DISCUSSION

1. Affirmative action programs are important in stamping out discrimination in companies. Discrimination based on sex, religion, race, or any other criteria is demeaning to the persons affected. By requiring companies to adopt employment policies that recognize racial and gender disparities in the workplace, and make concerted efforts to balance out the inequalities, such programs ensure that all people have an equal chance of advancing in life.

Training staff on the laws concerning discrimination and harassment is important is reducing the number of cases that arise in the workplace. More importantly, is the need for proactive diversity programs that encourage racial tolerance and harmony. With greater understanding of various ethnic practices and cultures, employees will avoid making racial slurs or discriminatory remarks that offend their co-workers.

2.   Affirmative action programs have given rise to the phenomenon of reverse discrimination. Whereas the affected majority have a cause to champion, their privileged status over time has contributed to a disparity in opportunities for minorities. A less qualified minority may have performed better than a white counterpart had the same facilities been readily available.

Ensuring that minorities occupy the top spots creates a pool of experienced personnel who can then train others to manage such positions. Until such a time that all opportunities are easily accessible to everybody irrespective of status, abandoning affirmative action programs will lead to a situation where the best jobs are taken by the majority race and the less attractive vacancies filled by the minorities.

3. The Utilitarian School of Thought supports the action that favors the greatest majority. In this respect, the deficiencies of the affirmative action program (reverse discrimination) are balanced out by the good that is occasioned on the greatest number. The system should work out modalities that ensure overall efficiency is not compromised by hiring less competent people.

Equal pay for similar jobs should be a right for any employee, irrespective of gender, provided the skills levels are at par. Some positions remain risky especially when it comes to warfare. It will be foolhardy to ignore the physiological and psychological differences between men and women when deciding to allocate duties.  Consequently, prudence must be exercised when extending the benefits of affirmative action.

Ethical Issue in International Business

This is a situation where Jed who happens to be the director of compliance for Geletex Inc. goes around different branches of the company around the world. He realizes that different branches are having different irregularities. In the office that is located in Peru, he realized that a problem exists which is very familiar with the local management in the office. He realizes that the expenses in the local office are way too high and the management is fully aware of this. After enquiring the reason behind this, he learns that the reason for high costs of running this office is the fact that most workers are paid high commissions in case they conduct a business activity either through a phone or any long distance service that is offered.

This telecommunication company has been in operation for some time and they believe that they should have the best practices exemplified in all the branches in their organization irrespective of the location. In their code of ethics, they have clearly stipulated that the workers should be employed on contract base and that they should work as agreed on the contract. This means that if there are some benefits that will be offered to employees, they should be clearly indicated on the contract. The code of ethics of the company also clearly outlines all the necessary terms of employment of all the employees that are working in for the company. As the head of the company is in the United States, the laws and the regulations that apply to all the departments or the subsidiaries of the company should be those that apply to the head office which are the United States laws.

By the fact that some people in the office that is located in Peru are given very high commission, this may be termed as an activity that is against the companys code of ethics. In addition, it can be termed as a violation of the FCPA. This in long refers to Foreign Corrupt Practice Act and it is known to prohibit people against official bribery. This act is known to generally prohibit all the United States companies together with its citizens from offering or corruptly paying, indirectly or directly, anything of value or even money to a foreign official in the aim of retaining of obtaining business. This law also applies to all those foreign companies that are listed in the United States stock market. This law is very unique to the United States in that, apart from dealing with the United States officials that are corrupt, the law also extends to all those foreign officials that violate the act while conducting business activities that are associated with United States.

From this understanding of the Act, it is clear that the office at Peru had violated the FCP Act. The reason is that the branch or rather the office at Peru happens to be part of the company that originates from the United States. Therefore the Peru office and all its workers, whether United States citizens or not, should all work under the requirement of the act.

It is also clear that the reason as to why there are very high costs is the fact that the sales people are paid high commissions when they conduct a business for the organization. When the manager is asked the reason behind this, he says that this is done in order to maintain good performance in the organization. This can be termed as paying money so as to retain the business. This is prohibited by the FCP Act. Therefore, from this, it can be argued that the office at Peru violates the requirement of the FCP Act.

Before a person is hired into a company, he or she undergoes a recruitment process where he is familiarized with the rules and the regulations of the organization. This means that by the time a person starts working in the organization, he is fully aware of all these rules and regulations. He is fully aware of what he should do and what he should not do. It can therefore be argued that the reason that the manager encourages this activity is out of negligence. Therefore, he should be held responsible for the violation of this Act.

The very first thing that Jed should do is to report to the head office of the case that his happening in the Peru office. From the confrontation that he made to the manager of the office, it is clear that the manager fully knew that whatever he was doing is illegal and should not be done. Therefore, there is no need to do more investigation. After reporting the case to the head office back in the United States, Jed should go ahead and suspend the manager in the office at Peru.

In addition, all the other officials in this office may be termed as accomplices of the manager and therefore all of them should be held responsible for the violation of the Act. If there was one who was honest, he or she would have reported the issue way before Jed found out. Jed already has a hotline and therefore the employees had the means. It is just that they did not want to report. The next thing that Jed should do is to close down the office with immediate effect. The reason is that, even though the office is outside the United States, by the fact that the office is a subsidiary of the United States Company, it is under the FCP Act and therefore should follow the entire Acts requirement.

The office should be closed before it is found out by the United States law enforcement departments of what is happening as this would have greater repercussions. After this, all the officials that were serving in the office should be summoned by the company head and they should be required to explain the reason for their negligence. After this, Jed should make a new recruitment and employ new staff and make it clear to them that they must follow the companys code of ethics strictly. If they do this, they will also have complied with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act requirements.

Discussion Board

Business ethics is highly valued by people because it solely reflects the character and personality of the people managing the company. More than acting as a personality mirror, it guides people in their actions and decisions so that they can always generate the best results.

In the restaurant business, employees generate customer satisfaction through fast and quality service. At all times, they should be able to satisfy the needs of their customers and treat them fairly as part of their business ethics. In business, customers have equal rights and giving a big tip to secure a better table is morally unacceptable because it violates the principle of equality among customers. In the owners side, allowing such action to happen is a form of unfair treatment and violation to the restaurants business ethics.

It should be noted that people who do unethical things are more prone to doing the same thing again in the
future, leading them to other various unethical actions.  This is why securing a business contract can be analyzed as the same as paying a big tip, only in a larger scale. Paying larger tips might be ignored by people due to its minimum effects but bribery is a big thing that should not be ignored since a lot of significant things depend on it like money, reputation, career and even the stakeholders. Like the restaurant customers, contract bidders have equal rights in bidding and winning a certain contract and it is legally unacceptable to use their power and money to win the deal. Regardless of whatever purpose they have, bribery is still against the law and violates the principle of business ethics.

My perspective regarding the issue of bribery is still consistent with the moral philosophy that I have described in the Unit 1 discussion board.  It cannot be denied that business is more on making money but above all of it, a consideration regarding the existing intangible policies should also be taken into consideration. The act of being fair in doing business goes perfectly with Kants principle of respect-for-persons. By not bribing, business people respect the right of their competitors to have a chance in the deal and in the higher level it preserves their dignity and good name.

Justice vs. Vengeance

A Time To Kill 

Introduction and Summary of the Film
The movie, A Time to Kill is based on the novel of the same title by John Grisham.  It is a story that shows how the line that separates justice and revenge is very blurred and the story makes it more complex as it is set in a place where racism has not completely died down notwithstanding the civil rights movement and desegregation that took place 40 years ago.

The setting is Canton, Ford Country, Mississippi, a state where racism is still very strong and this was proven when two white racists raped and mauled a 10-year old black girl named Tonya Hailey.  The two men, Pete Willard and Billy Ray Cobb were later on arrested after bragging about their deed in a bar.  Despite their arrest, Haileys distraught and embittered father, Carl Lee (played by Samuel L. Jackson), felt they would not get any justice owing to a similar incident in the past where the assailants were acquitted despite the strong body of evidence.  He decided to take matters into his own hands by killing Pete and Billy Ray while they were being escorted to the courthouse.  His attack severely wounded deputy DeWayne Looney (played by Chris Cooper) who was escorting the suspects and was immediately arrested by Sheriff Ozzie Wells (played by Charles S. Dutton) who despite being a black man himself who sympathized with Carl Lee, had to enforce the law.

As Carl Lee faces the charge of murder which is punishable by death, he elects to get the legal services of his friend Jake Brigance (played by Matthew McConaghuey) despite the objections of his friend and representatives from the National Association for the Advancement of the Colored People (NAACP) who were closely watching the case to ensure that the dispensation of justice will not be tainted by racism.  Opposing Brigance is District Attorney Rufus Buckley (played by Kevin Spacey) for the prosecution who is very unscrupulous and will do whatever it takes to win his cases for he aspires to become governor of Mississippi someday and he is hoping his successes would help buttress his budding political career.  Presiding the case is Judge Omar Noose (played by Patrick McGoohan) who appears to be fair and impartial but the tension and controversy has somewhat intimidated him to refuse Brigances request to transfer the case elsewhere which makes the job of the defense more difficult despite the racially balanced composition of the jury.  Tensions further heightened as the trial becomes public as the media stood up and took notice by converging in Canton to cover the case.  During the course of the trial, Carl Lee showed no signs of remorse killing the rapists by telling the court, Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell in response to Buckleys question if the rapists deserved to die.

The tensions were beginning to run so high that the National Guard had to be called in to enforce order as the trial went on.  The jury secretly met against the judges orders and have been entertaining on pronouncing the guilty verdict on Carl Lee.  Despite the attacks against him and the pleadings from Harry, Jake is determined to see the case through in order save Carl Lee from execution.  Carl Lees faith in Jake has not diminished and he refused to accept plea bargaining.  He told Jake that he is his secret weapon because of his race which was why he picked him as his lawyer instead of anyone from the ACLU or the NAACP.  At the climactic point of the trial, both attorneys gave their closing statements.  Jake was the last and his delivery took an emphatic approach when he enjoined the jury to put themselves in Carl Lees place by imagining that was their (white) daughter.  Carl Lee was acquitted on grounds of temporary insanity and the story ends with Carl Lee reunited with his family and getting together with Jake.

Thorough Explanation of the Ethical Dilemma
Besides the theme of racism, another theme of A Time to Kill is the blurred line between justice and revenge with racism thrown in it.  In terms of ethics, one asks if Carl Lee was justified in killing his daughters assailants.  In absolute terms, this may be difficult to answer given that they can be seen in several perspectives.  If one were to subscribe to the rule of law, it would be easy to say Carl Lee was wrong and what he did was against the law.  The suspects had been arrested and were about to be taken to court to stand trial for their crimes and what he did was circumvent or usurp the law by acting as judge, jury and executioner.  For that, it is only right and proper that he be charged for the crime of murder and pay the appropriate punishment for it which in this case is the death penalty in his locale.  Furthermore, in the Christian sense of wrong and right, Christian teachings frown upon vengeance and told the aggrieved to allow God to be the one to dispense justice.  To do so otherwise would be a sin.  On these two counts, Carl Lee would already be considered guilty, legally and morally (based on Christian teachings).  In a perfect world this would be proper.  But in the harsh and cruel realities of Ford County Missouri, justice may be hard to come by as racism appears to remain strong and a black persons chance of getting justice would be slim to none.  This was what prompted Carl Lee to take matters into his hands because he felt his family would never get justice because of the prevailing racism in society even though the Sheriff is an African-American which serves to underscore the apparent racial equality in the community.  Jake made this known to the court when he said, until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices.  The bottom line is the idealistic aspects of justice defined by the rule of law and religious beliefs is impossible to apply in the reality of the imperfect world where they can be distorted and altered to suit the needs of the ones who subscribes to them.

Utilitarianism
This theory was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  Both men emphasized happiness and pleasure as the ultimate goal of those who subscribe to this notion. Mill goes further in stating that with regards to justice, Mill explains the social utility of justice which he breaks down into two essential elements which are punishment and the violation of the rights of another. Punishment is the product of revenge and collective sympathy in a society. By itself, revenge has no moral component that can make it justifiable, and collective social sympathy is equal to social utility.  Because of this, social utility is the only reason society should take responsibility in protecting its members.  In applying this notion to the film, Carl Lee, seeing the assailants punished would be the only way to redress the hurt and pain inflicted on his family.  Since he knew that racism is very strong in the county and there was no way they will get justice, he took matters into his own hands by killing the assailants and not feeling guilty nor remorseful when questioned by Buckley if they deserved to die.  It would be easy to conclude that Carl Lee was driven by revenge but looking at it from his own perspective, it could be said what he did was justifiable because the society that was supposed to protect him or give him justice (for his daughters fate) failed him.  Furthermore, Carl Lees actions won a substantial number of sympathizers as well which also included the Sheriff and even the wounded deputy even though they had to arrest Carl Lee for what he did.  This can also be said of Jake Brigance whose role as defense attorney is to save Carl Lees life from the death penalty and he used every ounce of skill and savvy he has in carrying it out and in doing so help restore Carl Lees faith in the justice system.  By carrying it out, he has achieved some measure of gratification as well.

Kants Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative is a key concept in Immanuel Kants moral philosophy.  According to him, individuals have a special place in order of creation, and morality can be surmised in one ultimate commandment of reasoning, or imperative, where all obligations stem. He defined an imperative as any notion that calls for a certain action to be required.  This categorical imperative is said to be akin to the Golden Rule of reciprocity (Do unto others as you want others to do to you). But Kant emphasizes this was not entirely true as there are limits to how far reciprocity would go. In applying it to the film, this is once again applied to Carl Lee when he took matters into his own hands in killing his daughters assailants.  He felt that he has been aggrieved and it is only appropriate that proper action should be taken and knowing that justice is impossible to attain for someone like him, an African-American.  Something had to be done and this gave him the impetus to act since he felt nothing is going to happen.  His daughter suffered a very cruel ordeal and he felt that the two assailants should get their just desserts because he felt they were not human at all.

John Rawls Justice as Fairness
Rawls came up with this concept based on the philosophies of Mill (utilitarian) and Kant.  According to Rawls, personal biases and prejudices could not be totally eliminated.  He considered this the veil of ignorance.  He further argued that the next best thing short of coming up with something perfect would be fair principles considered safe in the sense that it would be generally acceptable by everyone and reasonable.  In order to do that, Rawls stated that one has to adhere to two rules  The first one, Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others or the Liberty Principle.  The second rule states that Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyones advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all or the Difference Principle. In applying this to the film, Brigances most formidable foe was not Buckley, but the racism of the community.  He knew that Carl Lee had no chance if racism alone would be the basis of determining his fate.  In his closing statement, this led him to challenge the jury to put themselves in Carl Lees shoes to gain a better understanding of what he had to do.  Because of his ability to make the jury empathize with Carl Lee, he was eventually acquitted.  He got justice because the jury fully understood his actions and it can be inferred that they would have done the same thing had it happened to them as well.

Communitarianism
Communitarianism is a relatively new ideology that seeks to distance itself from liberalism or even socialism as a new form of collectivism with a democratic twist.  It is based on four values the sacredness of the individual, the central value of solidarity, complimentary association, and the idea of participation as a right and a duty.  These values are nothing new nor are they American in origins.  The advocates believe this concept dates back to the time of the Ancient Greeks.  In applying this to the film, the challenge was to apply this principle in a community where racism is prevalent, particularly the first one.  The problem here is that because of racial prejudice, African-Americans tend to be marginalized and are deprived of that dignity such is the case of Carl Lees daughter who was brutally assaulted and her assailants even felt proud of their deed which is an affront to human dignity.  During the trial, Brigance is trying to uphold the dignity of Tonya Hailey and (successfully) got the jury to shift their focus from Carl Lee.  Furthermore, Brigance was able to get them to act together as a community by enjoining them to do the right thing in acquitting Carl Lee on the account of his daughter by using the emphatic approach (again) and virtually challenging the jury on what they would do if the same situation were to happen to them.  Such a society would not condone such brutal and inhumane acts and Brigance was able to make them act wisely rather than be blinded by the rule of law as given by Buckley.

Altruism
Altruism is considered an act of selflessness.  Usually heroes are often characterized as altruistic because they exhibited acts of sacrificing themselves, sometimes at the expense of their lives, for the greater good of others.  Such individuals are the ones willing to forego their personal needs and desires to see to the betterment of others.  Christianity shows one best example in Jesus Christ who died on the cross to redeem mankind.  Contrary to what people may think, justice can be altruistic, not selfish.   In applying it to the film, both Carl Lee and Brigance showed altruism.  When Carl Lee took it upon himself to deal with his daughters assailants, he was not thinking about himself, but his daughter whose dignity must be restored and he felt killing those assailants will do, regardless of the consequences he would later face.  The same can also be said of Brigance who risked harassment and persecution but his need to see real justice served overrode his self-preservation instinct and both men won in the end.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that Carl Lee did the right thing if one were to look at it from the different ethical principles presented.  The rule of law, though fair, is not perfect as it is made by people and is subject to many interpretations.  The same can be said of religious teachings whose concept of justice is not uniform.  In this case, it is easy to understand why Carl Lee did it and why he was justified in doing so.

Hinduism

Hinduism lacks a uniting belief system it however qualifies to be a religion Hinduism is not like any other religion in the world. It stands alone in its whole nature from distinct religions like Christianity, Islam and others. Unlike Islam religion which has one prophet, Muhammad, Hinduism does not worship one god neither does it subscribe to any distinct dogma. Hinduism does not have any believe in a common philosophic concept neither does it follow any common set of religious performances or rights. As a consequence to these features, Hinduism does not qualify to be referred as a creed or a religion. Probably, the correct term to coin Hinduism definition is a way of life, anything more than that could be a distortion of the exact meaning of Hinduism.

It can be reconstructed from this point to embrace the fact that Hinduism is in deed a religion following the practices and believes among the worshipers which make it qualify to be classified as a form of religion with an entirely different order. Hinduism accepts Vedas with a lot of reverence and recognizes that there are several ways of salvation.

Additionally, the acceptance that there are many gods to be worshipped qualifies Hinduism to be a polytheistic religion. Religion is not necessarily monotheistic in nature. A defense from several Hindu scholars opposes the referring of Hinduism to as polytheistic. They believe that Brahman, God and many more are just but names which refer to one word-one god. Therefore, Hinduism, from this perspective qualifies to be called atheistic. The attempt to perceive Hinduism as polytheist is like mistaking wood for a tree which is not logical.

A Hindu gets his connection to his historical and religious heritage through Yoga. This way, a Hindu learns how to meditate and the observation of Holi and Diwali which are festive holidays in the Hindus calendar. The strict following of all the obligations by the worshipper set out in Hinduism qualities Hinduism to be a religion despite it lacking a common god and common believe. The cultural and societal influences that have made Hinduism vital to the region in which it originated

The roots of Hinduism can be traced well from the Arabic term al-Hind which was first used to mean the land of the inhabitants who lived across River Indus. The Indus River is located in the northwestern part of the continent of India. The Vedic age is believed to have been between 2000 and 1500BC in India and it is during this time that the roots of the varied sets of religious philosophy, traditions and believes of Hinduism started to be laid down.

Hinduism can be identified in its strongest point of uniting various practices and beliefs of its people. This makes India as a region to develop as it has done in history. As such, Indian government is opposed to Christianity and Islam which seek to have uniformity in worship and doctrines which may not well be tolerated in Hinduism as this means the destruction of historic beliefs and traditions of the pioneers in Hinduism dogmas. The rich tradition of India is the equivalence to the entire nations riches which the country boasts to have. Because Hinduism integrates various cultures, Muslims can enjoy a peaceful stay in India contrary to the manner Muslims restrict Hindus from living in Pakistan. The peace is well kept in Hinduism religion because of the teachings like Ahimsa, the non violence tools in seeking justice and peace. These factors and many others have made potential investors to have trust in India and have led to rapid economic development.The Hindu desire for liberation from earthly existence

In Hinduism, Mukti refers to liberation or being free from bondage and ignorance. The identification with the body and mind pattern which may be thought as ego or individual personality prevents individuals from experiencing the liberation. The Hinduism belief is that there are many experiences that are possible in a variety of bodies and powers but none can fully satisfy anymore. Although individual may not experience this dissatisfaction in one lifetime, one experiences weariness with ego-base experience after several lifetime experiences.

A typical example when one desires to be liberated from earthily experience is the kind of dissatisfaction one gets after visiting an animal orphanage for many times. The initial visit may be out of the ordinary often exciting. As one gets to visit more and more times, he or she gets tired and never wishes to visit the animal orphanage anymore. This is true with the worldly experience. Initially with excitements but as we get used to it so much, it becomes no more exciting. It is therefore important to transcend the ego as one stands a chance of losing nothing but instead gains everything. It is true that a liberated soul remaining on earth can fully reap the benefits of the world since it is known to him of her that the world is not to be taken very serious. The world may be likened to a fiction movie.

Ethics in the Business World

A Stewardship Code for Institutional Investors
This article addresses the new stewardship code that contains new roles for investees and investors. It aims to explain how the stewardship code shows that the shareholders are usually part of the answer and never part of the problem as majority believes. It also seeks to show how under the stewardship code the shareholders have an obligation and a right to be involved in the activities of the companies in which they have invested. The article outlines the responsibilities of the investors as contained in the stewardship code.

This article addresses the behavior of most financial institutions where they encourage share holders who have short term interests to invest in their institutions. The ethical implications are that the short term shareholders do not have the long term objectives of the institutions at heart. This means that the shareholders are never really concerned about the operations of the companies and this has resulted in the financial institutions lacking long term goals as well as not being risk conscious. Rule utilitarianism theory of ethics points out that for an action to be termed as right, it should result in greatest good after being done repeatedly. Based on this, the financial institutions behavior of allowing investment by shareholders with short term objectives is wrong since the long term effect of this is not good. The shareholders participation in operations of the companies will bring good results in the long run thus its ethical for them to be involved. The code provides for investors to act collectively but does not state how to legally prohibit these joint actions. Another ethical implication is that the involvement of the investor in the operations is against the rules of insider trading that govern the market systems. This involvement will result in companies shifting their attention from their core duty of performing well and managing risks and this is not ethical.

The possible solutions to this are to be clear on the issues that contradict other existing codes of ethic. The code should indicate the necessity of disclosing important institutional information regarding the investor. The code should also indicate how to avoid legal prohibitions against collective actions of the shareholders. Another solution is for the code to indicate how oversights differ in the company.

Risks to Over bidders Under Delaware Law
The article addresses a case that had been filed in the court regarding failure of a company to abide by the rules of bidding in a merger process. It shows the risks that are usually underlying in a situation that involves overbidding through the wrong process. Sometimes the merger agreement is not obeyed by the parties involved which results in damages. These damages are usually as a result of the cheated party seeking justice for damages obtained. The article seeks to inform that violating schedule 13D is not always solved by just correcting the disclosure as believed by some individuals. This means that bidders planning to potentially top a deal should not disclose wrong or non comprehensive information to the public since they can be sued even long after the deal has been sealed. This article involves a case where NACCO and Applica companies signed a merger deal. Another company known as Harbinger hedge funds was at that time also interested in bidding for the Applica Company and accumulated a substantial stake in the company but did not reveal this in its 13D filings. Later it simply corrected its 13D disclosures to reflect this and then topped NACCOs bid and the deal was sealed. This led NACCO to sue Applica for breach of the merger agreement.

According to the ethical point of view based on Rule-utilitarianism, an action is usually right if it results in happiness for majority of the individuals involved.  In this case, the action of Harbinger hedge funds failure to disclose its intentions though right resulted in unhappiness for most of the people involved. This action of breaching the agreement on merger was against the rules of merger that governs market systems. The other implication is there is need for the set out rules pertaining to protection of deals be followed. Applica company never followed these rules and this resulted in damages to NACCO. The failure of Applica Company to inform NACCO of Harbinger hedge funds plans to overbid was contrary to the standards that govern bid agreements. There is a conflict of ethics since the rules of bidding does not require one to disclose their other intentions in a company apart from those related to investment until one bids for the company. However, this can be treated as fraud under the common law in Delaware.

The solution to these implications is that there is need to first change the laws so that individuals and companies will be required to disclose their intentions to prevent underhand deals. The entities involved in mergers should also respect the rules that have been laid down regarding overbidding. Applica Company should have informed NACCO Company of the potential overbid.