countries and look for work. However, the migration put up a lot of strain on
the limited resources of these countries and are therefore having to harden their borders in response.
Even though neighboring countries are allowing Venezuelans to enter, but they are not granting them
asylum in large numbers. Instead, they are hoping that the Venezuelans will return home gradually. On the
contrary, Venezuelans do not see a future in their country and are therefore in search of ways to stay
permanently in host countries. Many countries like Trinidad and Tobago don’t have asylum laws and thus
treat irregular migrants as criminals. Colombia has also restricted access to asylum while Chile requires
refugees to apply for entry at Chilean consulates in Venezuela and show a passport.
Venezuelan exodus is clearly one of the biggest migrants and refugee movements in the world.

Question 2) Apply the Eleven Laws of Systems Thinking (see Chapter 2) as Assurance of
Learning (AOL1) that studies any market phenomenon. Explain each Law and its potential
for explaining and predicting behavior of the phenomena you have chosen for investigation.
Illustrate the application of each Law by past, current or projected examples.
[Ayush Mittal- B18076]

 Law 1: “Today’s Problems come from Yesterday’s Solutions.”

That is, the causes of our problems are immediate – we merely need to look at our own solutions to
other problems in the past. This law is particularly true when yesterday’s solutions are a) short-term,
b) quick-fix, and c) patchwork or band aid resolutions of a market turbulent problem that is ill-defined.

The European Union deployed the Dublin Regulations for asylum seekers. Under this regulation, the
asylum seekers are forced to apply for asylum in whichever country they reach first. This resulted in an
increased pressure on the countries that border Middle East such as Greece, Italy, etc. This has resulted
in an increased economic and financial strain on these countries and has been disproportionately unfair
to them in uniformly dealing with the crisis.

Hungarian Border Police Controlling the Migrants

As a result, different states have responded differently to the crisis with countries such as Croatia and
Hungary, closing their borders and pushing back the migrants. This results in serious security issues
and has failed in fairly distributing the migrants across the EU nations since they are not allowed to
enter EU in the first place. Thus, the system which was initially established to control the crisis and
benefit the migrants has not resulted in an aggravated crisis along with serious safety concerns for the
asylum seekers.

 Law 2: “Harder you push, harder the system pushes back.”

This is the second law. There is a limit up to which a system can be pushed. Beyond the limit, the
system breaks from its ideal environment and gives disastrous results.
The Dublin System employed by the EU had several flaws, and hence, it was modified. The first
introduced system was changed and the new system knows as the “Dublin II” was implemented. This
provided greater transparency in deciding which state is responsible for deciding the claim of the
asylum seeker and took away some of the responsibilities and unfairness to the bordering states.
However, even this system had flaws and resulted it even further erosion of the rights of the asylum
 seekers. They were reduced to the whims of nation states, and their acceptance was completely
dependent on the states and their criteria rather than their own free will. Thus, the efforts to make the
system better indeed resulted in the worsening of the system as well as the rights of the asylum seekers.

 Law 3: “Behavior grows better before it grows worse.”

This is the third law in systems thinking. Low-leverage investments and solutions actually work, but
mostly in the short term.

After the failure of the Dublin system and the grave inaccuracies of the Dublin II system which resulted
in the inefficient transfers of the refugees across the European States, the EU came up with the third
amendment to the Dublin Resolution, known as the Dublin III. Under this, more rights were given to
asylum seekers. Interviews were held and profiles were generated to make the process more transparent
and this made sure that the migrants meet the criteria of the applying country. It also allowed the asylum
seeker to protest against their transfers, to request the stay of their orders, etc. However, even though
this modification seek to better the system but only in the short run. It resulted in large amount of
official work and with the growing demands for asylum seeking in 2015-16, the time consuming
process crumbled and the system failed.

Germany Allowing the Syrian Refugees

The failure of the system was the reason for Germany to abandon the Dublin system in August 2015,
to assess the applications of the Syrian Refugees at the German Borders. The country itself processed
all the requests and refused to transfer the refugees to other countries.

 Law 4: “The Easy Way Out usually Leads Back In”

This fourth law of systems thinking is very much connected with all three previous laws. We all find
comfort applying familiar solutions to complex or unfamiliar problems, sticking to what we know best.
If solutions were easy to find to these problems, they would already have been found. In complex human
systems, there are always many short-term strategies to make things look better. Only eventually the
compensating feedback comes back to haunt you.

After the deepening of the refugee crisis in the EU, and in order to control the growing number of
refugees, a large number of bordering countries imposed stricter rules and border patrols. The easiest
way to reduce the steady inflow of migrants was to not allow them to enter the EU in the first place.
The EU spend close to €2 billion euros on border security and in order to prevent migrants from entering
their borders. As a result, the migrants were forced to take unsafe routes, increased their reliance on
 smugglers and were subjected to human trafficking and sex slavery.

 Law 5: “The Cure can be worse than the Disease.”

This Law is similar to “shifting the burden” and is easy to confuse with the push/push back law. It is
slightly different though and can occur at the same time. The “cure” in this case is an intervention that
is enabling and becomes addictive. As dependence on the intervention increases, the system’s ability to
cure itself lessens. This is about the difference between giving someone a fish and teaching him how to
fish. If an intervention is needed then we have to make sure the intervention does not weaken the entire
system causing more and more dependence.

As we have seen in the above laws, all the efforts to control the crises or to prevent it from happening,
actually deteriorated it further. From Dublin resolution to the final Dublin 3 and to finally closing the
borders to prevent illegal migrants from entering the European Union, actually resulted in worsening
conditions for the migrants and made their lives difficult. Even in the growing Rohingya crisis, any
efforts by the UN to control the crisis and interference in the internal politics of Myanmar, actually
resulted in further alienation and discrimination against the community.

 Law 6: Faster is Slower.

The story of the tortoise and the hare suggests that when we try to move too fast we can get left behind.
Every system has it own unique and optimal speed. This kind of thinking is often articulated as “fixing”
things. When you hear something like: “We’re bringing in a consultant (or hiring a new manager) to
fix things around here”, be very wary. A fast fix often leads to a slow cure. Finding sustainable solutions
can take time. Community members may need time and space to absorb and adjust to new ideas or
changes. The pay value of slowing the pace is a more involved and supportive community.

Here, we will talk about the repercussions of quickly implementing solutions to address the crisis. After
the European Migrant crisis deepened, and there were Syrian refugees at the German border, and the
country hastily and quickly abolished the Dublin system and allowed people to seek asylum. This was
done on humanitarian grounds, however, it has lead to growing resentment in Germany.

Protest against refugees in Germany

After the country opened its borders to refugees, there has been increasing number of crimes and one
such incident which grabbed the limelight was the New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany. Here,
the migrants were accused of forming groups and assaulting people – with several cases of thefts and
 sexual assault reported. Thus, this shows that the crisis needs to be dealt in a proper, thought driven
way rather than hastily implementation of decision – as this incident has put even the lives of the
migrants in danger with the growing resentment against them from the German population.

 Law 7: Cause and Effect are not closely related in Time or Space
Delays between cause and effect are normal since cause and effect are not closely related in time and
space - this is the fundamental characteristic of complex systems, human or organizational. If you
recognize the symptoms in time and do something about it, you can bring about appropriate change to
stop the symptoms. Here lies the difficulty - symptoms do not appear soon after the causes. Cause and
effect are not close in time and space.

Here, we will talk about the Rohingya Migrant Crisis, and how 70 years of discrimination and ill-
treatment finally resulted in the migration of Rohingyas from Myanmar. The Rohingyas were an ethnic
Muslim minority group in Myanmar residing in the Rakhine State. They have been living in Myanmar
since centuries, however still considered as illegal migrants from Bangladesh. Since 1948, the
government of Myanmar refuses to grant citizenship to Rohingyas, often discriminating them on
religious grounds and depriving them of the basic human rights. Finally, in 2017 the Rohingya protested
and clashed broke out in the Rakhine provinces. The military took action and cleaned the entire state
off Rohingyas. Since then the Rohingyas have been migrating seeking refuge in countries such as
Bangladesh, Thailand and Indonesia. Thus, the effects of 70 year old discrimination, were finally visible
in the form of mass migration.

 Law 8: Small Changes can produce big Results – but the areas of higher Leverage are often
the less obvious.
In systems thinking, we do not look for leverage near the symptoms of the problem – we need to go
upstream and back-stream in time and space to ferret out the root cause. Often, the most effective
action is the subtlest. Sometimes it is best to do nothing, letting the system make its own correction or
guide the action. Other times, the highest leverage is found in a completely unexpected source.

As we have seen in the context of the European Crisis and the eventual collapse of the Dublin System,
changing the entire system and creating new rules and regulations only add to the chaos and does no
real good. The changes need to be small and incremental and the first step is to acknowledge that the
current system is flawed and it needs to be reworked and changed. We have to begin by abolishing the
Dublin System. The creation of an independent assessment mechanism of national asylum systems
across Europe would recognise that different standards of protection are applied across the EU, and
help to identify the key areas and countries for improvements. Moreover, the distribution criteria require
reconsideration; clearly, pressure should be taken off the southern-border states such as Greece.There
is also the need for improved communication with persons seeking protection in Europe, in order to
better understand the profile of asylum seekers, their vulnerabilities and wishes.

 Law 9: You can have your cake and eat it too – but not at once.
Black and white, either/or thinking - courtesy of Mr. Newton. In so many instances we think something
is an either/or problem when in fact it’s a dilemma that can become both/and if we change how we
think of the problem and allow time for solutions to work. Invite stakeholders into the process of
 imagining possible solutions and potential long term outcomes.

Certain problems cannot be solved alone and we need stakeholders and other parties to intervene for a
peaceful solution, and one such problem which needs intervention is the persecution of Rohingyas in
Myanmar. The world bodies and ASEAN nations need to come together to convince the government
against atrocities, and to allow Rohingyas to live peacefully with their deserved human rights. ASEAN,
India and Bangladesh need to discuss the Rohingya crisis together to work for an optimum solution to
the problem. The first step would be to convince the present government in Myanmar about the benefits
of well-coordinated cooperation between ASEAN members, India and Bangladesh to tackle the
issue.The platforms of the regional and sub-regional institutions including ASEAN Regional Forum
(ARF) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral, Technical and Economic Cooperation
(BIMSTEC) need to be more effectively used to convince the National League for Democracy (NLD)
government in Myanmar to discuss the issue openly and take advantages of the experience of countries
like India and Thailand who have long experience in dealing with insurgency and terrorism.

 Law 10: Dividing an Elephant in half does not produce two Elephants
Inability to see the system as a whole can create a world of problems. Chunking up the system and
trying to analyze the parts independently is possibly the worst solution. What works for the trunk will
probably be the worst possible solution for the tail. This does not mean you cannot work within
boundaries; it just means that staying aware of the whole, using multiple, diverse perspectives and
attending to how the parts interact will be more helpful and less messy.

Its time to look at the bigger picture and what actually caused European Migration Crisis. Its not about
the asylum seekers reaching the doors of the EU, its more about what made them flee their homelands
and seek for asylum in the first place. All of this is man-made, stemming from fanaticism and violence.
Thus seeking answers on how to control the refugees, granting them asylum or distributing them across
the EU is not the solution. That’s looking at just one small part of the whole problem – one should look
at ways to prevent the crisis from happening in the first place. To intervene and make these countries
peaceful again. The solution lies in the prevention of migration and not its mere distribution.

 Law 11: There is no blame

In a complex adaptive system there is no separate “other,” – the we versus they. Everything and
everyone is connected and together we co-create the whole system. Sometimes we have difficulty with
this. We reflex to blame, we deflect, and deny. Its hard to take full responsibility for something that
seems to be outside of our control without trying to control everything. It can feel like two competing
ideas and for many that feeling is uncomfortable. Peter Senge suggests: The cure lies with the
relationships with the very people we typically blame for the problems we are trying to solve.

Who is to be blamed for the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas in Myanmar? The Myanmar
Government. Yes, they have forced them out of the country and denied them the most basic
fundamental rights, however, the world realizes that the solution to the Rohingya crisis, also lies in the
hand of the Myanmar Government. They need to be convinces to allow the Rohingyas back into
Myanmar and provide them with equal rights and opportunities. It’s the government who needs to be
forced into making the right moves to provide for an end to this crisis.
Question 3) As Assurance of Learning (AOL2) that studies any market phenomenon, create
at least two Laws of your own similar to the Eleven System Laws for explaining and
predicting market behavior that is not covered by the Eleven Laws. Explain each new Law
and its potential for explaining and predicting behavior of the phenomena you have chosen
for investigation. Illustrate the application of each Law by past, current or projected
examples.
[Ayush Mittal- B18076]

 Law 1: Every problem grows gradually, and doesn’t just emerges out of nowhere
All the problems that we come across, have their roots in a phenomenon that might have occurred long
back. They don’t just emerge randomly out of thin air. It’s a slow process, gradually leading up to
bigger and larger problems.

For ex. The Global Financial Crisis did not just happen one day in 2008. It was a systematic process
where one action lead to another over the years. The failures of the regulatory committees to foresee
it, the blindness of the investors and the greed of the banks all helped fuel the crisis. What actually
happened was just an outcome of the slow process that finally lead up to it.

Does this mean however that all problems can be predicted? No. It is difficult to predict problems just
like that. We can however, predict that something might not result in the ways we actually anticipate it
to be and that’s where we should draw the line. However, our greed and personal interests blind us
and we chose to ignore what is lies so evidently in front of us.

One does not leave their home and move out of it just like that. They are leaving behind their culture,
their lives, their memories and most of all their loved ones. It takes extreme harsh situations and cruel
realities for an individual to take the extreme step of leaving their country and seek refuge in an
unknown and hostile place. Does that mean the situations that lead up to such a scenario arose suddenly?
No. They are a gradual process, developing over years of trauma and violence. The circumstances
which finally lead to the global immigration crisis developed over the years. We could foresee them,
we could sense them, yet we chose to ignore.

Syria (Before and After)

 Who could not see the plight of the Rohingyas? Who could not see the deplorable conditions of the
Syrians? Who could not see the economic crisis Venezuela was going through? Yet, the organizations
did nothing for the people. They let them suffer. Left them alone. They waited. Waited for the situation
to get better, with the hope that their homeland will be what it was. They lost their loved ones, in the
hope that the sacrifices will be worth the wait. However, nothing happened. And then, they left. Left in
the hope that somewhere some country will provide them with the most basic necessities of life – food
and shelter. And that’s what gave rise to the Global Crisis of Asylum Immigration. A slow, gradual
process which happened right under our nose and we chose to ignore it.

 Law 2: A good beginning does not necessarily makes a good ending

They say that when it starts well, it will necessarily end well. If the foundations are strong, the building
will be strong too. However, this is not necessarily true all the time. A fairytale beginning can end in
the most deplorable of endings. What matters is the journey and not necessarily the start. It can be the
other way around as well, that the start was bad however, it ended well.

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. It has plenty of resources to take care of itself, the
country initially was prosperous with traders and merchants and industries beginning to exploit the vast
oil reserves that country has.

Venezuelans crossing the Simon Bolivar Bridge which takes them to Colombia

The country was a successful and well-functioning democracy under the rule of the charismatic Hugo
Chavez. However, shortly after his death what followed was a series of oppression and economic
turmoil under the leadership of Nicolas Maduro. The countries inflation is an all time high, over reliance
on oil and ignoring all other sectors lead to a severe shortage of food. Because of the dip in the global
oil prices, the country is unable to sustain its economy and because of complete devaluation of its
currency cannot afford to import even the most basic necessities. Thus, deprived the people of
Venezuela are migrating leaving their homelands and moving to the neighboring countries of
Argentina, Colombia and Peru. Thus what initially started off as a prosperous democracy with a bright
future and a potential to be a member of the growing economies of the world, has declined and fallen
into the hands of a dictator – the country has suffered the ills of the dreaded resource curse.
Question 4) Apply now the Ten Archetypes of Systems-Thinking (see also Chapter 2) as
Assurance of Learning (AOL3) that studies any market phenomenon. Explain each
Archetype and its potential for explaining and predicting, past or expected structures of
market behavior of the same phenomenon under investigation. Illustrate the application of
each Archetype by past, current or projected examples.
[Anshul Khandelwal- B18073]

Question 5) This is Executive Exercise AOL4. Read Chapter 15 on Ethics of Corporate Moral
Reasoning, Moral Judgment Calls and Moral Justification. Make a moral judgment call on the
market event you have chosen: Who was right, who was wrong? In general, any moral justification
of one's corporate judgment and decision involves five supporting sets of beliefs and values held by a
particular person in one or more of the following hierarchical series of moral values:

A. A set of normative ethical theories;

B. A set of moral principles derived from set A;
C. A set of moral standards derived from sets A and B,
D. A set of moral rules derived from set C, and
E. A set of moral judgments resulting from applying sets A, B, C or D while assessing
concrete actions.

Next, basing on Exhibits 15A and 15B, do AOL4 in two parts: a) Defend your moral judgment on the
market events chosen using Reverse Moral Justification; b) Defend your moral judgment using
Forward Moral Justification.

[Avi Goyal- B18077]

The decision of Indian government to limit Rohingya people to camps at India-Myanmar border in
inhumane conditions with no provisions of proper sanitation, food & employment and not allow them as
refugees leave alone giving them the status of citizens (as some countries in Europe like Germany have
done) can be considered as a double standard to its own advantage. India has always boast itself as a peace
loving country at international stage and has sympathized with people with whom wrong has been done
e.g. condemning the actions of Syrian president Bashar-Al-Assad whose actions has rendered millions of
Syrians without home. But this condemnation seems to be as hollow as a drum because when a similar
situation arose in its neighborhood, Indian stance has taken a U-turn.

The not so welcome attitude of Indian government and its various agencies towards these people who have
fled the atrocities of their own government in the guise of national security can’t be justified morally.
Probably the fear of national security of its land and citizens stems from what has happened in in the form
of bombings and various attacks in those European countries who welcomed refugees from middle east
countries. Though it is prerogative of any Government to keep its citizens away from harms of such nature
but the question arises at what cost? Is it at the cost of lives of hundreds of thousands of other people?

The above judgement that the action of Indian Government was wrong can be evaluated by Reverse moral
justification and forward moral justification.
Forward moral justification:

Step Forward Moral Justification Assessment of Justification

A Deontological moral theory can be
invoked here in understanding,
characterizing and defining this
problem of refugee crisis
Here even though Indian government acted in
interest of its citizen i.e. fearing that entering of
Rohingyas in India legally/illegally might lead to
increased terrorism (could be because of multiple
reasons such as unemployed youth taking this
route or planned associates of terrorist
organizations) but such behaviour/rational needs
to be seen from other perspective also to reach at
the conclusion of exactly how moral is this decision.

B The deontological principle of non- Do not harm others. Can this principle be applied
malfeasance only when we are/aren’t doing harm to anybody or
also when our action in order to promote welfare
of someone, risks the lives of others. The non-
acceptance of Rohingyas on soil has put their lives
at risk where they have no proper food to eat, no
permanent shelter to prevent themselves from
adversity of nature.

C Do not kill moral standard can be Every year around 240,000 people die of improper
applied here sanitation. This is the situation when people who
live in/near their homes. When conditions of
refugee camps is talked about only one word
seems to describe them “Absymal”. Leaving these
refugees in such conditions because of no fault of
theirs seems to violate this moral standard. Do not
kill does not mean no active killing, rather it
illustrates that saving also (if capable of saving
someone from such fortune).

D It is wrong to kill innocent people Rohingya crisis dates back to 1948. It’s been 70
moral rule can be applied here to years since this crisis has been going on and people
understand this even further born in generations after 1948 did not have any role
to play in its origin. Just because they have been
taught by their preceding generations that they
deserve more than what they have been given and
hence their actions subsequently (non-harmful) do
not make them criminals. Hence they are as
innocent as any other person on this earth and letting
 them die is akin to killing them. It is wrong to kill
innocent people.

E Moral judgement basis moral theory, Therefore it can be concluded that it was wrong of
moral principle, moral standard and Indian government to go to maximum measures to
moral rules ensure that Rohingyas living in abysmal condition
in camps at border do not enter India. Though this
decision was taken by them for the well-being of
one community but at the cost of lives of other
community.

Reverse moral justification:

Step Reverse Moral Justification Assessment of Justification

E Moral judgement
D It is wrong to be a by-stander to an
event in which wrong is being done
to someone.
C Upholding rights and duties moral
standard can be applied here
B The moral principle which can be
applied here is Do unto others what
you would like others to do unto
you
Even after criticism of Myanmar government at
International platform by bodies such as UN and that of
Indian government as well in failing to act in favor of
Rohingya refugees underlies a simple concept of
amorality if not immorality. This rational of saving lives
of higher number of people instead is morally wrong when
it is on the basis of negative assumptions alone.
Speaking from only legal perspective there are no stakes
involved for Indian government in this crisis. There is no
obligation/no treaty as such to accept these refuges on its
land and look after them. But only legal values/documents
define humans today? Though it can be agreed that legal
structure has evolved like never before today and is still
learning from whatever happens today and what happened
in past, answers to all questions can’t be from strictly legal
perspective. Hence India acting as by-stander to all the
atrocities being done upon these people is wrong.
A constitution of any democracy provides its citizens with
fundamental rights which are non-negotiable unless as
deemed unfit by law in rarest instances e.g. Right to live
being violated in case of death penalty when the person is
involved in a heinous crime. But beyond these
fundamental rights (because Myanmar has refused to
accept Rohingyas as their citizens hence fundamental
rights can’t be applied technically) there exists humanity
rights. No one deserves to die a life devoid of dignity.
Conditions of refugee camps mirror life without dignity.
This implies we have failed in performing our duties and
safeguarding their rights.
In case of any crisis/problem we would expect others to
help us out. We would like that our rights remain as they
were in comfortable times. We would expect our relatives,
neighbors, friends and even government to help in their
 maximum possible capacity. Failing to do so by any party
might lead to a trust deficit in future and even severing off
relationship in worst case scenario. Despite of this us as
citizens of India have not taken initiative to persuade our
government to do justice for these people atleast on
humanitarian grounds.
A Here theory of Distributive Justice Since here all rights and duties have not been equitably
can be applied divided i.e. partiality has been done to inhabitants of this
earth Distributive Justice can be said to be violated here.

Question 6) This is Executive Exercise AOL5. Read Chapter 16 on Ethics of Moral Justification.
Study the same market event, now from the viewpoint of justice. Chapter 16, Table 16.3 provides 9
justice Rules (R01- R09) based on Deontological Justice, 4 Rules (R10, R11a, R11b and R12) based
on Teleological Justice, and Table 16.4 provides 16 Rules (R13- R 28) based on Distributive Justice.
Using all 29 Rules of Justice, do AOL 5 as illustrated in Chapter 16, Table 16.5 (ABC).
[Akanksha Agrawal- B18067]

Applying Deontological Justice Rules

Justice Ethical Theory of Deontological Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Deontological Justice:
Rules Justice
Do all the countries treat Did Outcomes of asylum immigration
asylum immigrants by: treat others by:

R01 Kantian Formalism: Act Principles of Principles of Universalizability?

inasmuch as your act is Universalizability?
NO: every person has a different
motivated by a law that can
NO: Different laws are there perspective or affected in a different
apply to all.
for various asylum seeker manner by immigrants
immigrants in a country

R02 Kantian Formalism: Act Principles of Reversibility? Principles of Reversibility??

inasmuch as your act is grounded
No: Different countries treat No: Irrespective of the fact what the
on moral reasons that convince
immigrants in an unlike outcome is , it will be different of
all.
manner which may not different citizens
convince all.

R03 Principle of Deontological Principle of Deontological Principle of Deontological Justice among

Justice: Safeguard economic and Justice among the the marginalized?
social rights and duties of the marginalized?
NO: Many times citizens have to
marginalized
NO: Every country does not compromise with their social and
treat immigrants in the economic rights because of the
rightful way.

R04 Prince of Deontological Justice:
Also safeguard rights and duties
of corporate executives
R05 Situationanism: When
rights/duties conflict, the actual
situation should determine the
decision ad judgment but one
must own the act and its
consequences.
R06 Existentialism: When amidst
uncertainty, risk and ambiguity,
right or wrong, truth or
falsehood, and good or evil
cannot be clearly distinguished,
then act in the midst of doubt.
R07 Legalism: Legitimacy of
government laws and industry
ordinances
R08 Contractualism: Binding capacity
of freely agreed on contracts.
differential treatment of government
towards the immigrants
Principle of Deontological Principle of Deontological Justice among
Justice among the corporate all the corporate executives:
executives: YES, to the extent
Yes: No matter what the outcome is ,
maximization of wealth
interest of the top executives are mostly
safeguards wealth aggregation
met
rights of corporate Executives.
Principle of Existential Principle of Existential Situationism: YES.
Situationism: The countries where immigrants migrate
to and its citizens might face the
YES: Countries might face a
consequences of the asylum immigration.
dilemma while safeguarding
the interest of immigrants. In
that case their judgement is
situational based and they
take full responsibility of it.
Principle of Existentialism: Principle of Existentialism: NO. The
government or the citizens are mostly
YES: Sometimes when there is
clear on what to do and they either
no clear path then the
clearly support the immigrants or not.
decision is taken in the midst
of doubt
Compliance to legitimately Compliance to legitimately promulgated
promulgated and enforced and enforced government laws and
government laws and industry industry ordinances?
ordinances?
NO: In various countries citizens does not
Yes: Rules and regulations are obey to the laws enforced by the
prescribed by the countries government for the immigrants
especially for the immigrants
and they are required to abide
by it
Compliance to freely agreed Compliance to freely agreed on contracts
on contracts to help the to help the citizens? YES. The citizens are
asylum immigrants? Yes. entitled to be protected against harmful
There exists a right to help outcomes (if any) of the asylum
immigrants if they are not safe immigration.
in their own country.
 R09 Parenesis: A Code of ethics that NO: Not all countries follow
counsels and exhorts action. The ethical measures to safeguard
obligation is parenetic or the interest of the immigrants
hortatory.
Applying Teleological Justice Rules
Justice Rules Ethical Theory of Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Teleological Justice:
Teleological Justice
Do all the countries treat
asylum immigrants by:
R10 Hedonism: Satisfaction Principle of Universal
and Pleasure of all Hedonism: Do asylum
(Jeremy Bentham) immigration promote
happiness and satisfaction to
immigrants? NO: Not
necessarily, immigration is not
a happy and satisfying
experience.
R11a Utilitarianism (J. S. Principle of utility-maximization
Mill): Maximize utility of the greatest number
of all fulfilled? NO. Asylum
immigration does not fulfil
utility for all, though it might
aim towards it.
R11b Consequentialism (E. Reducing harmful
Anscombe 1920-2001): consequences to all? NO. Not
Maximally reduce all countries is able to reduce
harmful consequences the harmful consequences to
to all. immigrants.
R12 Eudemonism Principle of happiness of the
(Aristotle): Principle of maximum fulfilled? NO.
happiness of the Immigrants look for a safe place
maximum and they do not always get one.
Hence, principle of happiness
to maximum is not followed
here.
Applying Distributive Justice Rules
Compliance to agreed upon codes of
conduct?
NO: Still many don’t obey to the code of
ethics enforced by the government
Do Outcomes of asylum immigration treat
others by:
Principle of Universal Hedonism: Do asylum
immigration happiness and satisfaction of
all others, citizens and government? NO.
Mostly citizens are not happy with the
immigrants coming and staying in their
country.
Principle of utility-maximization of the
greatest number fulfilled? NO. Looking
from citizen point of view, the utility
minimizes for them.
Minimizing harmful consequences to all the
others involved? NO. Asylum immigration
may put the citizens or nation under
harmful consequences.
Principle of happiness of the maximum
fulfilled? NO. Asylum immigrants may cause
unhappiness among others.
Distri-butive Ethical Ethical Rule based on the Ethical Theory of Distributive Justice:
Justice Rules Theory of
Do all the countries treat asylum Did Outcomes of asylum immigration treat
Distributive
immigrants by: others (immigrants and citizens)by:
Justice (DJ)

R13 Formal Aristotle’s Canon of Equality: The level of The level of equality among the others (i.e.,
Justice: equality in treatment among different citizens and immigrants)? NO. There is huge
Egalitarianism immigrants? NO. Immigrants are treated difference in the way government, people
differently according to the country they treat them differently.
belong from.

R14 Socialist The Canon of Need: The level of need
Justice among the immigrants? Yes. Even though
Asylum immigrants come from different
regions or countries, their basic need of a
save and friendly place is same.
Their level of need? NO. Needs of the citizens
and immigrants are different and so is the
level of their needs.

R15 Naturalist The Canon of Natural Ability: The level of Their level of innate ability? NO: Merit and
Justice innate ability among the immigrants? ability of the citizens are much more superior
YES. The things that the immigrants are than that of immigrants given the region
capable of, is more or less the same. they live in.

R16 Retributive The Canon of Effort: The level of effort Their level of effort? NO. It is very much
Justice among the immigrants? YES. Asylum evident that immigrants have to be go
immigrants, irrespective of their origin through a whole lot troubles and put in more
puts in same effort to live a safe life. efforts than citizens to lead a safe life.

R17 Capitalist The Canon of Productivity: The level of The level of contribution of the citizens and
Justice contribution of the immigrants? YES. immigrants? NO: Citizens most of the times
Among the asylum immigrants, it is contribute more.
almost the same.

R18 Libertarian The Canon of Social Utility: The level of The level of social value among citizens? NO.
Justice social value of the asylum immigrants? the social value of the citizens can differ on
YES. basis of many factors like wealth, status, etc.

R19 Libertarian The Canon of Supply-demand: The level Their level of market-exchange value? NO
Justice of market-exchange value of the
immigrants? NO. there has been huge
increase in number of immigrants and
thus the crisis.
R20 Individual Rescher’s Canon of Legitimate Claims: The level of legitimate claims of the citizens?
Justice The level of legitimate claims of the YES: The citizens enjoy same level of
asylum immigrants? YES. Their level of legitimate claims but it is different between
claims is same but sadly, not always met. citizens and immigrants.

R21 Fair Rawls’ Equality Principle: Do immigration Does asylum immigration offer equal
Opportunist of the few offer equal opportunity to all? opportunity to all? YES. Immigration on its
Justice NO. Those able to immigrate get much core happen due to lack of opportunity. So
more opportunities than others. asylum immigration happens to give equal
opportunity to all

R22 Libertarian Rawls’ Difference Principle: Do asylum Nullifying undeserved advantages among all
Egalitarian immigration nullify undeserved stakeholders? NO
Justice advantages to citizens? NO.

R23 Libertarian Nozick’s Principle of Distributive Justice: One’s level of original entitlements? YES
Justice By the level of original entitlements of
the immigrants? YES

R24 Non- Principle of Strict Liability: Doing no harm Doing no harm or evil to others? YES.
malfeasance or evil to the immigrants? NO. Immigration does not have any direct harm
Justice Immigrants have been done harm or evil. to citizens.

R25 Preemptive Principle of Preventive Justice:
Justice Preventing all evil to the immigrants?
NO. Technically, immigrants should be
prevented from all evil but in reality, very
few steps are taken towards it
Preventing all evil to the citizens? YES.
Government do try to prevent its citizens
from all evil

R26 Protective Principle of Protective Justice: Protecting Protecting the citizens and government from
Justice the immigrants from evil? NO. evil? NO. Sometimes the country may face
Immigrants are more vulnerable to harm harm due to the immigrants.
and evil

R27 Procedural Principle of Procedural Justice and Does asylum immigration help in setting up a
Justice; Corrective Justice Do asylum immigration just system? NO, immigration happen due to
Corrective happen due to current unjust procedures unjust system, it might not help in setting up
Justice or system? YES. One of the reasons of a just system but does give a push due to the
immigration is lack of basic human rights. crisis the world is facing because of this.
R28 Beneficent Principle of Beneficent Justice: Enabling Do asylum immigration empower others to
Justice the immigration in doing good to all? do or promote good? YES, if people really
YES, asylum immigration is meant to do want to do something good for immigrants.
good to all.

Question 7) This is Executive Exercise AOL6. Given your approach in questions 1-6, and based on
Chapter 15, frame at least five ethical and moral questions regarding the market event chosen and
respond to them. For illustrations on types of questions, see under each of the three Cases introduced
at the beginning of Chapter 15.
[Akanksha Agrawal- B18067]

Question 8) This is Executive Exercise AOL7. Apply critical thinking and LEMS to the phenomena
(see Chapter 13): Study its legal (e.g., approval, legitimacy, license, safety, vigilance, security, liability,
quality, …), ethical (is it the right thing, economically justifiable, due-diligence, right trade-offs,
socially desirable, form versus function, nationally benefiting, ecologically sound, sustainability-wise
planetary and cosmic, ethical audit, …?), moral (is it doing the right thing rightly, in the right time,
right place, right people, highest number of stakeholders, with right moral principles, right moral
standards, right moral categorical imperatives, moral audit, …?) and spiritual (Is it doing right thing,
rightly and for the right reasons and intentions, motivations and aspirations, right spirit of dharma,
spiritual audit, …?
[Aaditya Kaul- B18062]

Immigration is a complex, difficult issue that requires sensibilities and point of views of various
stakeholders from the refugees to governments and natives to foreign influence be considered in order to
strike a consensus for whether or not asylum be allowed to refugees in the host country. Issues such as
approval from the required legal/administrative process, legitimacy in asylum request, safety and security
of the host country & natives and also being able to provide a better quality of life to these refugees.
LEMS as a framework is extremely helpful in reflecting on the issue of irregular/illegal immigration and
making a prudent decision.

1. LEGAL
Analyzing the legal framework i.e. the law of the host country as well as the migrants’ nation and also the
international policies and conventions that may bind nation states in terms of their migration/asylum
policies is crucial to decision making with regard to immigration.
Some of the international conventions and agreements that deal with asylum migration are as follows:
1. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
2. The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
3. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families
4. The International Convention on Transnational Organized Crime
5. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and
Children.
There are two schools of thoughts with regard to these international policies and conventions- one
states that these conventions and agreements are guiding forces to all countries in formulating their
respective laws and subsequent enforcement; other argument is that such international laws are not
binding on sovereign nations.
With respect to the three asylum cases as discussed in Question 1, legal framework applicable in decision
making is as follows:
a) European countries such as Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy among others allowed these irregular
immigrants to come in initially until they realized that this was putting strain on their limited
resources. Also, these immigrants were being targeted as vote-banks and their asylum requests
made election agenda by political parties in order to improve vote share in elections. This disrupted
the political eco-system in many of these countries with also conflicts between various cultural
groups. Rising tensions thereafter led governments to consider the deportation of refugees and/or
limited asylum request acceptance by a change in legal policy.

b) India does not have any asylum laws. It was shaken by the large influx of Rohingya’s immigration
into the country and did not have any political/strategic wisdom of how to go about the deportation
of the refugees considering that strong strategic partnership and bilateral relations with Myanmar
is a key ingredient of India’s Act East Policy. However, India has decided to deport 40000
Rohingya immigrants that as many including the NSA claimed to be murderers and ones with links
with terrorist and insurgency groups.

c) Venezuelan immigrants distressed of economic breakdown, food insecurity, unemployment were

allowed to enter by neighboring countries like Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile initially but not in
large numbers. These countries reflected on the kind of strain it put on their countries’ limited
resources. This hardened their response to asylum requests in way of tougher legal requirements.
Countries like Trinidad and Tobago don’t have asylum laws itself and thus treat irregular migrants
as criminals. Colombia has also restricted access to asylum while Chile requires refugees to apply
for entry at Chilean consulates in Venezuela and show a passport.

2. ETHICAL
Again, there are two major strands of thoughts in viewing immigration/asylum in the context of its
ethicality.
Many assert that world is truly a global village and therefore migration from one country to the other must
be allowed. This view articulates that interests of one country cannot supersede the interests of other
countries and that powerful countries should not be the only ones unfairly setting the global agenda on
immigration and deciding what the rest of the world should be doing. These commentators believe that the
human rights of refugees need to be protected no matter what and that governments should work together
towards a uniform global immigration policy that shares the benefits and costs of migration equally among
countries.
Contrary viewpoint is that due-diligence needs to be undertaken in terms of strict checks and balances on
the credentials of the asylum-seeker. Desirability of refugees in the host country and whether or not the
host country would be able to provide decent quality of life and opportunities to the refugees are critical
questions. Arguments that additional influx of immigrants strains the limited resource of the host country
and is therefore neither nationally benefiting, nor ecologically prudent/sustainable are also presented.
Therefore, question at hand is also whether or not international conventions be legally binding on all
sovereign nations?
Ethicality in action is very subjective to the one undertaking it. Countries who refuse refugee reason it on
security and national interests, whereas those refugees who seek asylum defend the same based on their
aggrieved circumstances.

3. MORAL
Morality in action is all about doing the right thing rightly in the right time, at the right place for the highest
number of stakeholders reflecting right moral principles.
Once what is right is established which in all the three case illustrations in Question 1) was to reduce and/or
refuse asylum requests, it is important that the right action be undertaken rightly. That is, for Germany or
Spain or Chile or India to refuse/reduce asylum requests (because of multiple right reasons as stated above
ranging from national security reasons to financial constraints and inability to feed such influx), it is
important that this reduction/refusal (deportation at times) be done in the best strategic manner.
For example, host country needs to be able to strategically deport/refuse asylum without offending the
interests of the migrants’ country. That is, Germany maintains bilateral relations with African countries
and the Arab world and therefore turning down request of refugee needs to be done carefully without
disrupting the geopolitics of the relationship. Same goes for India refusing Rohingya’s when Myanmar
does not want them back and that India seeks to strengthen bilateral ties with Burmese in order to contain
the Chinese and the North-East insurgency by coordinated development efforts.

4. SPIRITUAL
Spirituality in action is all about doing the right thing rightly for the right reasons and intentions, motivations
and aspirations and right spirit of dharma.
For example, take the Rohingya crisis affecting India. Now, India is a civilization that has always believed
in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and accepted different cultures and communities such as the Parsis, Jews
and Tibetans over the years. However, Indian history of brutal invasion and conquest also means that India
needs to be careful in accepting people only after their intentions and credentials are checked.
The fact that Rohingya as a tribe is accused of fostering militancy in Myanmar and Bangladesh and is
suspected of links with terror and insurgency is an important decision making criteria for the Indian
Government. Cases of temple desecration in Jammu and other attacks/conflicts at the hands of the Rohingya
as per the NSA review is crucial to the decision of asylum acceptance.
What Indian Government also needs to ensure is the security and safety of its own people and that that is
not compromised by others. Also considering that India is an over populous country where limited resources
barely reach the Indian public, being able to provide similar quality of life and opportunities in terms of
education, healthcare, employment among others to refugees is difficult.
Therefore, the intentions are honorable for the Indian security and policy reasons and that India has never
previously refused anyone seeking refuge, however circumstances surrounding the Rohingya’s are so
troubling and suspicious that the right spirit of dharma is to secure our own borders and people.
Similar intentions and reasons are at display even in European and South American countries
refusing/limiting asylum to Arabian/African and Venezuelan refugees respectively.