case study (1)

docx

School

Rasmussen College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

EFATJTRJ

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by autumnwillingham12

Case Study: Ethical Theory Application and Evaluation Part 1: Introduction, Case Study, and Ethical Question My current line of work presents me with a social problem and an ethical conundrum in the form of bias toward the staff members who work there. Since having a favorite movie, favorite band, or favorite career is not in and of itself inherently detrimental, favoritism in the workplace is a problem that needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, there are circumstances in which showing bias might be detrimental. In the workplace, it is expected of people who hold positions of leadership to act as models for those who would like to follow in their footsteps. They are intended to advise others on the acceptable behaviors to adopt and motivate individuals to perform to the best of their ability, and it is expected of them that they will do so. It is inherently unethical to exercise favoritism in the workplace, which contributes to difficulties such as low employee retention and interpersonal friction among employees. Moreover, favoritism in the workplace is known to be problematic. As I have said in a few of my prior contributions to this topic, I consider it unjust, and I believe it unjust to mean immoral. This is because both concepts are derived from the same root word, injustice. This is the most important ethical question that needs to be answered given the circumstances. Given all this information, the following is the ethical question I have for this essay: Is it immoral to act with favoritism on the job or participate in such behavior? Part 2: Philosophy Reading Reflection The passage I chose for this section is Immanuel Kant’s and it is as follows. “Being truthful from duty is an entirely different thing from being truthful out of fear of bad consequences; for in the former case a law is included in the concept of the action itself whereas in the latter I must first look outward to see what results my action may have. How can I know whether a deceitful promise is consistent with duty? The shortest way to go about finding out is also the surest. It is to ask myself: Would I be content with my maxim (of getting out of difficulty through a false promise) to hold as a universal law, for myself as well as for others? That is tantamount to asking: Could I say to myself that anyone may make a false promise when he is in a difficulty that he cannot get out of in any other way? Immediately, I realized that I could will the lie but not a universal law to lie; for a law would result in there being no promises at all because it would be futile to offer stories about my future conduct to people who wouldn’t believe me; or if they carelessly did believe me and were taken in ·by my promise·, would pay me back in my own coin. Thus, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law.” (Kant, 1785). In the end, it proved to be the ideal instructional instrument for me to fully comprehend the influence that the maxim is capable of exerting and the extent to which we are required to use it in order to develop appropriate moral qualities inside ourselves.

Part 3: Explanation of First Ethical Theory After reading this paragraph several times, I've come away with a few distinct interpretations of what it means. At first, I thought the paragraph was focused on the truth's significance. Then, as time went on, I realized it was about more than just the truth. That applies to every maxim in existence. If I were to believe, for instance, that nobody should go to work when they just do not feel like it, then most people would choose not to go to work. This would result in many problems and an increase in the amount of work that needed to be completed, which would lead to the work becoming more difficult. If something like this were to occur, it would render the maxim itself useless because it would be rendered paradoxical if it were applied to everyone. As I stated in Week 3's assignment, the simple fact is that if you were to deem this a universal law, it "would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law" (Kant, 1785). In the end, it proved to be the ideal instructional instrument for me to fully comprehend the influence that the maxim is capable of exerting and the extent to which We are required to use it to develop appropriate moral qualities inside ourselves. Part 3: Explanation of First Ethical Theory In this section, I've opted to focus on explaining deontology and the essential notions that support it. Because utilitarianism is concerned with the outcomes, deontology is concerned with the substance of the action itself (Eues, 2022). Deontologists attribute moral labels to activities based on whether they are "good" or "evil" regardless of the context. The Mosaic Law, which most frequently refers to the Torah and includes injunctions such as "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor," among other things, is one possible example. Deontological ethics, according to Thames, are "ethical systems that believe that the moral value of actions depends on some element of the deed itself" (sec 4.1, 2018). Furthermore, "... The word 'deon' signifies "obligation" or "that which is required" in classical Greek (the language of the early philosophers). The suffix -ology refers to "the science or study of something." As a result, deontology is defined as "the science or study of responsibility and obligation" (Thames, 2018). The core of deontological ethics is the idea that we are obliged to particular obligations or duties regardless of circumstances or levels of importance. Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, is credited with being the first to

define deontology. As an illustration of how a deontologist would respond to the issue, "Is it immoral to lie even if it causes very little to no harm to anyone?", consider the following: Incorrect; telling lies is immoral conduct. When put to the test of ethical norms specified within deontology like the formula of universal law, there is no circumstance in which lying is judged to be morally permissible because it contradicts its own goal when put to the test. If everyone lied, then the truth would no longer exist, and lying itself would no longer exist because there would be no counterpart for actions to be classed as a lie or a truth. If everyone lied, then the truth would no longer exist. Part 4: Application of First Ethical Theory The central moral controversy at stake in my ethical question of, " Is it immoral to act with favoritism in the job, or even to participate in such behavior?", is the favoritism aspect. "56% of executives admitted to having a favorite candidate when making internal promotion decisions, and 96% of them will promote their favorites" (Li, 2018). This section illustrates the negative impact that bias on the part of supervisors may have on their staff. These negative effects on employee attitudes, motivations, and psychological well-being can be costly for organizations in terms of absenteeism, sick leave, medical bills, replacement costs, turnover, and productivity in general. In addition to the potential for legal disputes, these costs can be incurred in many ways. It is possible that giving preferential treatment to some members of a group while not doing so for other members of the group will hinder the growth of employees who are not favored. This will result in less coaching, feedback, and opportunities for these employees, which will directly hinder the development of talent within the organization. If an organization does not invest in the development of its human resources, the company runs the risk of losing its strategic advantage (Li, 2018). Also, as Robert Whipple states, "Playing favorites is one of the most damaging problems in any group of people. Leaders who practice favoritism in the workplace has no chance to build a culture of trust. In business schools, they teach that the antidote for playing favorites is to treat everyone the same way. But this is a trap that can cause problems because it ignores the simple fact that all people are different" (2012). The fundamental idea behind deontology is that it is irrelevant to consider the consequences when deciding whether a certain action should be considered bad or right. Would this still be moral if it were applied to every person? To provide a concise response, the answer is no, that cannot be the case. It doesn't matter how you look at it, showing favoritism in the workplace is unethical even with all of the bad impacts discussed before. If someone were to answer my ethical question using the core principles of the ethical theory, I believe they would say that the theory cannot be applied to everyone and that it is unethical to treat one person better than Another solely based on one's opinion of that person. This is something that I

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

believe they would say because the theory cannot be applied to everyone. Especially in the professional setting, if you are respected by others in your industry or who others in your position look up to as a role model. Part 5: Explanation and Application of Second Ethical Theory In this part of my essay, I will discuss the fundamental tenets of utilitarianism and how an individual who adheres to these tenets would evaluate my case study. As Thames states, "In its most general sense, utilitarianism is the theory that morally right actions, laws, or policies are those whose consequences have the greatest positive value and least negative value compared to available alternatives" (sec. 3.1, 2018). As we can see by the negative effects of favoritism above, it does not benefit anyone but those being favorited and those doing the favoritism. If someone applying these concepts were to do an analysis of my case study, they would discover that favoritism in the workplace does not have the highest positive value when compared to the alternatives that are accessible. Because of this, it would be considered immoral to do so. If I were to ask a utilitarian about favoritism in the workplace, they would tell me that it is unethical. This would be their response to my inquiry. Part 6: Evaluation of First Ethical Theory Application In this part of the analysis, I will assess the outcomes of applying ethical theories to my case study and determine the degree to which those ideas were successful. When I apply the first theory I used, which was deontology, I can recognize that favoritism in the workplace is regarded as an unethical practice that should be avoided at all costs. The doctrine of deontology is predicated on the nature of the deed itself, which, in this scenario, means that if you are the person who is being favored in the job, it is probably not a major problem for you. On the other hand, this might have a negative impact on an employee who is not being favored by a higher-up or leader in the organization. Because of the emotional posture you take toward the issue, you run the risk of developing resentment toward your employer or of performing your job in an unproductive manner. If I were to evaluate the response to my question provided by the first ethical theory using the application provided by the second ethical theory, then I would state that the answer would depend on how this bias affects each and every person. If one were to take a utilitarian perspective, one would argue that partiality is morally acceptable so long as it produces the greatest end feasible given the choices that are available. The only circumstance under which favoritism may be considered unethical or immoral is one in which it does not benefit the recipient more than any other

feasible alternative. Since I consider favoritism in the workplace to be unethical, I believe the ethical theory of Ontology provides the most effective solution to the ethical problem. There are situations in which it might be considered moral or acceptable merely from a utilitarian point of view, but the theory doesn't provide a clear and conclusive response that is not influenced by the circumstances. The application of this theory, which I feel does present an acceptable response to the issue, is like the way the issue is now being treated, which is why it is an adequate approach. Part 7: Conclusion During my essay, I was able to successfully apply two different ethical theories: deontology and utilitarianism. I have applied these two ethical theories to an ethical conundrum that I have created, which investigates the question of whether favoritism in the workplace can be considered moral. The application of deontology to my question initially resulted in the activity in question being labeled as either immoral or improper. In the second use, which is utilitarian, the outcomes could be positive or negative. It depends on the circumstances, specifically, whether this choice was superior to the other options that were on the table. In my opinion, a utilitarian would argue that even if it were beneficial to society, it would still be unethical and immoral. I believe that the results of applying both theories did provide a sufficient answer to the issue because they were both applied, and in both cases, it would be considered immoral or improper, so the solution would be to refrain from doing it. Because both theories were applied, I believe that the results did provide a sufficient answer to the issue. The fact that utilitarianism, when applied to this topic, does not provide a clear answer as to whether it is right or wrong because it is based solely on the scenario and the comparability to other potential solutions are the most significant flaw associated with the use of utilitarianism in this context. References Eues, D. (2022, October 19). Deontology. [Instructor Guidance]. https://uagc.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/PHI208+%7C+Deontology/1_mfq9yuyb Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. In J Bennett (Ed & Trans)

Early Modern Philosophy Retrieved from: http://222.earlymoderntests.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785,pdf (Original work published 1785). Li, M. (2018, March 7). Playing favorites: A study of perceived workplace favoritism. The Ohio State University. https://fisher.osu.edu/blogs/leadreadtoday/blog/playing-favorites-a- study-of-perceived- workplace-favoritism Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning. Bridgepoint Education. Whipple, R. (2012). Favoritism is a huge problem. The Trust Ambassador, 5

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

case study (1)

Related Documents