Notes for Finals (Compile) PDF

Preview

Summary

ALWAYS Identify the Ethical Problem Statement for the question before applyingthe toolsEthical ToolsRule UStep 1: Identify the Recurring issueStep 2: Choose a position/hat (who are you representing?)Step 3: State the desired outcome(s).Step 4: Propose a general rule for the ethical issue – one which...

Description

ALWAYS Identify the Ethical Problem Statement for the question before applying the tools Ethical Tools Rule U Step 1: Identify the Recurring issue Step 2: Choose a position/hat (who are you representing?) Step 3: State the desired outcome(s). Step 4: Propose a general rule for the ethical issue – one which maximizes overall benefits Step 5: Apply the rule to the ethical issue (evaluation) Example: Is it ethical to promote breast cancer awareness in a flippant way through flyers enclosed in utility bills? Recurring Situation Paper utility bills include cause advertising flyers. Hat Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) Consumers must not be exposed to upsetting materials when opening their utility bills. Desired Outcome Such flyers must conform to general standards of decency and appropriateness. Rule Promoting breast cancer awareness is acceptable but making this a matter to be dealt Application & Evaluation flippantly is not acceptable. Families may have breast cancer sufferers and making this a matter to joke about may cause unnecessary emotional pain. The ad violates the rule EPS

Act U Step 1: Identify the stakeholders in the issue Step 2: List possible consequences for the act Step 3: Rank/score the consequences individually (Hedons[+] and Dolors[-]) Step 4: Determine which consequence of the action result in the greatest benefit to the most number of people Step 5: Evaluation -

If Dolors outweigh the Hedons, it’s unethical. Otherwise, ethical. (OR) if the benefits of the majority outweigh the pains of the minority, it is ethical.

Ethical Egoism Step 1: What is your Current line of action? Step 2: What are the benefits you reap from that? Immediate? Intermediate? Long-term? Step 3: Considering all benefits, what is best thing for you to do?

Principle of Universality Step 1: Define a maxim that would apply if the action would comply with the PoU - E.g. "When required characteristics of a product are met, certification requirements can be ignored." Step 2: Evaluate if the maxim is universalizable Step 3: If maxim cannot be universalized, reverse the maxim - E.g. "Food certification procedures must be complied with regardless of satisfaction of the criteria." Step 4: Apply the maxim to the case (ie. Does it violate PoU or not?)

Principle of Humanity Step 1: Test whether the object in question is being treated as a mean or an end. -

Qn to ask: Is the person’s decisional privacy violated? Is it fair?  One argument is to justify that the actor has already exhausted his/her options.

Step 2: Evaluate the treatment of the object/subject in question  POH violated when someone is being used as a means to an ends; when their right to make a free and informed decision is interfered

Virtue Ethics Step 1: Who are you? “What would a virtuous ______ do?” Step 2: What is the good extreme? Step 3: What is the bad extreme? Step 4: What is the middle ground between the 2 extremes?

Veil of Ignorance Step 1: Identify the stakeholders in the issue Step 2: Go behind the veil, and determine the ethics of the act Step 3: Evaluate

Workplace Ethics The Employer-Employee Relationship 



 



Asymmetrical Relationship: Not a relationship among equals eg Milgram experiment o Presence of superior-subordinate relationship. Experiment shows that:  Subordinate expects to receive orders from superior and to carry them out  Subordinate would probably be so focused on the command that he may ignore the effects of carrying out the command, however, unethical or unacceptable the consequences  Not the goodness or badness of the act but more of whether you will do things because your superior asked you to do so. Influence of Culture and Economics: Asian Face Culture Relationship o Respecting of elders: Hesitation in questioning the ethics of conduct.  Asymmetrical relationship evident here o Similar in the Confucianism context (sheep, father, son, steal, not exposing the bad acts) o Failures of the law (doing something unethical though it is not illegal)  Moral dilemma in choosing between doing what is ethical and following the law  Natural law (the law is there but is evil, not follow it) vs positivist (the law is not enough) o Case: Japan’s concept of iron rice bowl and the emergence of the “salaryman” who should show absolute dedication to employer in return for lifetime employment.  Death from overwork in Japan not uncommon  Expected to perform overtime without any renumeration  For instance, a Japan engineer at Toyota Corporation worked 114 hours overtime that caused him to die of heart failure Conclusion: Position of employer’s authority on employee: obedience to a senior voice and disregarding of consequences as long as I follow instructions. Shows a lack of challenge and questioning of actions as long as instructed by superior. Food for thought: Contest between Efficiency and Equity o Being moral may come at a cost in which employer thinks is too high o Lead to contest of employees between equity and efficiency  Outcome of contests uncertain o Productivity of workplace linked to country’s wealth  Law favors efficiency than equity especially in relations of Employer-Employee Relationship developing countries  Eg: Allowing of slavery to be practiced and people who helped slaves escaped punished for century. Law treated rescuers as thieves who stole productive wealth-generating private property.  Modern day sweatshops and workplaces that are unsafe and hazardous  Argument of abiding only the law set VS additional social responsibility obligations to employees Vicarious liability

Employer is liable for the damages of the employee’s wrongs – done in the course of business (not necessarily for the benefit of the employer) o Sufficient if employer has put employee in a position where he may do injury to another o Run away goods truck accident example. o Are ‘employees’ gaining more characteristics of ‘contractors’? o Outcome based performance reviews o Work from home etc. (enabled by technology) Effects of Vicarious Liability  Employer can legitimately monitor and control employee behavior o



o

o

Reasonable:  Job screening  Family History  Blood samples  Spot Checks Issue of privacy  i.e. blood test identifies more than the presence of illegal drugs  False positives and false negatives

Employment At Will  













Contract – private agreement 2 employment models o Employment at will vs. not employment at will o The fact that you have employment at will does not mean that you can do anything you want – still governed by a private contract (just that it is not governed by an overarching law etc.) Either the employer or employee may terminate the employment relationship at will unless disallowed under the terms of their contract and no permission is required from a governmental authority to terminate employment. o However there are establishments of statues and regulations on top of the contract that will affect the employment contract set by government institutions such as ministry of manpower or specialist labour relations board o Example: Singapore has a Workplace Safety and Health Act which was in effect March 2006 that imposes a range of duties on employers that are backed up with criminal penalties. o Singapore has an “Employment at will model” Other models in Western Europe and in Asian countries, employer needs to provide some justification or obtain permission from the authorities in order to terminate employment o Britain’s Employment Rights Act (1996): unfair dismissal. Employee who believes that she has been dismissed unfairly may bring an action before an employment tribunal in UK o United States: union contracts may restrict employer’s right to terminate EAQ, e.g. for blue-collar jobs Possible justifications of employment at will o Freedom of choice/contract  Need for autonomy, free control, get what you want  But what is right to choose? o Property rights  Everything that has some kind of human influence becomes the person’s property  Each person more or less has some kind of property to decide on – employer generally has wages, employee has skills  If we are all exchanging property rights, we should not try to restrict this to anybody o Efficiency  Every employer wants to create as much profit as he can – need to become as efficient as possible – able to choose  Benefits both employer and employee Justifications of Employment at Will o Property Rights Argument  John Locke’s idea of natural right to property  Employers/employees have property of some kind  Employment is exchange of a employee’s productive power for the wages paid by the employer o Freedom of Contract Argument  Placing limits – violation of contract  Freedom of contract does not permit fraud/force  Preventing overwork o Efficiency Argument  Employer should be able to determine optimal number of workers  Employees become trapped Pros: o Employment decisions are dictated by market forces (Free Market), thereby allowing quick adjustments to be made to workforce o Foreign companies will be more willing to invest in societies with a ‘hire and fire’ model because it allows them to expand or reduce the local workforce depending on manpower needs (Utilitarianism) Cons: o Lower job security, vulnerable to termination at whim of employer o Rights-based arguments against Employment at Will  Property rights – political power over employees  Overemphasis on freedom of contract – rules out all workplace legislations? Difference in bargaining position? o Arguments for due process?  Terminated employee suffers substantial harm that should not have been inflicted without an adequate reason and fair hearing  Respect for dignity of workers  Treating employees fairly is simply good management that pays off in increased productivity

o

Liability for employee misconduct  Employee: told what must be done, but also how it must be done  Independent contractor: tell what must be done, not how it must be done

Sexual Harassment -

-

-

-

-

-

-

Defining sexual harassment o Offensive, unwanted and unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature o Harmless consensual flirting not equal to sexual harassment o Can involved clients, employee-employer Types of sexual harassment o Quid pro quo sexual harassment  Sexual blackmail, harasser demands sexual favours, forcing receipients to choose between acceding to lewd requests or risk losing out on salary increases, promotions, or the job. o Hostile working environment  Behavior of management team or co-workers causes severe stress to employee, rendering him/her unable to reasonably perform his/her tasks adequately. Harris v Forklift systems: Harris was said things demeaning to her in front of the employees The ethics of sexual harassment o Duty of employer to prevent sexual harassment o Example: India’s supreme court case: Vishaka VS State of Rajasthan held that sexual harassment violates the right to life and liberty granted to both men and women Excludes women from full participation o No girls allowed, exclusion of women from full participation eg obscene magazine: zoning of a man area May be a form of discrimination o Don’t label me and affects opportunity in career prospects and involement Oppression of woman/man in the workplace Abuse of power o Eg sex for grades o Just one characteristics of abuse of power that results in sexual harassment Treating of others as mere sex objects o KANT: treating someone as a means and not as an end  Respecting dignity of employee o Discrimination (rawls)  Autonomy to choose and not conform to favours from employer o Equality of opportunity (rawls)  Given an equal opportunity to hold careers and advance in them without having to submit to unwelcome sexual advances  Imposes mutual rights and obligations on both parties on signing of employment contract o Utilitarian  Costs to employers  Mitsuibishi Corporation paid US$34 million to 300 female employees to one of its factories in the US  Scandal involving head of Toyota North American Inc and his personal assistance who complained resulted in reorganization of its Amaerican operations  Even if consensual: Former head of World Bank and IMF were embroiled in public scandals involving inappropriate relationships in the workplace. Reputation loss  In long run: Employees might get dissatisfied over favoritism through the basis of sexual favors and attraction rather than merit. Reputation of employers and companies implicated and tarnished. Law that prohibits Sexual Harassment o Article 11 of the Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women recognizes the right of women to equality in employment, a right that will be undermined if women are subject to gender specific violences such as sexual harassment. o UN General Assembly passed a resolution entitled “Declaration on the elimination of Violence Agaist Women”. Article 2 of the resolution defines violence against women to include sexual harassment and intimidation at work. What employers should do: o Code of behavior drawn out for employees in elimination sexual harassment o Example of American Supreme Court decision of Faragher VS City of Boca Raton



2 principles to avoid vicarious liability for sexual harassment in the workplace despite having the assumption of a code of conduct in place.  1)Employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior  2)Complaining employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer to avoid harm otherwise.

Discrimination   





No one has greater intrinsic moral worth than the other Against employment discrimination illegal: o Liberalism & Rawls: the law becomes unjust because it interferes with the right of the business owner to run her business in the way he / she thinks fit. Asian history: attitudes of mistrust and legacy of ethnic prejudice naturally spill over to the workplace. Therefore, hiring, promotion and termination decisions are sometimes based on irrational prejudices that not only harm the victim but also the enterprise and society as well by undermining or retarding the growth of communal harmony. (Confucius) An employer may discriminate against applicants on the basis of qualifications. Unethical discrimination refers to employers taking into account non-job related criteria, e.g. gender, religion, disability, homosexuals, caste, obesity etc. Immoral discrimination occurs when: o Decision is taken because the victim belongs to a member of a particular group o Decision is taken on the basis that membership in the group makes the person unfit for the hiring / promotion o Some loss or damage is suffered by the victim.

Types of discrimination:   





 

Intentional (consciously takes into account non-job related criterion) v Disparate Impact Discrimination (demonstrated by statistical evidence) Affirmative Action of Positive discrimination (reversed discriminating): Affirmative action refer to policies that take factors including race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination Justification for affirmative action: justice, equality, utilitarian o Victims of past discrimination were given jobs in preference to better qualified candidates to negate unfair competitive advantages enjoyed by the majority races previously.  RAWLS: For of compensatory justice to minorities and form of equality to people  UTILITARIAN & KANT: To help improve well-being of these minorites  Taking race into consideration in order to achieve racial diversity will be allowed if engaged in a reasonable way and not allowed to continue indefinitely ~ SG  E.g. African-Americans, Indian’s scheduled castes, Malaysia’s bumiputera, Indonesia’s pribumis Problems with Affirmative Action: o Insufficiently nuanced – why privilege all “disadvantaged”? Some are in fact already exceptionally doing well, why give them additional previliege? o Puts discrimination trait in issue (only racists consider race); Impedes integration o Nozick: Unfairly punishing the innocent “privileged” people  being taxed to benefit the less privileged: o KANT: Categorical imperatives that you will not apply to all cases. Highlighting the discriminating trait. o Rawls: Behind the veil of ignorance, not supposed to know the characteristics of an individual Age discrimination: hiring decisions, downsizing decision, promotion, selection for training o Utilitarian ‘For’: cost savings, older employees less tech-savvy, less willing to learn, less resistant to change, more susceptible to illness and disease. Or in the case of flight attendants, older flight attendants are not in line with airline’s branding. o Utilitarian ‘Against’: layoffs not according to merit affects the community, decreases employee loyalty o Confucius ‘Against’: no respect for elders, break out of social hierarchy Gender discrimination The GENERAL Ethics of discrimination  Kant: Cannot be universalized, not respecting individual’s decisional privacy  Utilitarian: would affect long term happiness of the whole society  Veil of ignorance: not suppose to know the characteristics of the person

Is Employment at Will Ethical? For Utilitarianism: Efficiency:  Companies can make the most profits as possible  Most efficient to choose to contract people, hire ppl for a short term purpose or fire ppl.  Employee can be most efficient in your work and have the freedom to choose. Otherwise it will be inefficient: mobility in the market  Employers should be able to determine optimal number of workers Kant:

Freedom of Contract  Autonomy: To choose to give up for certain things and bargain for certain things. Allows negotiation for rewards of employee.  Universality: Freedom of contract does not permit fraud/force.  Preventing overwork: Freedom to leave if you can’t handle 10 things your employers has given you

Against  Employee becomes trapped. (to decide if you like your job)  Against Efficiency: Difference in bargaining power between employer and employee: Losing end: No real freedom of contract. Costs to employee more significant than benefits under EAW.  Vicarious liability argument that companies would be responsible for actions, decisions and wellbeing of employee made during course of employment  Placing limits and restrictions in contract = violation of freedom of contract  Employer free to sack employee: treated as a means than an ends. Did not respect your dignity: Lack of procedural justice as no due process is given for the reason of termination.  Treating employees fairly a good form of management for loyalty in return

Is a downsizing exercise ethical? For Utilitarianism: Company: Increased productivity and AGAINST, but efficiency SR: Cost > Benefits Company: Cost minimization LR: Benefits > Cost Kant: Depends on facts of the case. Ethical Egoism: FOR

Virtue Ethics: Depends on the facts of the case

Company has a moral duty to survive to protect employees’ employment. Downsizing towards the ends of survival for protecting employee’s employment is ethical. Actions are guided by self interest to achieve overall happiness. So the company should act according to its own interest which will result in optimal happiness by free market mechs. If downsizing allows the company to act according to its best function, it is virtuous. If the downsizing benefits the overall economy, it is virtuous. (note: LR benefit)

Against Employee: Loss of income Other employees: generate fear and job insecurity Society: increased unemployment & underutilization If downsizing is conducted with ...