Ethical Conduct in Workplace

EthicalConduct in Workplace

InstitutionAffiliation

EthicalConduct in Workplace

Background

Typicalpeople have many beliefs. Many of these beliefs are evaluation ofparticular objects, acts and states of affairs. These people may alsoemploy various principles in their deliberations. When asked, I canprobably articulate a number of principles to which I subscribe:keeping promises is right, kindness is enough, and slavery is wrong.Since I was taught various rules as a child, I have a particularskill in making moral evaluation and acting morally.

Iwork at a health club in Rosemont, IL. My co-worker, Rachel leaveswork early she asks me to cover for her. If I tell on her, she couldlose her job, but if I do not tell on her I could get into troubleand possibly lose my job. In such a situation, I would choose ethicsof ends, duty or character.

Questionone

ShouldI weigh the situation and consequence carefully?

Accordingto Bentham, (1789) acts are right or wrong based on theirconsequences. Consequentialism does not reduce the ethical assessmentto one overall balance of value vs. impairment or brings otherconsideration and principles into play. Utilitarianism, which arguesthat the one and only code of ethics is that one should produce thegreatest possible balance of benefit over harm, value over disvalue(Bentham, 1789). According to Jeremy Bentham, it is mere pleasureover pain. This involves aggregating many of my intrinsic value,things that I most want such as freedom from pain. This impliesweighing to every action to support moral valuesthat incline to produce good consequences. This approach might makeit easier to avoid conflicting values since I would put all thevalues involved in the same scale. This approach makes it difficultto weigh and estimate the consequences (Timmons, 1987). Besides, itsdeterminations may violate moral intuitions and accepted socialstandards, such as suggesting that I could be sacrificed against mywill for the benefit of Rachel, or less vividly, that it issatisfactory to lie if that would make Rachel and the club happier.

Questiontwo

ShouldI tell on Rachel and risk her losing her Job?

Theapproach is to work on code based on duty and reasons from thefoundational principle which tells me what my duties are(Sinnott-Armstrong and Timmons, 1998). Therefore, my activities areright and wrong for motives other than their consequences. There aremany likely grounds for knowing duty. Contrary to common opinion,this approach is not inherently absolutist (Timmons, 1999). Thistheory propels me to only act on the basis of rules that all peoplein a similar situation would follow. It treats people as ends inthemselves and never as a means to an end. From the perspective ofthis theory, lying is always wrong. Consequently, I could act againstduty, act in accordance with duty act from duty. The theory does notpropose that people should be propelled by natural instinct, rather,they have to use their understanding so as to act appropriately ontheir inclinations. Positively I would avoid problems ofconsequentialism by establishing minimal fairness (Timmons, 1999).Besides, maintaining standards of professional responsibility, Irespect my intuition that some actions are wrong no matter theconsequences (Timmons, 1987). Respects for Rachel are an admirablebelief, but the meaning of personhood is disputed in borderline caseslike organization rules and principles.

Questionthree

ShouldI do what the community and Rachel expect me to do?

Accordingto this theory, morality is less about determining what do to thantype of a person to be (Sinnott-Armstrong and Timmons, 1998). Theapproach considers the external purposes that people have in theircharacters and relationships, and the internal devotions they havefor moral, spiritual and intellectual growth. After evaluating what Iam trying to become and if much of it is generic to all human person,I must discern the course of action and abilities of acting that willassist me achieve that purpose. The final achievement of actingmorally is to be happy in this healthy, integral sense offlourishing. This theory defines morally as the distinctively humanpower to achieve human excellence. It concerns with moraldevelopment, emotion as a source of moral knowledge, an ethic ofcare, and community interests. Consequently, this approach makesethics more inviting and less moralizing (Sinnott-Armstrong andTimmons, 1998). I can draw on the relationship I have with Rachel forguidance and support in my ethical deliberation.

Noteveryone perceives our lives as a unity is a real thing (Timmons,1987). We want the destination of roles and private life thatmodernity tolerated. Being virtuous does not tell one what to do. Apersonmayneed guidance in difficult circumstances, but giving that guidancemay slide me back into action-based ethics (Timmons, 1999). Characterethics often go hand in hand with support for a religious orcommunity believe. However, these beliefs can be inflexible,sometimes oppressive (Timmons, 1987). How does one`s ethics gain afooting for criticizing believes when they are flawed?

References

Bentham,J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals andLegislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Print

Sinnott-Armstrong,W. and Timmons, M.(1998). Moral Knowledge? New York: OxfordUniversity press. Print

Timmons,M. (1999). Morality without foundations. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Print

Timmons,M. (1987). Foundationalism and the structure of ethicaljustification, Ethics 97(3), p. 595-609