EthicsAssignment1

docx

School

Western Governors University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

C206

Subject

Management

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ColonelBoar3829

A1 + A2. Discuss nonfictional leader and ethical traits. Elon Musk, the enigmatic entrepreneur and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has been a polarizing figure in the business world. While his management style has been subject to scrutiny, there are undeniably ethical traits that he has consistently demonstrated as a leader. In this response, we will explore two key ethical traits that Elon Musk has exhibited and delve into instances where he has showcased ethical conduct. 1. Visionary Ethical Leadership: One of the most distinctive ethical traits Elon Musk embodies is visionary leadership. Musk possesses an unwavering commitment to his long-term vision of a sustainable future. His pursuit of electric vehicles and renewable energy through Tesla is a testament to his dedication to combating climate change. Musk has not only set ambitious goals for his companies but has actively worked towards achieving them, pushing the boundaries of innovation. This visionary approach, deeply rooted in ethical considerations, reflects Musk's commitment to creating a positive impact on the environment and society (Shephard, 2023). Tesla's mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy aligns with Musk's ethical stance on environmental issues. By driving the development and adoption of electric vehicles, Musk seeks to reduce humanity's dependence on fossil fuels, mitigating the detrimental effects of climate change. This commitment to a greater cause illustrates Musk's ethical leadership in prioritizing the long-term well-being of the planet over short-term gains. 2. Transparency and Accountability: Another noteworthy ethical trait demonstrated by Elon Musk is his commitment to transparency and accountability. Musk has been known for his openness in communication, both with his employees and the public. Even in the face of challenges or setbacks, Musk has maintained a level of transparency that is unusual for leaders of his stature. For instance, during the production challenges faced by Tesla, Musk openly acknowledged the issues, providing regular updates on the company's progress. This transparency fosters a culture of trust and accountability within the organization. Musk's use of social media, particularly Twitter, has been both a strength and a source of controversy. However, his willingness to engage directly with the public and address concerns showcases a leader who takes responsibility for his actions and decisions. This transparency extends to his personal challenges as well, such as publicly acknowledging and addressing mental health struggles. By being forthright about his own experiences, Musk contributes to destigmatizing mental health issues and underscores the importance of acknowledging vulnerabilities as part of responsible leadership. Exhibiting Ethical Conduct: Beyond specific traits, Elon Musk's overall conduct reflects a commitment to ethical principles. Notably, Musk has exhibited ethical behavior by championing fair labor practices. In contrast to some tech industry norms, Musk has advocated for and implemented improved working conditions for employees at Tesla's factories. This includes efforts to prevent excessive overtime and ensuring worker safety. Musk's recognition of the importance of a healthy work-life balance and the well-being of his employees reflects a commitment to ethical business practices.

Moreover, Musk has demonstrated ethical conduct through philanthropy. His involvement in various charitable initiatives, including contributions to educational programs and research, showcases a commitment to giving back to society. Musk has pledged significant portions of his wealth to address global challenges, such as advancing renewable energy technologies and addressing the threats posed by artificial intelligence. This philanthropic engagement aligns with ethical principles of corporate social responsibility and making a positive impact beyond the realm of business. In conclusion, Elon Musk's leadership is marked by ethical traits such as visionary thinking, transparency, and accountability. His commitment to addressing environmental challenges, coupled with a transparent communication style and a focus on social responsibility, sets a noteworthy example in the business world. While Musk may be a controversial figure, his ethical conduct and leadership traits contribute to shaping a future that goes beyond mere corporate success, emphasizing a broader responsibility towards the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. B. Compare the deontological and consequentialist perspectives and how each perspective would approach the dilemma from the scenario. Deontological Perspective: Deontology is an ethical framework that emphasizes “the inherent nature of actions, focusing on duty, rules, and moral principles” (Ben-Haim 2021). From a deontological standpoint, an individual adheres to certain moral rules and obligations, and the morality of an action is determined by whether it aligns with those rules. In the given scenario, a deontologist might approach the dilemma as follows: 1. Duty to Truth and Informed Consent: Deontologists prioritize duties and obligations. In this case, there is a duty to truth and informed consent. The sales representative has a moral obligation to disclose the potential side effect of the artificial knee joint to the medical professionals and patients. 2. Nondisclosure Agreement: While the sales representative signed a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), a deontologist might argue that there are higher moral duties that override contractual obligations. In this case, the duty to prevent harm and promote informed decision-making may take precedence over the contractual obligation to keep information confidential. 3. Universalizability: Deontologists often consider whether their actions could be universalized as a moral principle. If the sales representative were to withhold crucial information about potential risks, and this became a standard practice in the industry, it could lead to a situation where patients are not adequately informed about the potential dangers of medical devices. 4. Consequences as Secondary: Deontologists typically do not prioritize consequences as the primary determinant of morality. Even if the consequences of disclosing the information could lead to negative repercussions for the sales representative, the deontological perspective would argue that fulfilling one's duty takes precedence. Consequentialist Perspective: Consequentialism is an ethical framework that evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes or consequences (Isufi, 2022). From a consequentialist standpoint, the morality of an action is determined by the overall balance of good and bad consequences. In the given scenario: 1. Greatest Good for the Greatest Number: A consequentialist might argue that the overall good of providing a less expensive artificial knee joint with reduced healing time could outweigh the

harm caused by the potential side effect. The focus would be on maximizing positive outcomes for the greatest number of patients. 2. Balancing Benefits and Harms: Consequentialists weigh the benefits and harms of an action. In this case, the potential lethal infection is a serious harm, but if the overall benefits (cost reduction, faster healing) significantly outweigh the harms, a consequentialist might argue in favor of nondisclosure to avoid hindering widespread access to the medical device. 3. Risk Management: Consequentialists might consider the risk of harm in relation to the likelihood and severity of the harm. If the percentage of patients experiencing the lethal infection is small and the benefits are substantial, a consequentialist might prioritize the overall positive impact. 4. Consequences as Primary: Unlike deontology, consequentialism places consequences at the forefront of ethical considerations. The potential negative repercussions for the sales representative, such as violating the NDA, would be weighed against the potential harm caused by nondisclosure. In summary, while a deontologist would likely emphasize the duty to disclose information and prioritize ethical principles, a consequentialist might weigh the overall balance of good and bad consequences and might justify nondisclosure if the benefits significantly outweigh the harms. These perspectives highlight the different ethical considerations and priorities inherent in deontological and consequentialist approaches to moral decision-making. C. Identify and explain which level of cognitive moral development (i.e., preconventional, conventional, or postconventional) is represented in the scenario for each of the following questions:  Which action would most likely serve the greater good in society? Postconventional Level (Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights): At this level, individuals recognize the importance of social contracts and individual rights. Choosing an action that serves the greater good in society aligns with a postconventional moral development perspective. Here, the emphasis is on societal benefit and ethical principles beyond personal gain or adherence to rules.  If I reveal this information, will I get into trouble and possibly even lose my job? Conventional Level (Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships): This question reflects a concern for maintaining interpersonal relationships and avoiding personal harm. In the conventional level, individuals tend to make decisions based on societal expectations and norms. Fear of getting into trouble or losing one's job is characteristic of the conventional level as it revolves around social approval and maintaining order.  Which action best aligns with my long-held belief in the principle of justice? Postconventional Level (Stage 6 - Universal Principles): The consideration of long-held beliefs in the principle of justice aligns with the postconventional level. At this stage, individuals develop their moral principles based on universal ethical values, and decisions are guided by a sense of duty to uphold these principles, even if they conflict with societal norms.  What do the laws say, and what would a law-abiding citizen do?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Conventional Level (Stage 4 - Social Order and Law): The concern for adhering to laws and societal norms is characteristic of the conventional level. Individuals at this stage view laws as crucial for maintaining social order and generally conform to these rules. Decisions are based on the perceived duties and obligations defined by the legal system.  If I keep quiet, will I get some sort of reward? Preconventional Level (Stage 2 - Individual Instrumental Purpose and Exchange): The consideration of personal rewards aligns with the preconventional level. At this stage, individuals make decisions based on self-interest and the anticipation of rewards or punishments. The focus is on individual benefit rather than societal expectations or ethical principles. D1 + D1a. Explain your preferred ethical lens, relevant to the ELI My preferred ethical lens, Results Lens: Mild Sensibility and Considered Autonomy (MSCA), reflects a specific approach to ethical decision-making that emphasizes a balance between personal intuition (sensibility) and the consideration of individual autonomy to achieve the greatest good. Let's break down the key components of my ethical lens: 1. Results Lens (Consequentialism): This aspect of my ethical lens suggests that I prioritize the outcomes or results of my actions. Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of an action rather than the inherent nature of the action itself. In other words, I am likely to evaluate the ethicality of a decision based on the positive outcomes it produces for both myself and others. 2. Mild Sensibility: My inclination towards sensibility implies that I rely on my intuition and emotions to guide my ethical judgments. This suggests that I pay attention to my gut feelings and emotional responses when faced with ethical dilemmas. However, the term "mild" indicates that while sensibility is a factor, it may not be the sole determinant of my ethical decisions. I may consider a balance between intuition and reason. 3. Considered Autonomy: Autonomy refers to respecting the individual's right to make their own decisions and choices. My preference for considered autonomy suggests that I value personal freedom but also take into account the broader context and the impact of individual choices on the collective well-being. It implies that I strike a balance between individual autonomy and the greater good. Now, considering whether my preferred lens remains consistent across different settings (work, personal, social): Work Setting: In a professional environment, my Results Lens may be particularly beneficial as it aligns with a focus on achieving positive outcomes. The consideration of autonomy could be crucial in fostering a collaborative and respectful workplace where individual contributions are valued. Personal Setting: In personal relationships, my mild sensibility may play a significant role in navigating interpersonal dynamics. Balancing autonomy in personal relationships could mean respecting the individuality of others while working towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

Social Setting: In social contexts, my ethical lens may guide you to consider the broader impact of decisions on the community or society. Balancing autonomy here might involve understanding and respecting diverse perspectives while striving for outcomes that benefit the collective. D2 + D2a. Explain one of your primary values and one classical virtue from the ELI. Compare your primary value from part D2 with one of your own self-identified or personal values. Then compare your classical virtue from part D2 with a different self-identified or personal value. Primary Value: Autonomy, in this context, refers to the recognition and respect for individual freedom and the capacity for self-determination. Let's delve into how this propensity shapes my ethical framework on a personal level: 1. Individual Decision-Making: my inclination towards autonomy suggests that I place a high value on making my own decisions and choices. This autonomy in decision-making empowers me to navigate ethical dilemmas based on my own values, beliefs, and goals. It implies a sense of self- reliance and a desire to take responsibility for the consequences of my actions. 2. Respecting Others' Autonomy: Equally important is my commitment to respecting the autonomy of others. This aspect of my ethical framework acknowledges and values the diverse perspectives and choices of individuals around me. It suggests that I recognize the importance of allowing others the freedom to make their own decisions, even if those decisions differ from my own. Comparing autonomy with a personal value of Balancing Autonomy with Consideration , they actually align with one another. The term "Considered Autonomy" indicates a thoughtful and balanced approach to autonomy. While I uphold the importance of individual freedom, I also take into account the broader context and potential impacts on others. This suggests a nuanced understanding that autonomy should be exercised responsibly, with consideration for the well-being of myself and others. This is a natural progression of Autonomy described above. Ethical Virtue: My inclination to be tempered and self-restrained suggests that I value balance, prudence, and temperance in my actions and choices. Let's explore how this propensity shapes my personal ethical framework: 1. Balanced Decision-Making : My preference for moderation indicates a commitment to avoiding extremes and finding a middle ground. This approach allows me to carefully weigh different factors and perspectives before making ethical decisions. Rather than adopting rigid positions, I likely seek a balanced and nuanced understanding of situations, which contributes to a more thoughtful ethical framework. 2. Consideration of Consequences: Moderation often involves a keen awareness of the potential consequences of actions. This means that I may take the time to evaluate the short-term and long-term effects of your decisions, considering how they impact both myself and others. This consideration of consequences aligns with a consequentialist ethical perspective, where the outcomes of actions play a central role in ethical evaluations.

Comparing self-restraint with a personal value, Self-Restraint in Pursuit of the Greater Good , they also align with one another well. My tendency toward self-restraint implies a willingness to curb immediate desires or impulses in favor of broader, long-term ethical goals. This could involve sacrificing personal gain for the greater good or exercising patience and restraint when faced with ethical dilemmas. It reflects a sense of discipline and a commitment to ethical principles even in the face of personal challenges. This is a natural progression of Self-Restraint described above. 3a. Discuss two steps you can take to mitigate the blind spot, risk, double standard, or vice described in part D3 in order to make better ethical decisions in the future. The risk of being overbearing by expecting that people think just like you stems from a lack of recognition and acceptance of diverse perspectives. This tendency can lead to a closed-minded approach, where differing opinions are dismissed or devalued, potentially stifling creativity, collaboration, and the richness that diverse perspectives bring to ethical discussions. To mitigate this risk, consider implementing the following two steps: 1. Cultivate Empathy and Active Listening : To overcome the inclination to expect others to think in alignment with your own perspective, actively cultivate empathy and practice active listening. Make a conscious effort to understand the experiences, values, and motivations of others. Actively listen to their viewpoints without immediately imposing your own judgments. This not only broadens your understanding of ethical issues but also fosters a more inclusive environment where diverse thoughts are valued. 2. Seek Input and Feedback: Create opportunities to seek input and feedback from a diverse group of individuals before making ethical decisions. Encourage open dialogue where people feel comfortable expressing their opinions without fear of judgment. This could involve forming diverse teams, seeking input from colleagues with different backgrounds, or engaging in discussions with stakeholders who may offer unique perspectives. Actively soliciting input broadens the range of considerations in ethical decision-making and helps prevent the trap of assuming uniformity of thought. By incorporating these steps into your approach, you can actively counter the risk of being overbearing and expecting uniformity of thought. This not only enhances the quality of your ethical decision-making but also fosters a more inclusive and open-minded environment in which diverse perspectives are valued and respected. 4. Discuss how the information from your ELI could be applied to an ethical situation in the workplace. Let's apply the information about my ethical framework—specifically, my preference for Results Lens: Mild Sensibility and Considered Autonomy (MSCA), as well as my propensity for moderation and self- restraint—to a workplace scenario.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Imagine a situation where my team is tasked with making a significant decision that could impact the organization's future. There are diverse opinions on how to approach the issue, and emotions are running high among team members. Application of Results Lens: Mild Sensibility and Considered Autonomy (MSCA): 1. Results Orientation: My Results Lens suggests a focus on positive outcomes. In the workplace scenario, I might prioritize solutions that lead to the greatest overall benefit for the team and the organization. This could involve considering the long-term consequences and weighing the potential positive results of each option. 2. Mild Sensibility: Given my mild sensibility, I would likely bring a degree of intuition and emotional intelligence to the decision-making process. In a workplace setting, this might involve tuning into team dynamics and individual perspectives, acknowledging the emotional aspects of the decision, and fostering a collaborative atmosphere. 3. Considered Autonomy: Recognizing the importance of autonomy, I might encourage team members to voice their opinions and make individual contributions to the decision-making process. At the same time, I would consider the collective impact of each person's autonomy on the overall well-being and success of the team. Application of Propensity for Moderation and Self-Restraint: 1. Balanced Decision-Making : My inclination toward moderation implies that I would seek a balanced approach, avoiding extremes in the decision-making process. This might involve steering the team away from impulsive decisions and ensuring that a careful analysis of options takes place. 2. Consideration of Consequences : My propensity for self-restraint aligns with a thoughtful consideration of the consequences of each decision. In the workplace scenario, I would likely encourage the team to assess both short-term and long-term impacts, promoting a decision that aligns with the organization's values and goals. 3. Harmony in Relationships : Applying my ethical framework in the workplace, I would likely work to maintain harmony among team members. This might involve mediating conflicts, promoting open communication, and fostering an environment where differing opinions are respected and valued. By integrating these aspects of my ethical framework, I intend to contribute to a workplace culture that values collaboration, respects individual autonomy, and strives for ethical decision-making that aligns with positive outcomes and a balanced, thoughtful approach. My emphasis on moderation, self- restraint, and a Results Lens with mild sensibility ensures that the team considers diverse perspectives and makes decisions that contribute to the overall success of the organization.

References Ben-Haim, Y. (2021). Robust-satisficing ethics in intelligence. Intelligence & National Security, 36(5), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2021.1901404 Isufi, S., Poje, K., Vukobratovic, I., & Brcic, M. (2022). Prismal View of Ethics. Philosophies, 7(6), 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7060134 Shephard, A. (2023). What Is Elon Musk Building? New Republic, 254(4), 24–31.

EthicsAssignment1

Related Documents