PHI wk5 final paper 3OCT23

docx

School

University Of Arizona *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

208

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by Trooperjoni

Case Study: Ethical Theory Application and Evaluation Jonathan Wright. University of Arizona Global Campus PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning Paul Boaheng October 3, 2023

Part 1: Introduction, Case Study, and Ethical Question Many lines of work present a social problem and an ethical challenge in the form of bias toward the staff members who work there. Yes, we have a favorite movie, band, or career; as human beings, it is not wrong to have favorite things. Favoritism in the workplace is a problem that needs to be addressed and solved. It is detrimental, and displaying it at work, especially by people or personnel in leadership positions, may result in many peripheral issues. In the workplace, people who hold leadership positions are role models for subordinates, following their footsteps and developing as future leaders. Leaders coach, teach, and mentor all subordinates on how to be a leader or at least guide them on what type of leader they can become. As leaders, it is unprofessional to display favoritism in the workplace; it contributes to lower employee retention and friction among employees, causing the work environment to be problematic. It is unpleasant, immoral, and unjust for the question to be answered. The question answered in this essay: Is it immoral to act favorably on the job or display such behavior? Part 2: Philosophy Reading Reflection Immanuel Kant’s, passage for my case is as follows: “Being truthful from duty is an entirely different from being truthful out of fear of harmful results, for in the former case, a law is included in the concept of the action itself, where later must first look outward to see what results my action may have. How do we know if is also the

surest? The question is: Would I be content with my maxim (of getting out of difficulty through a false promise) to hold as a universal law for myself and others? That is equivalent to asking: Does anyone 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 lie. However, there is 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 would not believe me; or if they carelessly did believe me and were taken in ·by my promise·, would pay me back in my coin. Thus, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law." (Kant, 1785). Reading this paragraph several times, this presented in different ways on its meaning. The primary focus of this paragraph is to focus on the truth. Then, as time went on, the realization that it was about more than just the truth. Imagine if you could go to work only if you feel like it. That will mean workflow would increase significantly, making the work more difficult. If this happens, the maxim of this meaning would render the maxim itself useless because it would be rendered inconsistent if it did not apply to everyone. As our third-week assignment, if you considered this a universal law, it “would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law” (Kant, 1785). Giving the instrument to fully understand the influence that my maxim can reach the order to develop appropriate moral qualities inside one’s self. Part 3: Explanation of First Ethical Theory This part will deliver deontology and its essential ideas to supplement it. Utilitarianism is concerned with the outcomes, and 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 good book or bible, mentions “thou shalt not steal" and

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

"thou shalt not covet thy neighbor," are possible examples. According to Thames, deontological ethics 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 to follow the rules regardless of circumstances or levels of importance. Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, was 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?" Let us consider that to lie is Incorrect; telling lies is immoral conduct. When testing ethical theories specified within deontology, like the formula of universal law, there is no circumstance in which lying is judged morally permissible because it contradicts its own goal when used systematically. If everyone lied, the truth would no longer exist, and lying would no longer exist because there would be no counterpart for actions to be classified 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 idea of this paper is the view 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). Demonstrating the negative impact that bias on the part of supervisors may have on their staff. These adverse effects on employee attitudes, motivations, and psychological well-being is costly, sick leaves, medical bills, replacement costs, turnover,

and productivity in general. In addition to the potential for legal disputes, complaints and settlements are costly. 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, directly hindering the organization's talent development. An organization must invest in developing its human resources to maintain 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 cannot build a culture of trust. In business schools, they teach that the antidote for playing favorites is to treat everyone the same way. However, this trap can cause problems because it ignores that all people are different" (2012). The centralization of deontology is that it is irrelevant to consider the consequences when deciding whether a specific action should be considered wrong or right. Would this still be moral if applied to every person? Response, plain and simple, is no, it does not matter how you look at it; showing favoritism in the workplace is unethical because of all the negative impact it causes in any scenario we discussed before. Suppose someone were to answer my ethical question using the central principles of the ethical theory. In that case, 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 they would say because the theory cannot be applied to everyone. Especially in the professional setting, as a respected individual 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 This section discusses the foundation of utilitarianism and how an individual who adheres to these doctrines 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 is presented with this theory reviewing this research, 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. In the utilitarian view of favoritism in the workplace, they would tell me it is unethical. This would be their response to my inquiry. Part 6: Evaluation of First Ethical Theory Application This section demonstrates the results of applying ethical theories to my case study and determines how successful those ideas were. When the first theory is used, deontology recognizes that favoritism in the workplace is regarded as an unethical practice and to avoid it at all costs. The doctrine of deontology is centralized 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, who complains when they are being favored. The negative impact for the employee not being favored or employees not being favored is unmendable. Due to the emotional posture taken toward the issue, lowering productivity and constant disagreement will be inevitable. Responding to the first ethical theory with the guidelines provided by the second ethical theory, I would state that the answer would depend on the effects of each person. If one were to take a utilitarian perspective, partiality would be the question of what is morally acceptable so long as it produces the most significant end feasible given the available choices. The only circumstance under which favoritism is considered unethical or immoral is when the benefitted recipient is more than any other alternative. There are situations in which it might be

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

considered moral or acceptable merely from a utilitarian point of view. However, this needs to provide a clear and concise response not influenced by the circumstance. Applying this theory does not present a response to this issue, and is indifferent to the issue, not how it is being presented, and finds it right on the topic. Part 7: Conclusion Two ethical theories are applied: deontology and utilitarianism. I have followed both theories after analyzing the ethical conundrum constructed, which researchers see favoritism in the workplace as moral. The application of deontology to my question initially resulted in the activity being labeled as immoral or improper. In the second use, utilitarian, the outcomes could be positive or negative. It largely depends on the circumstances, specifically whether this choice was greater than other options. A utilitarianist would argue that it would still be unethical and immoral even if it benefited society. I believe that the results of applying both theories did provide a sufficient answer, 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, the results provided a sufficient answer to the issue. Regarding this topic, utilitarianism needs to provide a clear answer as to whether it is right or wrong because it is based on this scenario. Comparing other potential solutions is the biggest flaw associated with 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-astudy- 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 .

PHI wk5 final paper 3OCT23

Related Documents