Ethics

Ethics can be defined as a branch within the wider field of philosophy whose main concern is addressing the issue of morality. Morality as a concept seeks to justify actions as good or bad, right or wrong and whether such actions are justified and virtuous. Ethics in itself is divided into many categories which normally vary to suit the issue at hand. From a general perspective, ethics can be widely grouped into theoretical and practical ethics. The theoretical aspect is concerned with theoretical meanings of moral propositions and the manner in which their truth values can be ascertained. The practical aspect of ethics seeks to address the possibility of achieving moral outcomes in a given situation.

Engineering ethics in this context is part of applied ethics that is skewed towards the examination and the setting of standards concerning the duty of an engineer to the general public, how they should attend to their clients, their duty to their employer, and their obligation towards enhancing and maintaining the moral integrity of the engineering profession. Engineering as a profession is very diverse in terms of the possible branches one can venture into. This diversity make some of the engineering fields share only very limited principles. While most of these disciplines tend to complement each other, these engineers are bound to work in different environments. As such there cannot be a unifying code of ethics for the whole engineering fraternity. Ethical codes in this profession are largely dependent on the exact field of specialization and the jurisdiction of practice. Another factor that comes into play is whether an engineer is providing consultancy service to his clients or the engineer is an employee of a given manufacturing enterprise.

In most countries, the engineers who attend to their clients are normally referred to as professional engineers and are usually licensed. They abide by codes that ensure professional ethics and to a larger extent governed by a number of statutes. Their counterparts who practice in the manufacturing industry have to abide by certain laws, key among them being whistle blowing and also the law of product liability. Their practice leans more towards business ethics as compared to engineering ethics. Professional engineers are usually in private practice and are always responsible for drafting some of the codes of ethics that govern their profession. Engineers who practice in the industrial sector do not enjoy accreditation by the relevant government agencies. It is an arguable fact that despite the field and sector of practice, these engineers face similar ethical issues. Similar in the sense that they share the same root causes but only change slightly in form depending on the discipline and the sector of practice.

Engineering societies have for a long time drafted their own codes of ethics. These codes of ethics have undergone a series of refinement over time in a bid to make them more viable to overcoming ethical issues. Such codes of ethics usually act as general guidelines since ethical issues are very diverse and as such some of these codes have to be adjusted to suit the situation at hand. In the United Kingdom, a notable example is the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), which chose to incorporate its ethical codes into the standards of conduct. The code of ethics in engineering basically seeks to ensure the wellbeing of the public, the clients in the case of a professional engineer, the employer for the engineers who practice in the industry, and for the enhancement of the moral integrity of the engineering profession.

Any engineering profession is susceptible to a number of risks some of which may be detrimental to a wider section of the population. With this risk in mind, the first aim of an engineer is to ensure the safety and health, not only of the general public but also for themselves and their workmates. Engineers are required to subscribe to principles that ensure sustainable development in the course of their undertakings. Since the engineering profession is very diverse, an engineer who may be very competent in his field of specialization may not be able to achieve much in another line of engineering. For most of the engineering societies around the world, there are basic ethical codes that they seem to share in common. A code of ethics in the field of engineering always restricts engineers to stick to their areas of specialization. This is to avoid exposing himself and the general public to the imminent danger. An engineer is required to speak the truth on the technical aspects of a job and maintain a professional relationship with the employer or his client. Conflict of interest is a sure way to compromise and as such should always be avoided by an engineer. An engineer is supposed to safeguard the integrity and the interest of the engineering profession. In as much as an engineer is supposed to advance career wise, they have an obligation of ensuring professional growth for their juniors. According to the law of whistle blowing, an engineer is more obliged to safety than he is to the client or to his employer. This law requires the engineer to report cases where their employers or clients fail to follow their directions and in the process are exposing the public to potential danger. In some instances, some the relevant authorities fail to take action and this may end up in the engineer going public.

The most notable cases of disaster in the field of engineering have been caused by both technical and ethical issues. While some of these accidents have been due to technical aspects and design inadequacies, others have been due to inefficient management culture. Some of the cases that have been established to have an ethical dimension on their occurrence include the Chernobyl disaster, Bhopal disaster, Boston molasses accident, Johnstown Flood, just to mention but a few.

Chernobyl disaster was an incident that took place in Ukraine, and it involved the meltdown in a nuclear reactor plant. This accident was to a larger extent blamed on human error. The personnel were blamed for using a limited operational reactivity margin. The disaster caused to the people living within the neighbourhood was immense in gravity and most of the effects were of a long term nature. The mental health of the people was extremely affected cases of cancer were later reported to be rampant in the area. All these effects came about due to the irradiation of the area by radioactive material. The workers were also affected with more than thirty losing their lives within a span of three months from the time of occurrence of the disaster. An advisory group that was later formed to look into the cause of this disaster blamed the people who were responsible for the design of the power plant. They failed to consider certain pertinent aspects of the design which could have prevented such an occurrence or which could have ensured that the accident did not proceed to reach the level it did. It was realized that in the course of preparation and subsequent testing of turbine generators, it was done without the incorporation of systems that were responsible for technical protection. This was viewed to have been a breach of the safety provisions that were required for the actual technical exercise.

Some of the most outstanding organizations that are concerned with engineering ethics include the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) in the United Kingdom, the Canadian Society for Professional Engineers, and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) which have been seen to be championing for the upholding of ethical practices within the engineering field. The reasons for their establishments are to ensure that engineers in private practice, the government and in the manufacturing sector are able to subscribe to a common code of ethics within a given jurisdiction. Such bodies have certain punitive measures to their members in cases where ethics appear to have been sidelined in making decisions. To ensure that engineers adhere to such codes set by these organizations, it is mandatory to be registered with certain bodies within given jurisdictions to practice as an engineer.

There has been a general drift towards formulating an all encompassing code of ethics for all engineers throughout the world. This has been noted by the fact that the codes formulated by most societies throughout the world appear to be having certain similarities. While this appears to be a very noble idea, some room and allowances will have to be allowed to accommodate the different cultures in the world. It is deemed that developing a set of common ethical codes and supplementing it with additional entries that regard the cultural setting and the exact field of specialization within engineering. The codes should be set out in such a manner that no confusion can be reported within a given jurisdiction.

The understanding of the notion of morality is always different to different people. To many people and societies, morality is the obedience and respect to the authority, either parents or leaders in the society. This notion is very dangerous and has led to abuse of authority and other social evils. This essay seeks to highlight the dangers that prevail out of this understanding.

Morality is a code of conduct. It is a behavioral system that has been established among social animals so as to regulate their social interactions. These behaviors are characteristic of social beings living under particular conditions, the society or community. Under these conditions, the behavior of one of the social being causes an effect to everyone. Majority of us have a very negative understanding of what morality entails. This is the reason the reaction of people towards the notion of morality is also negative. People have the tendency of associating morality with religion. To many of us morality is like the respects and obedience to the rules and regulations that are set up by our parents or other authorities. Those who understand morality from this perspective strive to obey the rules and regulations regardless or whether they are right or wrong. They do not seem to care how pointless the rules and regulations are. This understanding bases morality with a mustiness. That being moral is obeying the power that be. This understanding also restricts morality to whatever the authorities define as right or wrong.  

Authorities have acquired the tendency of taking advantage of this understanding to mislead people. It is this idea of morality that makes propaganda a very effective tool in leadership. The leaders and those in authority will pretend to have the interest of the people in their minds and in the real sense they are doing whatever is for their own good. They will always assert that whatever they are doing is in respect to the societys ethics and virtue. They have always exploited peoples fear for authority to gain, especially politically. On their part, the people follow the opinions of these leaders without questioning them because this is what the society expects of them.    

This view of morality has also helped in fueling stereotyping and prejudice. This is where the society has led people to believe that certain behaviors are morally right while others are not. People have been chained to stereotypes about morality that have led them not to think ethically about many issues that are prevalent in the society. Prejudice is also prevalent due to this negative understanding of morality. Any person who refuses to accept what the society considers morally right is easily discriminated against. Heshe will be viewed as a person with no morals.

This wrong understanding of morality has restricted people from thinking about the environment from an ethical perspective. In all the problems that affect the environment, people have been made to find solutions from what the society considers right or wrong.  

It is true to argue that in the societys understanding of morality, things like environmental conditions and problems are not included. Therefore where the society is allowed to define what is to be accepted as right or wrong, many aspects of environment are left out. No parent in the contemporary society will set as a rule that hisher child should take care of the environment. Many of us have grown up without knowing how our actions impact on the environment. Politicians on the other hand will always stand in defense of their political ambitions without thinking about the environment. Even in times when matters of environment are considered in the society, they are mentioned as any other business, not as a moral responsibility in the society. Influential people in the society have taken advantage of this understanding to destroy the environment. This people have established industries that pollute the environment without putting in place any measures to prevent this. People have no voice in the matter because they have the obligation of obeying the authority. Influential people have put governments in their power due to promises and financial favors, thus deteriorating the environment. Many industries set up contribute to destruction of the environment and the natural resources without any way of preventing them after all we are supposed to obey the government and the authorities in the society.    

There are people who are against this kind of understanding. These are the people who are viewed as social misfits. They are condemned by the society for attempting to view the environment from a different perspective. This can lead to more problems because these people will always rebel against their parents and the society in general. They view their parents and society as hypocrites who have refused to embrace and respect their own standards. This kind of person knows and understands that heshe is right where all the others are wrong. In this kind of situation, the societys understanding of morality restricts people from exploring and understanding the environment on their own. Seeking to find their own way by rebelling against the rigid society is what leads them to greater danger. They derive fun by doing those things that the society considers wrong. In situations where these people form a group, the problem is further aggravated. They act to prove a point to the society. They always want to act in their own way to exemplify certain set of virtues.  

This form of thinking about morality does not allow us to utilize the dictates of our conscience. After my parents and the society has dictated to me about what is right or wrong, what do I need my conscience for The society does not allow us to judge between what is right or wrong. This is where we find it difficult to deal with situations that our parents or leaders did not tell us about. Taking the example of the environment, as long as the authorities have not warned us against destroying it, we will continue doing it. If our conscience was allowed to operate, we would be able to judge by ourselves whether it is right or wrong. Under this point the idea of hypocrisy can be revisited. Our leaders and the society do not care about the environment. What we see on a daily basis is the environment being degraded under their watch. This is the reason why it will be hypocritical for them to tell us that it is wrong to destroy the environment. They will always shy away from telling us that it is wrong. As long as they have not told us that it is wrong, and we are only supposed to make decisions on what the society has said is wrong or right, we will continue performing the activities that lead to destruction of the environment.  

Society-based morality from this perspective is territorial. Territorial morality is not flexible. As long as it is not my parents of the powers in my society that have said, then I am not bound to follow. My obligation is only to follow the rules and regulations that my society has set as right or wrong. Nevertheless, there are rules that are coincidentally universal. These are the only rules that cut across territorial Bounderies and have many ways of learning. Others that do not and are society-bound are only applicable to that society. As long as the society does not open its members to various definitions of morality, it is not possible to benefit from those ethics and virtues that are universal. For example, if my society did not tell me that environmental pollution is wrong, even hearing it from a different community will make no difference. I only need to hear and follow what my society says.      

This argument does not rule out the benefit of this understanding. Whenever the rules and regulations set up to be followed by individuals or the society are right, then the advantage of this understanding is apparent. For example, children who follow this understanding and obey their parents directives, end up as upright children. There are individuals who choose not to pay attention to morality from this perspective and end up lost. They refuse to pay attention to what the society may think. These are the kind of children who become rebels and end up as delinquents in the society. But in this case, they cannot be said to be amoralists because they well know the difference between the wrong and the right. It is only that they have refused to go with the understanding that everyone has accepted. This shows the failure of society in allowing freedom of understanding to morality.      

Conclusion
If people were allowed greater freedom in the understanding of morality, they will think on diverse applications of morality they will be able to include the environment, which they will think about ethically. It is time parents, religions and societies allowed people to think about ethical matters far from what the society has set up. The parents, religions and societies have a duty to offer directions and guidelines and let people think and contribute to the environment.

Another way of saving the environment apart from opening our minds to different definitions of morality is for the society to change its thinking on the matter and include environmental ethics in their definition of morality.

Code of conduct is a set of policies aimed to conserve a just and affirmative behavior among individuals. It is a fact that without moral values, man cannot work harmony with each other, and without morality, man as rational creature is a breakdown. Morality is the basis of every human organization and it can be lessen to code ethics and conduct that should go hand in hand to uphold civic morality because in an organization, without civic morality is said to no value for the business organization.

The practice of an occupation or profession cannot be regulated completely by legislation or the management. Each occupation or profession subscribes to a set of moral codes or values. This code of conducts as well as code of ethics implies that a professional person who has the responsibility to listen and to dictate for a reason. The needs of this conduct are obviously for the benefit of the profession of the organization. For example, many executives and professionals realize that an honest business results to first-class business. The public, according to statistics patronizes business that is perceived to be honest, thus enhancing the sales and boosting the income for them.

In this sense the code of ethics often focuses on social issues in an organization. It set up general thoughts about an organizations beliefs on issues such as quality, privacy and mission. It may delineate proper actions to verify whether violation of the code of ethics has happened and its remedies. Thus, the efficiency of codes of ethics depends on the extent to which organization supports them with penalties and incentives (James, 2008). In most cases, violations of private groups code of ethics usually can question the violator to the groups solutions (such as control of employment based on moral principles). These scenarios give rise for the code of ethics to link it to the code of conduct for employees.

On the other hand, code of conduct is an article designed to persuade the behavior of employees. It gives actions to be used in specific ethical scenarios including conflicts of interest among members of the organizations and outline the procedures to find out whether the violation occurred. This break of code of conduct may subject the violator to the organizations cures which can under a particular circumstances result in the termination of employment.

In this sense, the Code of Conduct and Ethics for businesses and organizations provide different premises towards the customers and their clients in the making of goods and services. This include the following a) use of new discoveries and inventions that will improve their products and services that will benefit the users or customers, b) stay away from anything that would cause death to the health, safety and growth of the proper user or beneficiary of such goods and services and c) make every effort after the quality that will help them to serve their purpose proficiently and effectively.

In this sense, even a code of conduct together with the code of ethics does not guarantee that employees will comply with, or they will comprehend the basic objectives behind these codes. Thus, the challenge lies in turning an organizations code of conduct and ethics into a relevant and engaging guide that will inspires a workforce toward a self- governing and principled manners. This involves content and language capable of winning over even the most skeptical employees as well as procedure and methods to make sure that business code of conduct and ethics becomes a valuable, living article that actively engages to employees. With all these facts and premises, it can be further presume that as code of conduct and ethics are both materialized and implemented within an organization, making and expecting that the business will surely grow and succeed.

The burning question that corporations face today is with respect to their responsibility towards the society. Many stakeholders believe that the modern corporations have become large institutions that are stronger than most societies they serve in. Hence they rationalize that the modern corporations owe to the society and must play an active role in community development. Taking an orthodox economic perspective and going back to the basic purpose of an organization, however, I believe organizations should focus on their core objective which is profit maximization.

In business schools one is taught that a corporation in fact is purely an artificial person. Just like any individual person has got some responsibilities. A corporation, as it is an artificial person it also has some artificial responsibilities. Thus, the corporation is also accountable for any actions it takes. Henceforth, a corporation has a separate legal entity than it owners. And it is to be regulated by the government. The corporation is actually voluntarily run by a group of people who have similar views, goals and purposes. These people are running the corporation for their own mutual benefit and interest. These are the people who indeed are responsible for making decisions on behalf of the corporation. Hence, one can assume that in reality a corporation is indeed a expression of freedom by those who own it. It is not dependent on the society for its existence and its only obligation towards society is to respect the peoples natural rights.

The corporation thus has a management and that management is in real an employee of the owners of the business. The management is thus accountable to its employers. And it is the duty of the management that the carry out the activities of the business as per the desires and expectations of the owners. And the desires of the owners of the business usually are to maximize the return on the investment they have made. Hence, the owners want to enjoy substantial profits while at the same time they want the business activities to be conducted by the management in an ethical manner.

However there are instances when the objective of the owners of a business is not to make money. Instead the common purpose of such a corporation is some societal goal e.g. a not-for-profit organization like a school or a hospital. Here, obviously the management of that businesss aim shall be to provide the best possible services to the society. Likewise, any management that is either running a profit or non-profit business has got one principle responsibility to act as an agent of the owners of the corporation. Here, this makes the management have a fiduciary responsibility towards the owners. The management is obliged to use the owners or the shareholders money. But only for purposes or activities that are authorized to them by the owners. But if the management makes use of the owners money without taking any permissions or approvals then they are liable for spending that money.

Here, management has violated the obligations by which they are bounded and have failed to meet their contractual terms. Further, it is the social responsibility of the corporation through its management to respect the space and autonomy of the individuals. The management here should not only honor the contracts made with corporation but also avoid engaging in any fraudulent, deceptive, coercive, misinterpretation or forceful activity. So another important point over here is that in reality the corporations do not physically exist. In fact a corporation is has implications that are beyond tangibles. A corporation is not just limited to assets like land, building, plant, machinery or inventory. In fact a corporation also comprises of many intangible assets. A companys value is judged by its stock they buying, holding and selling of the stock. And intangibles like goodwill, management style, employee morale, ability to identify and capture opportunities, consumers confidence, organizations knowledge systems and similar things determine the future value of a corporations stock.

But it can also be presumed that corporations are actually run by a management to serve some public interest and for the benefit of the society. This presumption comes from those business analysts who propose that the corporation should be made socially responsible as they are existing in the society because the society has allowed them so. And they should have a moral obligation to pay back to the society the benefits they derive by utilizing the societys resources. So all in all, there are critics who think that corporations are supposed to be a public property rather than some ones private property.

Milton Friedman raised a point that those who chanter that the corporations have a social responsibility are in fact being deceptive. Such people are fooling around as the managements own interests are not more important than those of the owners. Because, if the management is actually being socially responsible then it indeed giving away the rightful money of the owners to places where it does not belong.

The social responsibility however, is done by management with some hidden agenda in mind. It is used to formulate and foster relationships with stakeholders who are influential in affecting the business environment. Or else the influential stakeholders are able to bring in some positive inflow to the company in form of hiring talented employees, helping avert risk, enhancing brand equity or improving ties with the customers. There is hence, always a benefit involve that is more of being in favor of the corporation rather than the society.

So when one is saying that the management has to be socially responsible in running the business it can have multiple inferences. The management must act in ways that are not detrimental for the business of the owners.They must not take step against employee interests like increasing the product price that eventually leads to a decrease in sales and in market share. Even though such price hikes may enable the corporation to combat against inflation. Same way, a management must avoid spending too much amount on reducing the pollution controls set by the government to minimize cost for the corporation and not just maximize the social responsibility towards the environment.

Any one in the management however can assume their own interest but not by acting as an employee of their owners. The management has full right and it is at their free will to spend their own time, money and any other resources for the causes they believe they should invest in. But this is all strictly done by the management when they are not assuming the role of the corporate functions in which they are working. As no one in the management is authorized to diverge any of the owners capital or resources to purposes they personally like to invest in. Doing so may result in some legal action to be taken against such individuals by the owners as it is an unlawful deed. The owners in such circumstances are allowed to suspend, remove or file a legal suit against such law breakers.

But this does not at all mean that any management person does not have his free will left any longer. The person is not just part of the management but also happens to be part of the social circle from which he originates. The manager may have responsibilities and duties towards his family, friends, community, religious groups, clubs, and certain charitable causes and even towards his conscience.

All these different responsibilities are likely to make the individual feel compelled to act in favor of them. Hence, the least a person could do is devote some time from their routine to that cause or contribute financially towards it. In some extreme scenarios, the person may find it difficult to fulfill his responsibilities for corporation and his life both and he might choose to leave the corporation and head towards his passions.

But in all these situations the individual is indeed acting out of his own free will but like a principal and not an agent. The individual involved here is not acting on behalf of the management or the corporation. He is devoting his personal resources to his social responsibilities and thus these social responsibilities are his and not that of the corporation.

So managing social responsibilities is not the job of the corporations. The corporation if is having some extra money to spend then it would do it on expanding its business. For when corporation start spending towards social responsibility they are reducing their profits and increasing their costs.

And even if some corporations do try to spend some money on social responsibility then it is only for those who have got a lot to spend. The companies for who even survival in the market are tedious for them it is a completely different scenario. These companies cannot spend their precious bills on actions that are unnecessary expenditures. And even worse if a company is faced with a scenario where it has to lay off employees. Then it is encountering low and disgruntled employee morale. Any such social working by the company now would make the employees feel even bitter and harsh about the corporations business operations. They would feel unimportant to the business.

So any corporation should not take off its mind off the core competencies of the business. Social responsibility is never a core competency for a for-profit corporation. Social responsibility is effective when the owners and employees all are getting their desired results. Then they have a high moral and in such cases a well executed social responsibility effort will help the organization enhance its brand reputation and foster relationship with key stakeholders.

But primarily, to take care of any social responsibilities is not the job of the corporations at all.  It is the duty of the state. The government is the one who is responsible for formulating any policies and legal frameworks. It is thus, there job to look after the interests of the public and see what actions are to be taken for the good of the society and the environment. The government should focus on establishing such infrastructure and systems which provide solutions to the needs of the public. How the corporations can play their role here is just by obeying the laws which the state sets for them and by paying taxes which can be utilized by the state in order to spend on the societal causes. Besides this, the corporations should just focus on what their owners expect of them.

Thus, the management of any corporation has its obligations to the owners and also the workers. The management which is the decision making authority in a corporation is the one who is responsible for the integrity of company and any decisions pertinent to it. Hence, what is more important for an organization than social responsibility is to be corporately responsible. The corporation should ensure that owners interests are being fulfilled. Further, the corporation should be doing the things in the right way like the companys products and business activities are being carried out in the best interests of the owners and as well the public. When said in best interests of public it means that the services being offered are of good quality and are of not any harm to those to whom it is being offered. The corporations must here by control any temptations to solely maximize their profits by fooling or sacrificing the consumers. Just like individuals practice some morals and laws similarly corporations being artificial person should practice some morals and laws.

Henceforth, a corporation is supposed to act in a somewhat single minded way  like the owners agent. The management of the corporation must not offer their sympathies to any cause unless the shareholders agree with them. The management must care only about the owners and should not consider the effects of the actions which they undertake. The management should understand that it is not even accountable to the government except for adhering to the rules being set by the state. Its only responsibility and accountability lies towards its shareholders. This is the major source of agency conflict between owners and managers. It should be left upon the shareholders to make the decision whether they want to engage in a charitable act or not. They can do it from their personal wealth and can have the personal freedom to provide donations to any cause they personally believe in. Hence they do not need managers to make that decision for them.

When was the first US census conducted and why
The first U.S. census after the American Revolution was conducted in 1790. This original census was undertaken to solve a myriad of issues including the problem of finding proper political grounding for executive authority, how to distribute government power among the unevenly sized states and redistribute that power in the event of additional states and population growth, and finding a proper basis for levying taxes.

How many races were there in the first census
In the first census the only four (4) races were counted these were the free white males, free white females, slaves, and other persons (free blacks and Indians living in or around white settlements).

How has US census classification changed and why
As mentioned, while the original census began with four racial classifications, these changed through time, almost in every census conducted since. In the 19th century before slavery was abolished the race of the slaves needed to be specified as either Black or Mulatto, and a multitude of changes have been applied to this issue from specifying the amount of African ancestry to the one-drop rule. At the time the article was written, which was before the 2000 census, the racial and ethnic standards in the census forms were American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, or White while ethnicity was broken down into Hispanic Origin and Not Hispanic Origin. The reasons for these changes were also as numerous as the number of changes themselves from civil rights issues to debates centered around miscegenation, to alleged financial and political power struggles.

What is the historical reason for changes in census racial classification
As mentioned, there were various reasons for the changes in the classifications. With increasing rates of immigration came races in significant enough numbers to warrant classification. At another end of the issue are the changes related to African-American ancestry, which can be mostly traced back to the existence of slavery as a norm in the country. When slavery was still being practiced, it was specified whether a person was a free black or a slave, as well as free and slave white men and women, then later whether a slave was black or mulatto. After the Emancipation the amount of African ancestry was still specified until it degenerated into the one drop of blood rule. Also as different racialethnic groups settled themselves into the country there were the fights for cultural identity, recognition, the distribution of political power and other advantages of being recognized minority groups. As there were those who fought to do away with the race question altogether, civil rights issues reinstated them as The categories became political entities, with their own constituencies, lobbies, and vested interests. There were also accusations of fights for recognition spurred by the benefits the government gave to make up for discrimination in the past.

What is the one drop of blood rule
The one drop of blood rule is the classification of an individual as Black even if that person only has a single drop of African blood in hisher heritage. In the past the amount of this ancestry was specified until it was abolished altogether in favor of simply categorizing them as black. The one drop rule specifically came from the belief that different races had different blood types this was apparently before the advent of advances in understanding genetics.

When were ethnic Europeans classified as white
It was between 1973 and 1977 when ethnic Europeans were classified as white. In 1973 the Federal Inter-agency Committee on Education (FICE) defined Whites as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, or the Indian subcontinent. In 1977 the O.M.B. Statistical Directive 15 adopted this and other definitionssuggestions put for by the 1973 FICE.

What were the arguments for mixed race classification
Including a multiracial or mixed race option in the race classification according to those in Mixed Race groups advocating the change because it gives a category for those who neither fully belong to one race nor another children of multiracial marriages or more commonly, those with already colorful mixed heritages. It was mentioned that this change would lift the lid of racial oppression and allow people to actually identify their full heritage. It would be inaccurate to classify a person under a particular race when they have the same, or more, amount of blood from a different race. It would be a kind of denial of all their other ancestries if they only identified with one. When multiracial people identify with one particular race it can be accused that it is for not entirely noble reasons, such as to receive the benefits allotted to that racial minority. The very act of being made to identify oneself with a race is said to encourage racism and multiracialism would undermine this very basis of racism, categorizing people.

What were the arguments against multi race classification
As mentioned in the article, including a multi race classification into the census would undo many civil rights movements with regards to race. Organizations based on specific racial groups would lose the power in numbers as dictated by the census as large percentages of people who would normally choose one particular race would choose multiracial instead. These numbers dictate demography and allotment for government benefits for minorities, and even dictate the distribution of power to represent each group. Many established civil-rights laws that concern race would be undone to make room for this new category.

It is hardly a novel observation to note that the relationships between and among such notions as the rule of law, democracy, public policy and employee behavior are often bogged down in a tangled web of competing values and priorities.  What is surprising, however, is the difficulty faced when trying to establish a democratically-legitimate rule of law in which ethical considerations assume primacy over minimum legal compliance.  Because government policy makers and the private sector are motivated by different fundamental concerns, ethical issues are too often subordinated.  This essay will examine how these competing values arise, how they affect employee behavior both criminally and in the private sector, and whether it is wise to use employers as mediating institutions in an effort to instill an ethical priority rather than a legal compliance priority.

Background Politics of Public Management and Competing Values
Government policy, in a political system ostensibly devoted to the rule of law within a democratic framework, generates of number of ambiguous and controversial results with respect to employee behavior.  In effect, because a number of competing values have arisen, there has been a perceived need to superimpose a larger ethical framework that will reconcile these competing values and generate a more rationale and ethical type of public policy.  This is because, as history has demonstrated on many occasions, the rule of law in a democratic system does not necessarily result in public policies that are consistent with democratic virtues nor does it necessarily result in a level playing field for different classes of citizens.  Echoing this belief that public policy demands a governing ethical framework, one scholar has stated that Quite clearly, moral considerations are of fundamental importance to the quality of democracy and its administration--the soul of modern public administration.  Moral considerations are important because the democratic system does not necessarily create what might be characterized as an ethical rule of law quite the contrary, because employers too often have a disproportionately strong influence on and within the democratic system, they are able to help create through public policy a sort of one-sided rule of law that negatively impacts employee behavior and employee rights.

Studies demonstrate that public policy has failed to ethically guide employee behavior in a number of instances.  Some of the more egregious types of employer behavior have included unreported conflicts of interest, financial disclosures that satisfy the rule of law technically but are moral breaches, and disclosures of confidential information.  Government policy, in short, has not been effective enough in reigning in unethical behavior by employers and employees.  One scholar, noting the seeming inability to create an enforceable ethical rule of law to govern employee behavior, has noted the frequent overemphasis found on legal compliance in government ethics.  Legal compliance alone, a technical clinging to minimum legal standards, possesses no ethical force.  What is needed, therefore, is much more than a democratically-created rule of law that creates nothing more than technicalities.  Public policy needs to create a richer type of law that protects and creates incentives for employees to behave ethically.

One set of problem is that public officials and the private sector are too often motivated by different considerations and different value systems.  Indeed, one leading public administration scholar has noted that public organizations are fundamentally different from private organizations as a consequence of the function they serve in society.  Public policy tends to respond to social pressures more generally whereas the private sector responds more directly to market forces.  The tension between the two is natural when particular social goals conflict with market demands.  Thus, from the point of view of desiring a more ethical rule of law in a democratic system, these competing values need to be reconciled.

Employers as Mediating Institutions
To this end, some scholars have advocated the use of private sector employers as a sort of mediating institution in order to reconcile these competing values.  These proposals are fairly recent and the stated concept has been that Mediating institutions connect the private lives of individuals with public policy concerns by communicating societal norms to members and providing social contexts that encourage a commitment to these norms.

The concept is that behavioral change, whether of an ethical nature or otherwise, is much more likely to be successful if mediating efforts are deepened between employees and government policy makers.  The problem, both historically and systematically, has been that employees and policy makers have been separated more specifically, the private sector employers have on many occasions pressed their market needs on policy makers without addressing employee concerns as vociferously.   One proffered justification for employer mediation has been ethically-oriented more particularly, it has been stated that employees are more likely to behave openly and responsibly when public policies and private sector operations affect their local community.  A sort of nexus of shared responsibility, both public and private, arises in which communities are safeguarded from unethical exploitation while market considerations are simultaneously protected by policy makers.  Although traditional mediating institutions have included non-private sector organizations such as churches, neighborhood groups, and voluntary associations, there is no good reason why employers should not be considered as viable mediating institutions given their tremendous influence.

First, employees often spend more time at work than at home or in their community.  They are thus able to affect and effect through their behavior a more ethical pattern of business conduct.  Second, employee knowledge can be pooled and used by employers to construct and advocate lobbying campaigns that reflect employer and employee interests more diversely and more completely.
 
One interesting study in this respect involved employee commuting behavior in Atlanta, Georgia.  One the one hand, government policy makers were interested in encouraging employee commuting in order to promote social goals such as cleaner air and energy conservation.  The private sector was, quite naturally, more concerned with its own financial operations than broader social goals of no particular relevance to its main market activities.  The question, therefore, was how to affect employee behavior in positive ways.  Was the proper solution a government-mandated commuting law or something less intrusive. Direct regulation was rejected Given dwindling government resources and waning political will to impose direct control over individual behavior, policymakers may increasingly attempt to persuade employers to mediate societys most pressing and intractable problems, such as individual driving behavior. This persuasion constitutes a marketing function that is significantly different from the coercive role to which policy managers are used to playing.

In the instant case, direct coercive power by governmental policy makers was not required.  Employer mediation was sought and the private sector responded by educating employees about the relevant social goals.  There were two main conclusions.  The first was that employer mediation did affect employer behavior, but that the total behavioral change among employees was rather small.  The second conclusion was that the likelihood of a particular private sector employer functioning positively as a mediating institution depended on its attributes these attributes related to connections to the immediate communities, particular industrial affiliations, and ownership structures.  In short, it can be argued that employers might be interposed as mediating institutions in certain limited circumstances.  It would be too much to suggest, however, that employers are likely to influence employee behavior more significantly than government policy makers through an ethically-oriented rule of law.

Crimes Against Capital
Employee behavior, however, must also be viewed against what some observers have characterized as being an increasingly constrained regulatory environment.  At the same time that policy makers are deferring to employee individualism through the use of employers as mediating institutions regarding certain public policy issues they are creating a more coercive environment in other respects.  For example, there was an uproar fairly recently when federal legislators considered special legislation to require employer notification regarding the electronic monitoring of employees in the private sector.  The private sector employers, to be sure, did not want to be burdened by the notification procedures.  They argued that employees wasted too much time, this wasted time constituted business inefficiency, and that coercive notification requirements from government policy makers were an undue regulatory burden.  The strength of the conviction by private sector employers cannot be overstated indeed, the issue as articulated by the private sector employers implicated civil privacy concerns as well as potential criminal liability.  With respect to the relationship between the criminal justice system and theft of time it has been stated that Employee theft has been classified by criminologists as a type of occupational crime, itself a subspecies of white-collar crime. The term refers to offenses committed by outsiders and insiders, customers and employees, who victimize the employer. Shoplifting, fraud, computer crime, and expense account theft are typical examples of the genre.

The danger associate with unlimited monitoring, and that which the policy makers
sought to address, was that employers were effectively creating potential new types of criminal liability outside of the legal system.  The theft of time, as recorded through employer monitoring, might come to include such normal things as wasting time talking to another employee about a football game, surfing the internet, taking extended breaks, or idle behavior.   It is the governments duty to protect individual privacy, to define criminal behavior, and not to delegate these responsibilities to private sector employees.

Thus, at the same time that private sector employers have been offered up as potential mediating institutions, they have also increased monitoring of employees. This is likely to discourage trust between employers and employees, it is likely to have a chilling effect regarding employee behavior and the reporting of unethical behavior, and it is likely to exacerbate the competing values paradigm that has for so long existed between the private sector and government policy makers.  The private sector employees seem hopelessly caught in the middle.

Conclusion
In the final analysis, it has been extraordinarily difficult to create an ethical rule of law because of competing values which exist between private sector employers and government policy makers.  This is true both at the state level and at the federal level.  Some studies have indicated that the private sector might be used as a sort of mediating institution in order to promote and achieve certain social goals.  The data, however, has not been especially persuasive that this is a wise course of action indeed, the successes have at best been small at worst non-existent.  What is needed is a stronger nexus between policy makers and private employees that rewards and protects ethical conduct while discouraging  and punishing unethical behavior.  Legal compliance is an inadequate paradigm.  

Digital Rights Management is a systematic approach to copyright protection for digital media. The purpose of employing DRM is to prevent unauthorized redistribution of digital media and to restrict consumers from copying content theyve purchased.

DRM is used to stop the exchange of digital media content illegally. The exchange of digital media files via the internet or other sources without paying for it has obstructed all copyright laws and even though many users see Digital Rights Management as overly restrictive it is solving a legitimate problem.
               
The copyright law states that people can make copies of content theyve purchased for their own use. However a computer program cannot think subjectively and does not allow any copying at all be it for personal use or not.

DRM and the Music Industry
Piracy wasnt an issue for a long time until copying material that was released was a big hassle. With the advent of easily copy able material that started with magnetic tapes and has carried on now to CDs, peer to peer sites and the internet piracy has become a major issue. This led to companies producing media content employ the tactics of DRM to stop piracy.
         
The top four music groups operating in the US are Vivendis Universal Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG and Warner Music Group. Out of these four, three of them had already started selling their music without DRM requirements. Sony BMG is the last to follow the trend to drop DRM.  This action is being taken to increase exposure of their artists and to end Apples monopoly over the song downloading market.
           
This is also a move to make themselves appear more consumer friendly as pervious DRM techniques enraged consumers and many filed lawsuits against them.  Consumers boycotted Sony when they came up with a DRM software that embedded itself in users PCs when the CD was played. This action enraged consumers who were paying for their music and thus led to a boycott. This created the people who were paying for the music to pay for those who were pirating it and the people who were pirating it were still free and unharmed.
         
Another implication of applying this DRM technology was that people started switching to the mode of download that was most compatible with their music players. This led to give Apple an increased monopoly over the other music retailers.

Now the basic question that arises is if DRM is the right way to go or not And this step taken by the music companies to exclude DRM from their music was a good step or not. In my opinion this is a good step because firstly it did not achieve its objective that is curb piracy. It just created a barrage of problems for the consumers who were actually paying for the music. Also a lot of music loving consumers were deprived of the music. The music companies also faced a lot of heat because of this policy and faced boycott from a lot of consumers. This not only led to increased anger by the consumers but also led to decreased sales of the music companies. According to an article the sales of Apple increased considerably and it got an 80 share of the market for legally downloadable music.  Another reason why taking back this DRM is that Sony and other music companies had started misusing this technology and had started crossing the line to obstruct consumer privacy. The DRM software created problems with Windows Operating System and made it more vulnerable. What the DRM software of Sony did was it installed with itself Rootkits on the users system. Rootkits are technologies that cant be seen on the surface. Thye hide files, registry keys and other objects from security software and so are usually used by malware and such objects that dont want to be seen on the surface. This helps a hacker or intruder to acquire access to a system. This was most prominently seen in Microsoft Windows Operating System. Mark Russinovich was the first person to find this and reveal it to the world which led the consumers to get into an outrage and boycott Sony. Also Sony found itself the subject of many lawsuits.
           
This was not the first time that invasive DRM was used by record companies however this came to broader public attention. Therefore in my opinion its better that DRM technology has been removed. DRM technology like this one mentioned above that is the root-kit is very harmful to computer systems as it directly affects not only a computers operating system but also directly manipulates the kernel, which is the core of the operating system so the user is exposed to multiple security threats. Intrusive DRM software was available even before this but the new thing was that the files were now being installed on the operating system level. They are supposedly trying to scan the system to detect attempts of piracy and in this way the systems resources and power are used up. Therefore this is highly intrusive to the consumers and was severely reprimanded.

Every society runs on certain principles. These principles act like threads whose intertwining makes that society thrive. Various authors have offered a lot of theories explaining why this is so. One thing that is clear however is that, when these threads break loose, society runs into a kind of crisis. There is no society that can function without a set of ethical principles that govern the interaction of members within that group of people. In our contemporary society, the fabric that once held us together has become corrupted. Greed has led to the near demise of society itself, and this is evident in just about every aspect of societal function. The government is to a large extent supposed to be the custodian of the principles of the society it governs. However, the financial crunch has revealed the extent of its failure as far as this responsibility is concerned. The crisis brought the government to a point of near collapse. It left the people in great suffering, with several losing their sources of livelihood. The biggest question is why did it happen What caused this unfortunate situation in the country Where was the government This study seeks to discuss these issues from an ethical point of view. It seeks to demonstrate that when capitalistic tendencies override values, the actors in that drama are somehow digging their own graves. It seeks to show that both the government and the financial institutions are the main culprits in this issue. These two did not uphold ethical principles, because if they did, the recent crisis would not have been experienced. In addressing these questions, one must be very modest in their claims. While this study seeks to address these issues from an ethical view point, it does not claim to have found a conclusive answer to the questions. It leaves room for further speculation.

The Role of the Government and Financial Institutions in the Crisis
Everyone would agree with the argument that no individual or organization should be allowed to act in a manner that is likely to endanger the life and functioning of society. As already mentioned, the government ought to protect its own citizens against any exploitative tendencies. However, the financial crunch revealed that the government does not have the moral strength or will to do this. It is worth noting that the crisis is not something that happened overnight. This is a reality that several analysts saw coming. It is something that the government was aware of, but constantly chose to turn a blind eye on. The government licensed institutions, and even encouraged them to go on with certain projects that were clearly too risky, not just for those institutions, but to the society as a whole. For instance, by allowing financial liberalization, the government was simply allowing financial institutions to take loans off the balance sheet. This also meant that there would be a decrease in underwriting, as well as oversight in lending. Greed became the driving force of the financial institutions so that they no longer considered the monitoring of credit risks very essential. It is worth noting that the contemporary society largely, if not totally, depends on the financial prosperity. Societal progress, indeed the very livelihood of humanity, is in the modern day pegged on financial progress. This is the reason why this question becomes one of the most important contemporary ethical issues, because it totally deals with the existence of the human species, and by extension, the entire universe.

While it is important for the government to allow the free flow of business transactions, it has a moral responsibility of ensuring that the manner in which this is done does not leave the society on its knees. By allowing financial liberalization, the government technically lost control of credit, witnessed by the fact that huge credits growth was recorded in just a few years. Everyone knows very well that the crisis was largely a result of the huge amount of credits taken. The government seems to have been torn between placing regulation on the way these things were done and liberalizing in the hope of profiting from it. As aforementioned, upholding ethical principles in the management of financial affairs is perhaps the only way to prevent such unfortunate realities. The government must have been in a dilemma because strictly enforcing the ethical principles would somehow have dealt a major blow on the financial liberalization policy, yet some of the financial analysts had advised that liberalization was the only way to guarantee future financial prosperity.

In about every country, there are certain ethical principles which ought to guide financial management. Fundamentally, five principles feature as the most important ones. These include professional behavior, objectivity, integrity, confidentiality, and professional competence and due care. Apparently, these were all lacking in the way financial transactions were conducted. For instance, the government, for some reason, allowed some of the biggest investment banks to function without necessarily being bound by the regulations that bound other financial institutions. These investment banks took advantage of this to increase leverage. Obviously, this exemption meant, at least indirectly, that these institutions did not necessarily have to abide with the ethical principles very strictly. When institutions increase leverage, it simply means that in case of a downturn, these institutions have no cushion against financial shock. What happened is that in 2007, only five of these investment banks had over 4.1 trillion dollars in debts. Soon the world witnessed the fall of the Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch and Bears and Stearns. The reason why every society tries, or ought to try, to have some kind of ethical principles is to avoid such kind of outcomes. If the directors and financial advisors of these institutions were guided by integrity, it is very possible that the crunch would not have been to the current extent.

The Case of Enron and Andersen
Another good example of total neglect of ethical principles is the case of Enron. This case effectively demonstrates that greed and interest of one party can jeopardize the health not only of national, but of international economies. It is well known by now that Enron colluded with Andersen, the firm that had been responsible for auditing its books, to present false information to the public regarding its financial situation. The company had for several years been on a loosing trend, yet by creating an off-shore account, they managed to pass false information regarding their success. This obviously made a lot of people to invest in the company. When the reality slowly became public, people quickly sold their shares in the company, while others lost all of their investment when the company collapsed. This case exposes not only the ethical retardedness of the two companies, but of the government as well. This is because the government through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has a responsibility, both legal and ethical, of protecting the people from such exploitations. After this scandal caught public attention, the SEC through its chairman at the time said that they had done all they could to ensure that the public was protected. However, it is clear that what this commission considered enough was far from sufficient. The reason for this claim is that with the backing of the law and the government, the commission should have accessed the accounts of the company and assessed for themselves the exact nature of its operations.

Andersen was also an example of a serious decay of societal fabric. This is because at present, the only way to assess the financial soundness of an organization, the audit reports play a very big role. This is the reason why audit firms should act with extreme integrity. It is worth noting that this firm knew very well the ethical obligations that bound it, yet it chose to ignore them. By this complicity, several people lost billions of dollars and with it their sources of livelihood. Between 2001, when this was happening, and today, a lot of other financial firms have come into the limelight for and several gotten into legal suits for professional misconduct. Needless to say that every time these misconducts occur, it leads to people losing a lot of money. The biggest question is if such things happen for so many years without people discovering, what would assure the public that every one of the successful firms is genuinely successful Who is left as the true protector of the public      

The SEC and the Crisis
As already indicated, the SEC is directly charged with the legal and ethical responsibility of ensuring that securities are traded in an environment of ethicality and legality. Ethically, they should ensure that all the companies dealing with these issues abide by the set codes and principles. This should not be a very difficult to do because they have the necessary legal backing, and most of the professions are currently guided by some principles as well. However, the commission has evidently failed in its obligation. For instance, in September last year but one, the chairman was quoted saying that the problem of short selling, and the manipulation of the market was taken care of. Allegedly, there have been several cases of what is referred to as naked shorting. Brokers have the tendency of borrowing shares, and selling them at a high price, then when prices come down they buy shares to replace the ones they had already borrowed. Sometimes, these people do buy the shares, but they delay the delivery, creating a possible manipulation of prices, in order to benefit from this situation, by selling non existent securities. There is high possibility that this is exactly what happened in the current financial crisis. But it is not enough for the commission to come in after the worst has already happened. Its role is to ensure that the investors are warned, or informed of possible crisis. This is not what the commission did in this crisis. Those on the commissions side argue, however, that there is not much it can do in terms of helping out the falling companies, especially companies whose policies are formulated by parent companies elsewhere. Some have even blamed the Congress, arguing that they set stage for the crisis in the 90s when they took away the tools necessary to offer directions to emerging markets and securities. The chairman, when summoned by a committee of the Congress, said that the commission did not have the powers to control the kind of risks these corporations took. They argued that rules that were two centuries old, were expected to regulate modern markets all this in an attempt to absolve the commission from blame.

The commission is supposed to check on all the securities firms and all the brokers as well in order to ensure that those that are experiencing difficulties in performance can be highlighted to the public. This would go a long way in ensuring that the public knows exactly what is going on, so it can decide based on information obtained. Unfortunately, the commission in several instances did not even seem to know what was going on in these companies. This is evidenced by the fact that many companies that are in serious financial mess have come into public eye only in the last year. Although the commission has been actively involved in the regulation of the firms dealing in securities, they ought to have done more than just that. They ought to constantly monitor the efficiency of these principles and how well they are applied. This is the only way they can avert similar situation in the future.

Conclusion
As already mentioned, the government ought to protect its own citizens against any exploitative tendencies. This study has shown that both the government and the financial institutions terribly failed in this regard. As a matter of fact, some of the institutions went a step further to take advantage of the loopholes that existed to exploit the investors. Currently, the world is still struggling with the aftershocks of the recession, one that is considered the worst in the history of mankind. The government should have been guided by integrity when it allowed financial liberalization because too much freedom in financial matters is a kind of temptation. More stringent measures should be set in place to ensure that various institutions do not move towards the exploitative tendencies witnessed. At the same time, no particular institution should be exempted from following the set regulations, because that creates room for abuse of those privileges. The SEC should have done all it can within the existing laws, to ensure that the public is protected. This study has established that several firms have been taken to court for professional misconduct in the recent past. This means that there still are gaps to be sealed otherwise what has been witnessed may end up recurring again in the near future. It is important that everyone does something to strengthen the values and principles that guide society, as well as the internal commitment to abide by these principles. However, it is very clear that this is one of the most difficult tasks of our modern time.

Recruiting or hiring of staff is a very sensitive phase in the running of any organization. This is the phase in which business ethics need to be observed the most. It is also the same phase where unethical acts occurs the most. This paper seeks to identify an ethical dilemma in work situations and then applying ethical theories to analyze the situation. The situation identified is unethical acts of a recruiting leader and the theories applied are Utilitarianism Kants Categorical Imperative Rawls Justice as Fairness Communitarianism Altruism Virtue Ethics Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism. These theories offer solution to ethical dilemmas in business environments. There is a conclusion that sums up the whole paper and offers the way forward in dealing with work situation dilemmas.      

Recruiting or hiring of staff is a crucial phase in human resource management. It is the first point of interaction with human resource in any organization. Recruitment determines the success of any organization because human resource is the most important resource for organizations. In recruitment, care must be taken to ensure that the best applicants are selected fairly. This is where ethics come into play in ensuring a fair and just recruitment. In any given organization, rules and regulations require that recruiters should be ethical in hiring. The problem is that application of ethics in this process is not as easy as it sounds, in practice. Nevertheless, studies have shown that ethics application in recruitment ensures employment of the best employees. This is why it is very important that ethics are observed in recruiting staff. Applicants are supposed to be selected on merit and not any other way. The aspects that are supposed to be checked in hiring are those that were detailed on the advertisement and not any other.

In the organization that I work for as a recruiter, the team leader whom I work with sometimes requires the recruiting assistant to alter the details of a job after it has been posted and some candidates sent in their applications on the basis of the original application. The leader does this so that the job description will suit a candidate he has identified after the original posting. The idea of changing the requirements for the job to suit his needs are unethical. Making another person that is the recruiting assistant to alter the posting is also unethical.

He also uses the wrong ways in receiving applications, which he receives from those that he knows. The applicants he wishes to assist through unethical means do not send applications through the means that are required. The applications are usually delivered to him directly. He also gives them information that they are required to present in their application and tells them what to say during the interview. Following is the analysis of this situation using ethical theory.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the right act is always the one that produces the greatest pleasure. This theory is a doctrine that states that the useful is good. It is the ideology that the moral value of an act is determined only by its contribution to the overall utility. In short, it is a system of ethics founded on the premise that the value of things is gauged by its usefulness the theory that every act should be directed to the greatest happiness and to the majority. In this situation, the recruiter acts to gain happiness from recruiting and working with the people that he knows. The theory talks about deriving the greatest happiness, not for an individual but for the majority. If the recruiter acts ethically and hires the right people for the job, he would achieve the greatest happiness to very many people. The hired people because they will have gotten the job they deserve, the other workers because they will be working with qualified staff, and lastly the organization as a whole because it will benefit from hiring of qualified staff who will work hard to achieve the objectives of the organization. This is the reason why the recruiter should always analyze his decisions and settle for the one that is beneficial to more people, and especially the organization. The situation is unethical because the pleasure gotten by the team leader is only for himself and the few people that he helps.

Kants Categorical Imperative
In this theory the idea of duty and obligation as well as the ideas of right and wrong are primary. According to this theory, a good person is the one who normally does what is right, and that a right act is the one that results from a sense of duty. The theory holds that the basic laws of morals are similar for every rational being. The rightness or wrongness of an act is dependent fully on the nature of the motive and not the consequences. The recruitment leader is usually very much aware that his acts are wrong and this is the reason why instead of altering the posts by himself he opts to use the services of the recruitment assistant. He forgets that he has a duty and obligation to the company to do what is right for its benefit. He acts unethically by failing to do what is right. His actions are wrong because his motive is not to benefit the organization but the people he helps. The consequences of his acts could be right, that is, the people he acquires could actually be good and qualified, but the rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by the consequences but the motives. In order to act ethically on the basis of this theory, the recruitment leader is supposed to do his duty ethically and fulfill his obligation to the organization and the workers. It is his duty to produce the best in the human resource department. According to this theory, the recruitment leader does not fulfill his obligation to the organization and the staff, hence his acts are unethical.  

Rawls Justice as Fairness
This theory has two principles every person should possess equal right to the most general fundamental freedom that is well-matched with similar freedoms of others and social and economic disparities are to suit two conditions they are to be linked to posts and offices accessible to everyone under condition of just impartiality of opportunity and they are to be of greater advantage to the disadvantaged members of the community. This theory calls for individuals to imagine themselves in a veil of ignorance where all individuals are rational, free and have equal morals. The recruitment leader in this case fails to be just by favoring some people at the expense of others. He fails to apply the veil of ignorance in the process.  The recruiter in this situation should allow the applicants equal rights to compete for the positions. Even though it is not possible for the recruiter to completely eradicate personal biases and prejudices, it is beneficial to take steps to make them as minimal as possible. It is important for the recruiter to pretend to know nothing of their race, gender, nationality or personal tastes. This way he will be able to make just decisions that are not influenced by any of this. The recruitment leader is clearly unjust and therefore unethical according to this theory.  

Communitarianism
Communitarianism theory is a collection of doctrines that opposes individualism in support of a more community-oriented approach. Communitarianism requires individuals to balance their personal needs and interests with those of the community. It also argues that individual people are shaped by the values and cultures of the community. According to this theory the recruitment leader fails by not honoring the interests of the community which in this case is the organization. In recruiting, he is supposed to forget about himself and those employees that he wants to employ for personal gains, and do what is best for the community he is working for. In this case the ethical action would be identifying himself with the organization as the community and recruit those people that are likely to benefit this community. While in the work situation, the recruitment leader should forget all other communities and societies that he belongs to. He should be able to strike a balance between his own interests and those of the organization. He should also seek to make decisions based on the needs and values of the organization. Viewed from the dimension of his community, his acts are ethical because he assists the people from that community. Nevertheless, when the organization is taken as the community, his actions are unethical.  

Altruism
Altruism is the character of selfless concern for the welfare of other people. It is an ethical principle that requires people to have the moral obligation to assist, serve or benefit other people. It calls for the sacrifice of personal interests for the benefit of others. In altruism, self interests are put aside for the sake of the interests of others. It is so selfish of the recruitment leader to use a recruitment assistant to do wrong. This shows that he is not concerned with the welfare of others. He is out to protect himself at the expense of others. In every decision that the recruitment leader makes he should be responsible and take responsibility of the consequences. In this situation also, the recruitment leader does not take account of the people who deserve this post but cannot get due to his corrupt dealings. For him to be ethical according to this theory, he should forget his benefits from the people he wishes to hire and think about the interest of the people that deserves to have those opportunities. According to the theory, the recruitment leader is selfish and therefore unethical.

Virtue ethics
This theory has the argument that morals are internal. The theory seeks to produce good individuals whose actions are good out of spontaneous goodness. The theory put emphasis on living well and achievement of excellence. The goodness of the recruiter is evident by trying to help those that he knows, but in the business situation this is unethical. He does wrong by using other people and also by giving opportunities to the undeserving. His failure of goodness is also evident in wanting to jeopardize the position of the assistant recruiter. He would achieve a lot by doing good deeds, because the success of the company would reflect his good deeds. He would also be safeguarding his job and those of the others in the recruitment department. Therefore from the view of this theory, the recruitment leader is unethical.  

Ethical egoism
This theory argues that for any act to maximize personal interest, it is essential and enough that it is morally right. This theory differs from the psychological egoism which dictates that actions are determined by personal interest. This theory also calls for the consideration of other peoples interests and doing what is right as measured against personal interests. This theory does not leave out the role of personal interests in decisions, but it emphasizes the idea of morality. The acts of the recruiter are selfish and morally wrong. He fights to protect his own interests at the expense of the others. Even in tying to honor his personal interests, the recruitment leader should strive to do whatever is right. In this situation therefore he acts unethically.  

Psychological egoism
Psychological egoism theory view human beings as always motivated by self-interests, even in their acts that are supposed to be altruism. It argues that it is not possible for people to behave contrary to what they consider their best interest. In this doctrine, people always pursue nothing short of their interests. This is evident in the acts of the recruiter. He alters job descriptions to satisfy his own interests. It is his personal interest that the people he identifies are the ones he wants to hire. He does not consider the interests of others who deserve the position and can be said to be selfish. All those facts not withstanding, from this theory, unlike all the others, the recruitment leader acts ethically because everything he does is for his own interest.

Conclusion
As evaluated against most of the theories, it is evident that the acts of the recruiter are all unethical. Just as the theories dictate, the position of the recruiter is such that he has an obligation not to his own people, but to the organization, the staff and the people being hired. Even if he knows someone, it is his duty to allow them to compete on the same level as all the other applicants. If he cannot act morally for the benefit of the organization, then he has no duty being in that organization. In most organizations recruiters tend to act as described in my situation. They should all know that it is unethical, wrong and immoral. I would suggest more research and education in the area of business ethics to transparency and justice in recruiting process and also in the working environment.

There are many ethical issues to be considered in the field of medicine where treatment of a patient is concerned.  We are encouraged to seek out advanced medical directives, do not resuscitate orders, and pre-planned funeral arrangements at the advice of well paid attorneys on television at every turn.
The problems concerning medical ethics do not usually present until we find that we are the patient.  Our level of competency becomes questionable as does our true understanding of what is transpiring, once we disagree with a doctor.  However, it is still my right to refuse medical treatment.
   
As a patient, I have encountered innumerous medical problems.  Most were minor and related only to simple infections, colds, coughs, and flues.  I have never been faced with other diagnoses that were unexpected like cancer, diabetes, or a brain tumor.  In Ms. Welshs case, she was relatively independent until undergoing her first brain surgery to treat ependymoma.  Following surgery, Ms. Welsh was left without full bodily functions.  Physical therapy was needed in order to regain some use of her functioning.  With these factors considered, does this mean that Ms. Welsh is without the ability to make an informed and rational decision concerning her own medical directives for treatment  I think that Ms. Welsh was perfectly able to make any decision concerning her medical treatment before or after her first surgery.  Her autonomy may be shaken due to fear, pain, or shock but this does not render the individual delusional.  In her detailed description of the events leading up to her surgical procedure and the events that followed shortly thereafter, she demonstrated to me that she was well within her abilities to know and understand what was going on around her.
   
I think that every doctor has a duty to uphold the oaths that they took to practice medicine.  It angers me to think that I could end up being challenged where my competency is concerned if I should choose to disagree with them.  Doctors should be encouraged to educate their patients of
risks, side effects, and options when devising a treatment plan.  It is essential that a doctor attempt to develop a form of rapport with me as this would serve to gain my trust. Given the circumstances of Ms. Welshs case, it was never clarified that she wished to discontinue or refuse medical treatment.  If however she did have a change of opinion in the matter, I think the doctor should have been bound to accept her wishes.
   
We too often put doctors and members of the medical community upon a pedestal.   If I were Ms. Welshs doctor, I would certainly have taken whatever treatment direction that she was comfortable with.  After all, she was the one recovering from the surgery and who better to know her body than her.  Some delays and problems were defined by Welsh as being setbacks from the recovery process.  This is no way suggests that she was never in a competent state of mind to make a rational decision.  Other medical issues can circumvent a situation and make unforeseeable complications appear to be a violation of an ethical view.  Drug interactions and complications following surgery are not preventable in most cases.  In other words, sometimes circumstances can arise that may give the impression of being incompetent when in actuality it is due to a reaction to treatment.  I believe that her doctor was ethical in supporting her choices.
   
Ethical dilemmas will continue to plague the medical community from here to eternity.  We should be assured in knowing that we do have the right to refuse medical treatment.  Our doctors are legally bound to respect and follow our wishes concerning treatment.  There are instances whereby a doctor can seek out a legal authorization to override our directive, but this is rarely pursued.  If we continue to talk and work together with our doctors, then it is in all probability that our medical needs and choices of treatment will always be made a top priority.

This essay reflects upon ethics, which can be defined as the capacity to reflect on values in the corporate decision-making process, to determine how these values and decisions affect various stakeholders groups. Moreover, the main or central idea of this essay is to discuss corporate social responsibility in detail as well. Corporate social responsibility is the managerial obligation to take action that protects and improves both the welfare of the society as a whole and the interests of the organization.  Therefore, this entire essay discusses CSR and ethics in great depth from the beginning till the end. Unethical decisions usually occur when organizations get too profit oriented and they do not see the social costs and benefits of the environment and they just see their own private costs and benefits. This biased behavior of the organization leads to problems for not only the organization later on but also for the society over all. Therefore, an organization should never become too profit oriented or self centered, it is the organizations responsibility to make sure that it protects the rights and social benefits of the citizens.

Understanding the importance of this introduction, is extremely important to understand the situation that Unilever had to face due to its unethical decision making process.

Evaluation of the Situation
Unethical decisions and situations usually take place because there are not much corporate social responsibility policies and no proper code of ethics in organizations but also because many societies and organization in the world today, do not have a clear understanding of the importance of CSR due to which social responsibility and ethics are not given a distinctive and proper place to occupy. The same as above happened in our context, Uni lever a multinational company ended up with a serious ethical dilemma because it did not have proper codes of ethics and CSR policies. The company was seeing its own personal benefit only at the cost of the social environment. The ethical dilemma was raised when Uni lever was caught dumping chemical wastes in the sea. This behavior was extremely unethical and the government had to intervene in between to stop this highly unethical behavior of the company. Unilever had to face the ethical dilemma later on by paying a high price to the government and moreover, the reputation and image of the company significantly fell in the eyes of its loyal customers.
           
Therefore, to completely eliminate unethical actions and decisions from organizations and societies as a whole, the importance of corporate social responsibility has to be carefully understood by every individual so that every one starts following CSR strictly and the world becomes a better place to live in.
             
The aspect of following an ethical and right decision-making process is extremely essential for avoiding ethical dilemmas. Basically, CSR involves evaluating how the organization will achieve its social responsibility principles and policies, and get where it wants to go in the area of social responsibility.
             
In todays highly competitive environment, people are so busy with fulfilling their own interests and needs that they do not notice that their actions are adversely and negatively affecting the rights and interests of others in the society. This behavior leads to ethical conflicts in societies and organizations. Therefore, organizations and societies can never operate happily and successfully, unless and until, the workers and citizens do not realize that ethical conflicts have an extremely negative impact and that they can seriously reduce the productivity and reputation levels of an organization.

Ethical theories and professional codes
Research into the matter of business ethics shows that Unilever should have adopted these ethical theories and codes to prevent itself from facing such a critical ethical dilemma of chemical waste dumping. It is extremely important to understand that when corporate social responsibility is being put into effect, it is necessary that the codes of ethics, mandatory codes, Aspirational ethics, personal orientation and ethical decision-making be also put in to effect at the same time.
           
A Code of Ethics is a formal statement that acts as a guide for the ethics of how people within a particular organization should act and make decisions. Codes of ethics commonly address issues such as conflict of interest, competitors, privacy of information, gift giving and giving and receiving political contributions or business.
         
Mandatory Ethics are the core and major ethics behind the code of ethics. They make up the code of ethics and are basically legal or administrative policies for the benefit of the society and organizations. Legal action can be taken if mandatory ethics are violated in any way.
           
The ethics, which are based upon a moderate or optimum level of behavior, are called Aspirational ethics. These ethics are in no way similar to the code of ethics or mandatory ethics. They are a different category because they portray the perceptions of people, their cultural values and their conscience in the society. For example, if there is a severe thunderstorm going and I see a lady dangerously stuck in the rain with her tire punctured. Then, my Aspirational ethics would force me to go help her, whereas no law states that we risk our own life or we go out of the way to help people we do not know.
           
Then comes, the aspect of Personal Orientation, which is very similar to the Aspirational ethics. The only difference is that personal orientation focuses upon individual perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and so on.

Consequences of the ethical dilemma
It has been seen that people are more inclined towards making unethical decisions when they behave in a socially unresponsiveness manner, that is, when they measure their personal costs and benefits only and end up ignoring the social costs and benefits of their decision. A more ethically responsive decision making process would be when an individual would equally and appropriately measure hisher personal costs and benefits against the social costs and benefits.
             
The aspect of making unethical decisions in the short-term brings its negative consequences with itself. For example, if an individual makes unethical and socially unresponsive decisions, in which he only weighs his costs and benefits, then heshe is inclined to get caught in the ethical trap. The ethical trap is a situation when a person who has already made an unethical decision is forced to make another unethical decision to support his previous decision. Therefore, not thinking ethically and not making ethical decisions leads to very critical and complex situations for organizations. Facing and dealing with such critical ethical dilemmas and traps is not only problem some for the organization but also wastes a lot of money of the organization. If an organization is caught making unethical actions, then the governments of certain countries charge money from those organizations in order to compensate for the social problems caused by the organization.
             
The ethical trap forces a person to continue making unethical decision, which in return causes a major ethical dilemma. Thus, trying to correct two unethical decisions becomes much more difficult as compared to correcting one unethical decision. The ethical trap leaves no way out for the person who gets caught in it.
             
Therefore, organizations at all aspects of their lives can implement ethical decisions to avoid the life-long torture of an ethical trap or to face ethical dilemmas.

Recommendation
Unethical decisions and socially unresponsive behavior can be totally eliminated from the society if every organization starts thinking according to the welfare of the society as a whole. Unethical behavior has always arisen due to selfish and personal interest behavior. When people and organizations get obsessed with their own benefits, they turn a blind eye towards the benefits of the society. Another important aspect of making ethical decisions is to have courage and bravery to face any circumstances, which make arise after following the right path.

In the end, this essay concludes on the thought that when an organization would practice ethical decision-making behavior in the society and when it would be able to avoid ethical conflicts, traps and dilemmas. Others in the society will notice this and will follow suit and try to lead their businesses ethically as well. This will spread corporate social responsibility and an ethical code of conduct in the society on a much more extensive scale.

Therefore, if organizations develop social responsibility and ethical policies, they can be much more effective in establishing a code of ethics, which will later on save them from ethical dilemmas.

Unilever should in the future be extremely careful with its decision making processes and should be extra careful with all its operations and actions so that it does not get caught in an ethical dilemma in the future. The company should properly understand the consequences it will have to go through if it gets caught in another ethical dilemma. The costs of dealing with an ethical dilemma is high due to which the company would lose large amounts of its hard earned profits.

Conclusion
In short we conclude that the ethical dilemma that Uni lever had to face as a result of dumping chemical wastes in the sea resulted in many consequences for the company itself and for the environment and for the stakeholders as well. Therefore, in order to bring the situation under control, several ethical theories and codes have been discussed in detail so that in future organizations should prevent themselves from ethical dilemmas and ethical traps.

Moreover, after critical analysis and thinking, several recommendations and solutions have also been presented in this paper so that organizations such as Unilever follow these recommendations and lead the operations according to the proper code of ethics and CSR principles so that they can prevent themselves from facing an ethical dilemma in the future.

Organizations should be more society oriented, that is, they should work hard towards making the society and citizens happy by protecting the environment and nature of the world.

Research also shows that many successful organizations of the world have launched several environment protective programs through which they protect and improve the environment and work towards a social cause. Such actions are not profitable for the organizations in any way, but they improve the reputation and name of the organization extensively. Consumers feel loyal and good about organizations that work towards the benefit of the society and environment.