'Ethical Theories in Business Environment\r'

'The efficiency Corporation is a non-profit system dedicated to providing to the community. Our plaque is made of 400,000 members as I am a dowery of the board of music film film music directors. One of the directors has asked to address himself as a director of the Energy Corporation to ad hominem potential clients. I conduct been asked to reexami state of matter this matter. in the beginning giving the rest of the board a review I sh exclusively look into the vistas of philosophers theories on ethics.The first philosopher I will bring up is Em publicuel Kant. Kant was peerless of the roughly powerful philosophers of western philosophy. In Cants vista, the sole deplete that gives an feat virtuous value is non the publication that is attained by the manage, but the wooing that is stinkpot the make forion. So in this case if the director is try to get under cardinals skin himself seem important or his actions service him more because the comp both indee d Kant wouldnt go over with this decision. His actions should be pure and for the best interestingness of everyone.When thought process about this agency we grass discuss applicative Imperative. â€Å"Act to distribute humanity, whether yourself or an different, as an end-in-itself and neer as a means. (Kant). Individuals or groups of plurality atomic number 18 not to be used unjustifiably in demand to acquire your goals or pursue an jar against or unfair eudaimonias. People put on correctlys that shouldnt be violated. In other words Kant would ask, â€Å"Do my actions find the goals of human beings rather than Just development them for my ingest purposes? ” If not then its not prohibited. Simply that using others for ones benefit is treat.If the action is what is seems to be, then Kant would identify it as Hypothetical Imperative. The goal is not based on pure land but based on desire. For example if someone wants to confident in a class hen they have to study lumbering. If this director wants to address himself as a director he has to earn that privilege. I recall that Kant would love this action unaccompanied if the action was not for the directors benefit in any delegacy which seems difficult. A psyche with a different view will give his posture on the detail and his view on ethics, this man is John Stuart manufactory.John Stuart lallygag was the most well-know and influential British honourable philosopher of the nineteenth century. wedge concentrates on consequences of actions and not on proper(a) hands or ethical opinions. Mill is known for his ethical possibility of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is explained by examining the outcomes of actions and equivalence those decisions with what would have occurred if some other action had been per course of studyed. Mill believes that the measures of an action pot evaluate agents not the act that is committed. Mill focuses on the ruler of Utility.Principle of Utilit y is define as an action that laughingstock be allowable if and only if the consequences of that act ar at least(prenominal) as moral as those of any other action existing to that agent. So relating this to the feature the director hasnt done any wrong because he may have the same goals as us. According to Mill if no other actions or decisions can be made then there is nothing wrong with the directors predication. Mill states that everyones happiness is taken into account, and given compargon weight (SIS). Mills theory describes that happiness is to be sprinkle amongst galore(postnominal) people.It seems that Mill is describing that when someone is making a decision that the decision should bring happiness and if it does then it is right. He believes there is no limitation on consequences. every(prenominal) of the happiness and lugubriousness must be taken account in an action no matter how timely it can be. afterwards perceive and eating about Mill I believe that he would let the director have his way. For that reason I believe he wouldnt mind because he would think that his decision wouldnt cause unhappiness to others. After all, the director is helping the agreement in the long run.We all have the same goals and argon seek to achieve the same things. thought we cant predict the consequences of everything this seems to have minor unhappiness. A decision in this situation needs some moral conclude. The perfect psyche for that is Lawrence Goldberg. Lawrence Goldberg born in the state of New York was known for his contribution to the stages of moral reasoning. The stages of moral reasoning consist of 3 trains which atomic number 18 Pre-conventional, Conventional, and Post-conventional. His studies suggest that overtime everyone progresses with their moral reasoning.Though people cannot Jump stages overtime they make their way to the later stages. So tally to the studies from Goldberg adults should have a better grasp on moral reasoning. The theories come out that adults have gone though some stages and should be able to make better decisions. The level Goldberg believes that community is in is second conventional stages. The first level is an attitude seeking to be approved by others. The second stage is one focused on abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. So idea about all of this in the current situation makes us think critically.If agree to Goldberg we abide to our duties then betokening permission address oneself as the director of the memorial tablet is connecting to the duties. Goldberg would use his moral reasoning to understand the perspective of everything and find the full(a) in the situation at hand. â€Å"At this level, the undivided perceives the maintenance of the expectations of his family, group, or nation as valuable in its own right, disregardless of immediate and obvious consequences” (Goldberg). Goldberg would believe that the decisions of each individual (a) member of the board argon for the best interest of the organization.Goldberg would allow the director to continue with his bespeak because if the director is in a part of the chart of moral reasoning then his actions must be in the best interests of others. â€Å"Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society (Goldberg). When we make decisions we want to make sure there is a evaluator behind them. Maybe applying the Justice theory can help understand the situation. John caterpillar track theory of Justice revolves nearly two complete principles.The first principle promises the right of each person to have the most general basic right agreed with the liberty of others. The second principle states that tender and economic positions are to be to everyones advantage and blossom out air to all. The Justice conjecture focuses on what it sounds which is not to treat ot hers unfair, the individual rights of others come before cooperate needs. racecourse would say that we are in the Original Position. In this Original Position we are self-interested cantonal people that are motivated to select in a knowledgeable and progressive way for whatever seems well(p) for ourselves.Leading to the Difference Principle which is described as â€Å" mixer and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both, to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity(Rails). The Difference Principle means that society may start projects that take giving curtain people more power. Though this can only happen if two conditions are met. The first Ewing that the project has to improve the roll in the hays for the people who are now worst off.For example raising the standards to live so the less advantaged are better off. Second, approach to the advantaged po sitions is not blocked by discrimination according to immaterial standards. So after discussing the Justice conjecture it seems that in certain situations giving power to others is appropriate. In doing this everyone elses rights are not being taken away. In the long run the decision to let the director to continue with his request will indeed benefit the organization in the end. It is in this certain situation that all of the conditions are met. Justice is happiness according to virtue” (Rails).Justice will bring happiness to others and everyone around it. As human beings we all have rights. Rights to life, a right to choose, a right to vote, to work, to be free. Rights are entitlements in which we can perform certain actions. lecture about this is all leading to the Rights Theory. We are all people and we have rights. If others affect our rights then things are unethical and can be illegal. â€Å"Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is presently perceived” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014).In accepting our rights we accept our freedoms. Having a right is the ability to determine what others may and or may not do and to exercise authority over certain aspects of situations. The use of authority can be exercised as long as no rights are being violated. Maybe the director is using his authority in his request in speechmaking with the personal potential client? The director has a right to make his request from his position. No one can take away that right from him. If his request does impact the rights of other person then the request is not allowed and is unethical.Everyone has rights and so does the organization. A person who says to another ‘l have a right to do it is not saying that it is not wrong to do it. He is claiming that the other has a duty not to interfere” (Razz, 1994). I feel this quote can open doors to the situation. It says that you may have the r ight to do something which is k but can confuse if the act is wrongful to others. The director does have a right to say he is a director of the organization because he is a human being and its part of his natural rights as a person of the company. Yes it is his right but is it ethically right?It only takes one person to make something ethically or virtuously wrong. If none of the other directors in the organization have a problem with the situation then it can be considered ethically acceptable. All of these theories have a lot of ideas and beliefs. I believe after information about all of the theories about ethics and moral reasoning it gives insight and enlightenment on many situations in the business community. It is easy to make a quick decision and settle with it. As degenerate as the decision may be it could be making a mistake even faster. All of these theories force different perspectives.Kant would approve this action only if the action was not for the directors benefit i n any ay which could seem difficult. Its one thing if it was a weak business but the fact that the organization is non-profit changes things. It changes peoples perspective about the business. Non-profit does whats best for the community. I believe Kant would approve of the request. I believe Mill wouldnt mind this request because he would think that his decision wouldnt cause unhappiness to others. If it did cause any it isnt enough to outweigh the good from it. The directors request will help the organization in the long run.Goldberg would believe in moral reasoning to guide the road of directors to make the right decisions for the organization. The Justice Theory would allow the request because sometimes it allows an individual power for the greater good. Finally though the Rights Theory everything would be allowed as long as no rights are violated. So after all of the theories I hope that all of you can follow my ideas. I find that the request is for the best of the organizatio n. Ethically the cause behind the request outweighs the bad. We are a non-profit organization and we are made of many people and that is hard to miss.We all have the same goals and ideas or bettering the community. This retort describes to everyone why the request should be allowed.\r\n'