ETHC final review ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics - Week 8 Final

Is this practice justifiable ethically? If you believe it is justifiable only under certain conditions, specify the conditions. Explain and defend your position, and then explain how your ethical philosophy helped you come to this conclusion. My personalized ethical statement that I have created that is Action without guilt and charity with generosity, is the way to live a happy life. This statement was created based on the Couple philosophers' famous ethical philosophies which are the Categorical imperative of Kant, Utilitarianism of Mill, and Care based theory from three primary schools of ethics. As per my belief, I think the practice used to train the army troops are ethically justifiable because the training’s main purpose is to bring the positive outcome or the happiness by overcoming the fear of failure and incapability to protect from enemies. It is justifiable because the training was conducted with the consideration of possible torture from the enemy; and the army troops were given only the “mild form of simulated torture”, just to experiment if the techniques would work or not. They the troops were not prepared for possible danger, how else would they able to protect themselves, their men and the country? This action of giving the training, the “mild form of simulated torture” to the army troops was for the greater good. Theses subject, the participated troops put up their effort to tolerate the given training torture based on their generous and charitable heart to bring the possible outcome of happiness among the greater number of people. If theses men would have rejected their simulated training then, the army troops would not have learned how to resist that kind of possible torture or even worse from their enemies. Reference: Ruggiero, V. (01/2011). Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 8th Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from 2. (TCOs 1, 2, 7) Analyze the following ethical situation using YOUR ethical philosophy. Read the situation and then in your answer, explain why this is an ethical situation, what the "issues" are, and how an "ethical" person would resolve them. Explain how YOUR ethical philosophy has helped you reach a conclusion about how to resolve or analyze this situation. As a result of the economic down-turn starting in 2008, efficiency has become more and more the byword of the successful business person. The axioms of the efficiency expert are: "Eliminate what need not be done; simplify what must be done; combine tasks wherever possible." Putting this into practice means, among other things, eliminating people's jobs. Sometimes it also means making one person do two or three people's jobs. As company's gain the upper hand in employment (when the number of employees wanting good jobs is higher than the number of good (i.e. high paying) jobs available), they will more and more expect employees to be willing to work longer hours and to do accomplish more and varied tasks. 1. Under what circumstances is it ethical business practices to ask employees to multi-task or do more than one person's job? Making one person do more than more than two or three person’s job is unethical under any circumstances. It Is okay or ethical, when it is an employee is asked to do double shift or cover for another person’s job, once in a while getting paid for their work. 2. Under what circumstances is it ethical for an employee to refuse to do more work than can be taken on in a conventional 40-45 hours per week? In the circumstance, in which a person who is being paid a salary can refuse to work more than 40-45 hours per week, when the employer continually requires or asked the employee to do such work on a regular basis. In addition, there must be some context in regards to the expectations of others around that individual. If everyone on that team works 45 hours per week then it is a reasonable expectation that everyone does the same thing. However, if everyone works only 40 hours per week and the supervisor requires one person to work an extended amount then there is an ethical problem. Depending on the situation, especially when salaried, the amount of work to be completed is flexible and in some cases hours per week may be less than 40. Finally, if others are willing to work 40-45 hours per week on a normal basis then the person certainly has the opportunity to find employment elsewhere. To that extent I find little reason to defy working a few extra hours on an ethical basis 3. Let's assume that it is BECAUSE employees are willing to multi-task and do two or three people's jobs, that others LOSE their jobs. Who is more at fault ethically? The employer who requests the extra work from the remaining employees? Or the employees who are willing to do the extra work, thereby putting the others who aren't willing out of work? I think, it is the employer’s fault for not hiring the enough people to do the job efficiently. Asking and giving the ultimate to employees of working two to three people job’s or saying good bye to their own job; it is very unprofessional and unethical as an employer to do such act. On the virtue of scale, as an employer, if the virtue is generous then deficiency is at the stingy so, the employers is stinginess, who has not generousness and charitable heart. Appling my own philosophy here, employer’s action is full of guilt, forcing people to either quit the job or work more than they are required. This action is inhibiting the positive outcomes to both types of employees, the ones who want to work double or triple to keep their job and the ones who were refused to work like that. ............................................................................................CONTINUED