Jan 12, 2018 in Research Essays

Deontological and Teleological Approaches of Developing Ethical Theories

The deontological ethical approach refers to the normative ethical position that utilizes the existing rules to judge the morality of a particular action. Notably, it recognizes and works in line with the established rules and regulations of the land to judge one's moral standards. On the other hand, the teleological ethical approach refers to a philosophical position that reiterates that the ultimate causes exist in nature. This implies that the decisions that individuals make in their daily operations play a key role in affecting the desired moral outcomes.

It is worth noting that the deontological approach utilizes the existing rules and regulations to determine the right and wrong actions in society. People who deviate from the established rules within the society are automatically considered wrong and immoral. From another perspective, individuals are deemed to exhibit high moral standards in cases where they adhere to the existing rules within society. On the other hand, the teleological approach utilizes the outcomes of particular decisions and actions to determine the right and wrong in society. In cases where a particular action leads to the overall good of the people, then it is considered moral, and is viewed immoral, in cases, where the action leads to undesirable final causes toward other people.

One of the key advantages of the deontological approach to ethics is that it offers a significant basis of explaining morality and holding to account those who breach the asserted moral duties. This is affected through the existing rules. Another advantage is that it offers more space for supererogatory. This means that people can do more in terms of their morality than it is required. The key criticism of the deontological approach is that it puts excessive trust in authorities, which could also be wrong in terms of moral standards.

The key advantage of the teleological approach to ethics is that it gives individuals more freedom to make wiser decisions that would determine the final cause. This implies that flexibility is allowed hence leading to improved benefit for most individuals within society. On the other hand, the teleological approach is always criticized basing on judgment. It is always challenging to judge whether particular actions were intended to benefit the majority or not hence a weakness.

The Concept of Diffusion of Responsibility

The concept of diffusion of responsibility refers to a socio-psychological factor that occurs when one fails to take the responsibility for action or inaction, because of the availability of other people. Shaw & Barry (2012) affirm that this mainly occurs in situations where individuals have been divided into groups aimed at the performance of organizational duties and responsibilities. There would be assumptions among some group members that another person could have already performed the duty and there is no reason repeating it. The diffusion of responsibility could also occur in line with the understanding that other people are available and could account for the performance of particular actions.

The existence of particular rules and regulations in the organization is one of the key reasons that may make individuals fail to act according to their beliefs of right and wrong at the workplace. It is vital to note that anyone willing to work in a certain area always has to show commitment to the established rules and regulations as this would boost his/her success in the job. Individuals are forced to comply with these rules and regulations hence being forced to deviate from what they believe to be right or wrong within their organizational context.

More so, individuals may fail to act according to their beliefs of what is right or wrong, in cases, where they are made to work in groups where majority of the members support a particular course. One would not want to be perceived a force of resistance to change and would have to comply with the actions of the group hence going against his/her belief in what is right and wrong at the workplace. The pressure emanating from the group would make individuals perform particular actions with the aim of impressing their group leaders and prospering in their respective jobs. Therefore, the need to comply with the decisions of the majority within the groups would force one to deviate from his/her beliefs of what is right and wrong at the workplace.

An Action Can Be Legal but Immoral

Legal actions are always addressed in the laws of a particular state or country necessitating everyone to follow them accordingly. The established laws are supposed to be followed strictly to ensure that the legality of actions is assured. More so, laws are strict in the sense that they reiterate that ignorance of the law is no defense. This implies that people living in a particular state or country should gain a proper understanding of all the laws for effective living. Therefore, morality refers to the beliefs of society relating to what is right or wrong. Immoral actions are not punished by jailing individuals, because they depend on the perceptions of individuals. Therefore, an action could be legal, but immoral as explained below.

The existence of established laws that conflict with the moral beliefs of the society would make an action legal, but immoral. Some countries and states always put in place laws that conflict with the overall beliefs of right and wrong in society. This means that a person could act in line with these laws hence ranking his/her actions legal, but perceived by society as being immoral. For instance, laws relating to the relating to the rights of gay marriages could be considered legal, but other members of society perceive them immoral, as they do not match their beliefs.

More so, an action could be considered legal, but immoral, in cases, where it does not violate any of the existing laws, but has significant negative effects on society. It is vital to note that those actions that do not breach any of the established laws could be considered legal, as they have no force of law. However, these actions would be considered immoral, in occasions, where they have overall negative effects on the society and work against the beliefs of the society from which the individuals originates.

Does Capitalism Promote Inequality

Capitalism refers to an economic system that promotes the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production with the aim of creating goods and services for profitability purposes. Therefore, capitalism presents an opportunity for the establishment of competitive markets, the price system, and the accumulation of capital within the country. It is important to note that capitalism does not necessarily promote inequality among individuals within the country. It motivates people to work toward their prosperity and for the good of others. Here are some of the advantages and criticisms of the idea of capitalism.

Capitalism is advantageous, because it promotes the social good. Capitalism ensures that people are working for the good of everyone within the country and not for their selfish interest. Moreover, the services provided by different individuals such as factory workers ensure that goods and services are available to the entire society hence promoting the social good. The money earned by other individuals through the system of capitalism could also promote social good by creating jobs through the establishment of businesses.

Another advantage is that capitalism promotes exponential growth of the economy. The allowance of private ownership for capital goods and means of production poses a challenge to everyone in the economy forcing them to work hard toward the prosperity of the economy. The levels of competition existing within capitalist economies also allow the economy to grow exponentially as all businesses strive to become the best in the market by establishing a competitive advantage and age over others. Therefore, competition facilitates the growth and development of the economy in a capitalist economy.

On the other hand, capitalism also faces criticism for the promotion of dictatorship and inequality at the workplace. In fact, managers at the workplace award themselves huge benefits and award their employees minimum wage hence illustrating the idea of the dictatorship and inequality brought in by the existence of capitalism. In some instances, the working conditions of employees are deplorable, but managers ignore and continue with the mistreatment of employees who play a key role in the production of goods and services in the economy.

Research into the Effects of Smoking and Utilitarianism

This part would utilize the utilitarian theory to explicate the ethicality of then continued sell of cigarettes by companies despite the understanding that cigarettes pose health threats to consumers. First, it is vital to note that utilitarianism asserts that the best action is the one that promotes the maximization of utility within society. Therefore, utilitarianism supports actions that promote happiness and reduce suffering among members of society.

Consumers are always happy to achieve significant satisfaction of their utility. Tobacco consumers within society expect tobacco companies to produce enough cigarettes that would help them to satisfy their utility of the product. In line with the utilitarian approach, the availability of consumers and the existence of increasing demand for cigarettes would make the entire process of producing cigarettes ethical, because it is aimed at the satisfaction of the majority of members in society. However, passive smokers would hold a different opinion and may argue that the entire thing does not satisfy the good of the majority members as it lead to many diseases.

The government is another vital force when analyzing the ethicality of cigarette production. The government is a vital stakeholder as it derives its taxes from the purchase of cigarettes by the large number of cigarette smokers. The government would also be in place to ensure that the required standards in the production of cigarettes are observed and the required details concerning the effects of cigarettes addressed. The government would only be available to determine the quality of the products and collect the required levels of taxes from both tobacco companies and consumers.

Tobacco companies also come into picture in line with the consumerism perspective. These companies are supposed to adhere to the required standards of quality tobacco and ensure that they inform their consumers about the negative effects of cigarette smoking. Again, they make cigarettes and do not necessarily force individuals to consume their products. Actually, the entire consumption of cigarettes is motivated by the decision of individual consumers. Additionally, these companies manufacture cigarettes with the aim of satisfying the existing demand in the market, hence working according to the required ethical standards of the satisfaction of the majority good.

Product Marketing Techniques Aimed at Appealing to Children as a Means of Selling to Parents

One of the key arguments for the product technique of appealing to children with the aim of selling to parents is that creativity is allowed in the maximization of sales in the market. Those in support of this technique reiterate that people should be given the freedom to be creative in the market in order to sell their products. The lack of creativity would lead to lower sales making it difficult for the businesses of individuals to grow accordingly. It would be vital, in cases, where marketers utilize this technique to enhance their sales and maximize their profitability.

Proponents also assert that everyone has choice in the market and the utilization of the technique does not necessarily force parents to buy the products in question. Parents who feel targeted by the technique have an option of deciding whether to buy the products or not. They are free and would not be forced to buy the product by any marketer, because of the existence of the freedom of consumers in the market.

More so, proponents are of the view that the technique is appropriate as long as it ensures that the commodities being sold are of the best quality and are in line with the required standards. Marketers have the freedom to utilize any technique to ensure that their commodities sell appropriately in the market and reap the required benefits. The use of products that appeal to children is one of the techniques that they have the freedom to choose and utilize in the maximization of their sales. They should do this as long as their products are of the required quality and standard.

On the other hand, opponents to this technique reiterate that marketers ought to be mature enough to face the ultimate purchasers instead of utilizing undesirable antics to get to the final purchaser. It is unethical for marketers to use techniques that appeal to children in order to sell their products to parents. They should be bold enough to deal directly with parents instead of using their children. This shows the fear that marketers have toward their ultimate consumers and the alarm of dealing with them directly as required. Therefore, this practice is unethical as it averts the final purchasers and uses catalysts to force purchases.

Multi-national Corporations (MNC) Operations in Less Developed Countries with Poor Environmental Conditions

Proponents assert that Multinational Corporations (MNC) should follow the restrict rules applied in their countries of origin, because they are required to adhere to the same standards of social welfare that they practice in their countries of origin. The deviation from the environmental rules applying in their countries of origin would imply double standards and overall inconsistency in the promotion of social responsibility. Proponents are of the view that Multinational Corporations must shift similar standards to other countries of their operations and ensure that they improve the standards of the environment within that country.

Additionally, proponents are of the view that Multinational Corporations should follow the same strict standards utilized in their own countries to exemplify their commitment to the integrity concerning environmental conservation. Shaw & Barry (2012) assert that such kind of companies should remain committed and work with a high level of integrity in matters of environmental conservation. They should not allow the environmental rules of the less developed countries to change their integrity in terms of environmental conservation and promotion. The maintenance of integrity would exemplify their genuine practices in all aspects including profitability, and the promotion of the well-being of consumers within the country. The show of environmental integrity in all spheres of the world would emphasize the ethicality of these companies and their activities.

On the other hand, opponents affirm that Multinational Corporations should not interfere with the existing systems in developing countries in the name of utilizing their strict rules relating to the conservation of the environment. Opponents opine that every country has its own laws and systems regarding the conservation of the environment and no other system is allowed to come and force changes in the existing environmental laws. The utilization of the strict environmental laws used in the country of origin would mean that Multinational Corporations are interfering with the activities of the country and this is unethical. Therefore, they are only required to work with the existing environmental laws to avoid interfering with the systems of the developing country.

Blood Diamonds

The motive behind the sale of black diamonds is to acquire more finances that can help in the facilitation of the war against humanity. It is noted that black diamonds have the potential to fetch an excessive amount of money that can be used to promote violence against individuals within a certain country and ensure that there is continued suffering. Kant's ethical principle of goodwill asserts that goodwill is the only intrinsically good thing and any action would only be good, in cases, where it is performed out of moral duty. The sale of blood diamonds does not meet the criteria of goodwill as asserted by Kant, because it is not based on moral duty, but it is based on the motive to worsen sufferings among individuals.

This statement can be paraphrased into a maxim as follows, "In cases where I need more money to facilitate war crimes, I would sell blood diamonds". This implies that the need for money to promote war crimes against humanity would be sorted by selling more blood diamonds as they are always in high demand and have the ability to fetch more income. This would be the maxim for analysis of whether it qualifies to be universalized. This maxim would not pass the reasonable person test, because it would enhance sufferings among individuals, in occasions, where everyone were to sell blood diamonds to promote war crimes among individuals.

The maxim would also not pass the reversibility test in the means to an end. Kant asserted that individuals must act to treat people as an end in themselves and not as a means. This implies that everyone should be treated as a valuable person and should be respected accordingly. However, the maxim does not respect individuals, also would not pass the test of the means to an end.

Discrimination at the Workplace

Indigenous Australians, as a cultural group, still face high levels of discrimination and issues of equity in terms of employment.

Indigenous Australians experience issues of equity and discrimination in terms of employment, because of the high levels of stereotypes against them. There are stereotypes all over Australia that do not favor indigenous Australians. For instance, there is the assumption that they do not have the potential to be effective in any assigned managerial area and would not present the required results, because if their overall inability to perform management functions. This enhances the levels of their discrimination at the work place as they are denied to access to higher positions within the organization and left only to perform difficult and physical tasks at the lower levels of employment.

Additionally, indigenous Australians including Aboriginals and Torres face ethical issues and discrimination starting from their schools and other institutions in Australia. Notably, the Aboriginal and Torres of Australia face many challenges in matters of education and this haunts them up to their places of work. There is an assumption that these individuals face deficiencies in their educational backgrounds and should not be given challenging tasks at the workplace. Therefore, they remain servants at the workplace, as they are not able to be promoted to high positions. Again, they are looked down upon in their workplace, because of the assumption that they do not have significant educational background.

The legislations made up in the workplace are not always inclusive and tend to discriminate against Aboriginals and the Torres communities of Australia. The employment legislations come in a sense that they promote the continued denial of opportunities for Aboriginal and the Torres communities of Australia. They perpetuate ethical issues by ensuring that these communities are not protected accordingly at the workplace as there is no accountability mechanisms to check these unethical matter.

Legitimate and Illegitimate Influence

Legitimate influence refers to the influence that emanates from the boss, because of the nature of the position held within the organization. It is given by the title of the individual that the organization and employees have to be influenced as an indication of their adherence to the instructions given by the boss. On the other hand, illegitimate influence emanates from the abuse of power and it is usually forceful. This implies that the boss exerts excessive influence that tends to undermine employees and forces them to adhere to a particular course of action.

One of the differences between the legitimate and illegitimate use of power by managers is the motive of the manager. The legitimate use of power by managers is always aimed at ensuring that employees perform according to the required standards. Managers try to exert their authority and ensure that their employees are able to work in line with the required standards by using their legitimate power. On the other hand, illegitimate power is mostly practiced for ill motives. The manager may go beyond the stated powers in order to intimidate employees and ensure that they do not reveal particular ethical issues relating to the boss. This makes it undesirable.

More so, the use of legitimate and illegitimate power by managers differs depending in terms of the employee response that would be received. In most instances, legitimate use of power would automatically lead to positive responses from employees, because of the understanding that the manager is only trying to give direction toward the achievement of organizational goals. However, employees would not respond positively to illegitimate use of power, because of the feeling that they are being blackmailed and harassed by the manager.

A good example of the legitimate use of power within the organization is the manager who commands all employees to avoid unnecessary movements and stick in their departments to perform their respective duties. On the other hand, illegitimate use of power can be seen from the manager's unnecessary harassment and blackmail of employees at the workplace.

Related essays