Ethics

Rushmore Kidder describes three basic moral models of thinking in simple phrases that summarize some of the more complex philosophical models of ethics. What are Kidders three basic moral models of thinking Describe each.

Kidder recognizes that to merely analyze a dilemma is not to resolve it. He says that resolution requires us to choose the nearest right for the circumstance. To do this, he describes the following shorthand labels (models)

Ends-based thinking this is best known by the maxim do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number. The model demands of us a kind of cost benefit analysis, determining who will be hurt and who help and thereby measuring the intensity of that help. This principle is known to philosophers as utilitarianism. It is purely an assessment of consequences, a forecasting of outcomes. It examines the possible results and picks the one that produces the most blessing over the greatest range.

Rule-based thinking this is associated with Kants philosophical principle the categorical imperative, which Kidder explains simply as follow only the principle that you want everyone else to follow. The principle enables one to assess if hisher action could become a universal standards that others ought to obey. It suggests that ones action should create the greatest good or (in Kants words) the greatest worth of character, thus it is based firmly on duty  on what we ought to do, rather than what we think might work  deontological thinking.

Care-based thinking this principle is pegged on putting love for others first, coming into play frequently in the Golden Rule do to others what you would like them to do to you. This principle contributes to a feature known to philosophers as reversibility i.e. it asks to test your actions by putting yourself in others shoes and imagining how it would feel if you were the recipient rather than the perpetrator of your actions. Practically, some philosophers (including Kant) have disputed its standing but it is for many people, the only rule of ethics they know.  

Kidder also writes about four dilemma paradigms that are helpful in analyzing an ethical dilemma. Fully describe each of the four paradigms and how they are used in making ethical decisions
In deriving right  versus  right choices, Kidder writes that the really tough choices are genuine dilemmas precisely because each side is rooted in one of our basic core values. Four such dilemmas are so common to our experience that they stand as paradigms. They include the following
Truth vs. loyalty which can be explained as honesty vs. promise keeping, or integrity vs. commitment. A situation Kidder explains in his book about this paradigm is one of a professional working for a large defense electronics firm who found himself riding a roller coaster of concern about layoffs. At this time the executive met behind closed doors and the professional and his colleagues suspected a layoff. His boss confided in him that his team member would be slated but told him to keep that information confidential. When the team member approached him, because he new the truth, the honesty compelled him to answer accurately while he had given his word to the boss not to break the confidence and felt a strong loyalty to that relationship.

In an individual vs. community situation, you have to choose from helping yourself, or a small group of people, vs. helping a much larger group of people. Kidders situation in the book is a story of a man owning a hospital in the mid 1980s. In this time, no one really knew much about AIDS, or how they were spread. A few patients in the mans hospital needed care, but he discovered that they might have AIDS. He had to face the following decision should he give the individual patients the help they are entitled to, risking the health of his nurses and doctors, or should he keep these patients quarantined away from everyone, to save his community of workers

In short-term vs. long-term, you must make a decision that would benefit you either immediately, or would rather be helpful in the long run. Kidder explains short-term vs. long-term in a story of a man who graduated with his science degree. His job was a great job, got married and had two kids. Twelve years later he got another job that promised advancement, but to do so he would have to go back to school, soaking up most of his time with the family, this coming during his kids teen years when they need support for this often difficult transition in life. He has to decide if he should be there for his kids in the short period in life where his kids need guidance from both of their parents the most (short-term), or should he think of the future and the money he could make with more education, that would help support his kids for the future (long-term)
Justice versus Mercy which is upholding the belief that people have what is coming to them, or giving them another chance for their mistakes. Kidders situation in his book is about a new promising journalist working for a newspaper. All her work was great and she seemed to have a great future ahead of her, until one day when her boss discovers that she has plagiarized her last article. The boss is faced with the justice vs. mercy paradigm for how to deal with her. He could throw her out of the newspaper, put her on the black list and make sure she never has a job ever again in the journalism field (justice), or he could talk to her about it and see why she would do such a thing, considering the amount of talent she has

Give examples of each of kidders four dilemmas from your personal experience
Truth vs. Loyalty During biology practical, student ate the entire lab specimen. The teachers were questioning everyone about who did it and trying to find the people responsible for the destruction. When I was asked, I had to decide if I would be truthful and tell the teacher who exactly did it, or remain loyal to my fellow students and not rat them out.

Individual vs. Community this may be a bit more childish, but was a dilemma nonetheless. Playing a kickball type game in my gym class last year, I was on third base with about five other kids, ready to run to home base once the ball was kicked. When it was kicked and we started to run, the girl in front of me, who I never talk to before, slowed down all of a sudden. I smashed into her from behind and we both fell over to the ground. I was fine and got right up, but right before I started to run again, I noticed she was still on the ground. The game was very close and we needed me to score, but I also wanted to help the girl up considering it was me that knocked her over. If I helped her up, we both would get out without scoring, letting our team down, but I wouldnt look like a prick for knocking her over (individual). If I ran to home base I would score to put our team in the lead (community) but it would look like I had no remorse for knocking her down

Short-term vs. Long-term We have open mic coffeehouses once a month at my high school, and the final one of my senior year was coming upon us. It would be my last chance to play music with many people who were going to different schools, but at the same time a band I was currently in wanted to have a major practice that very same night. I could either go to the coffeehouse for one final goodbye to old friends (short-term), or I could have band practice, considering the band was very promising and we had very high hopes for it, aiming to have a record out within the next few months (long-term)

Justice vs. Mercy I was a best friend of Gordon since the first day of college studies, and now I, along with everyone else noticed that he was treating his girlfriend with a sickening degree of control. Everyone tried to help the girl, but she refused to be helped. Seeing theres nothing I could do, I stopped talking to my friend, and most everyone else followed. Seeing this as a kind of emotional problem, Gordon got upset I didnt want to be his friend anymore, and one night he smashed in the windows of my car. I had no concrete evidence that it was him, but everyone knew it was. I could either take matters into my own hands and make sure Gordon was repaid for his actions (justice), or I could do nothing and move on (mercy). I didnt do a thing, and the rule of karma followed. He was soon thereafter arrested for drug use, his girlfriend finally broke up with him, almost all of his friends abandoned him, and his car stopped working all by itself.

Mintzberg, et al, say that our society and corporations have been taken over by a syndrome of selfness.
Explain what they mean
Mintzberg, et al say syndrome of selfness that has taken over our society and corporations is built on a series of half truths, which has changed our mindsets to the following prospects a narrow view of ourselves as economic man a distorted view of our values which is reduced to shareholders value heroic and dramatic leadership lean and increasingly mean organizations and an illusionary view of the society as a tide of prosperity.

What are the fabrications that they suggest support this syndrome or selfishness
The following are the half truths (fabrications) that they say support this syndrome or selfishness the first is that we are all, in essence, economic man and are intent in maximizing our personal gains the second fabrication borders the view that corporations exist to maximize shareholders value contrary to the belief that corporations exist to serve the society. This expresses the way the shareholders have muscled out the other stakeholders including the fundamental societal contribution the third fabrication is that corporations require heroic leaders. There are famous books explaining how managers had seized control of large corporations and manipulated shareholders for their own purposes. This led to pressures in the financial community resulting to the mentality that led the pendulum swing the other way i.e. heroic leaders are necessary to run a corporation the other fabrication is a mindset that the effective organization is lean and mean. The attribute of mean as a virtue is saddening as Mintzberg, et al explains and the last fabrication is the notion of win-win resulting to the rising tide of prosperity lifting all the boats meaning that everyone prospers in the selfish economy.      

What are your thoughts about Marjorie Kellys views that shareholders have privileges of feudal aristocrats
Marjorie Kelly, in her the divine right of capital, expresses a valid opinion that shareholders have privileges of feudal aristocrats, when she asks why should one group particularly a distant from the operations that may have added nothing for years, lay claim to such a large share of benefits this in my opinion and based on Mintzberg, et al notional fabrication is a valid ideology, however, the shareholders are the contributors of the wealth being invested and must benefit from the same.

What is the effect of shareholder value on the other stakeholders
Shareholders value as a concept has muscled out all the other stakeholders and this is a pity. The other stakeholders including the overall societal allegiance is overridden by the need to maximize the shareholders value changing our perception of values from societal values to shareholders values.

Describe the authors view of engagement
The authors argue that engagement should be rooted in experience and should inculcate cooperative human engagement thereby enabling an open view. This will ensure that we engage ourselves to engage others so as to restore our sense of balance.

What is corporate irresponsibility
Corporate irresponsibility is a product of individuals irresponsibility. A socially irresponsible act is a decision to accept an alternative that is thought by the decision maker to be inferior to another alternative when the effects upon all parties are considered. Generally this involves a gain by one party at the expense of the total system.  (Armstrong, 1977 185) and as Bansal and Kandola suggests, when individual irresponsible actions become systematic and significant, the problem then becomes an organizational one. Further, as Armstrong (1977) suggests, a key element of corporate social irresponsibility is the exploitation of negative externalities. A familiar example of irresponsible corporate behavior is found in the tobacco industry, where information about the products harmful and even fatal consequences was withheld and even obfuscated.

What is the difference between actively doing something unethical yourself, and observing someone else behaving unethically and doing nothing about it yourself
The difference between actively doing something unethical yourself and observing someone else behaving unethically and doing nothing about it yourself is the same. Bansal and Kandola illustrates that leaders must demonstrate integrity and by doing nothing one is an accomplice to unethical thing the other is committing.
What is required of the individual managers to prevent corporate irresponsibility
Bansal and Kandola suggests two conditions which they say are necessary to prevent corporate social irresponsibility a set of strong organizational values that espouses corporate social responsibility and employee empowerment that permits and encourages individuals to express their concerns to management. Individual manager should naturally be concerned about issues that interest them personally while at the same time consider factors that perpetuates organizational goals and thus benefiting the whole society.

Bansal and Kandola suggest in their article that individuals are often guided in their behavior in social circumstances and in business organizations by watching other bystanders. What are the three ways they suggest that the bystander effect can explain how individual actions contribute to corporate social irresponsibility.

Bansal and Kandola suggest in their article that individuals are often guided in their behavior in social circumstances and in business organizations by watching other bystanders. They used the following three ways to suggest that the bystander effect can explain how individual actions contribute to corporate social irresponsibility ambiguity of irresponsible actions which contributes to bystander apathy, diffused responsibility and employee commitment and concerns where they say that most employees involved in irresponsible behavior experience guilt and anxiety.