Learning Activity 2
Discuss if it is fair for a company to have one set of ethics when you join, and later force you to agree to a different ethics policy later on in your tenure? Taking this concept one step further, should the ethical decisions that one makes 10, 20, or even 30 years ago, which at the time may have been ethical, but now appear to be unethical be used as a way to make that individual (or company) appear to be an unethical actor? Make sure you support your answers.
The word “force” used here is a strong word. The word “force you” implies here that something is being forced on us to which I do not agree. By considering this in this context, the answer would certainly be a plain “no”. No laws, rules, regulations, and values force a person to agree with it unless it is an exception of some moral crime or moral Universalism (Marques, 2015). My point here is that; if I have joined a company and it makes changes to its code of ethics, and “forces” me to agree with it, then it is certainly not fair.
The company should announce the planned changes to its codes of conduct and communicate these changes. Naturally, it is most expected that these changes would be for improving the code of conduct. If it is the case, then it is highly expected that the company would not need to force me to agree to it. However, if the changes are not acceptable for me, or any other employee, the company should have some alternate compensation plans, through which it can offer the employee to leave the company with that compensation. It can be one-month worth salary or anything which it finds suitable for this situation. It is completely my point of view.
On the other hand, the use of 20, or 30 years old ethical decisions, which are now considered as unethical for the badmouthing of an individual or company, would be a highly offensive act. The decisions taken decades ago, were then considered ethical. It shows that the individual or the company did it, considering it an ethical act. It is known as ethical relativism (Esikot, 2012). However, if the individual or company still takes the same decision, then reporting the individual or company as unethical would be another case entirely. It would then be considered as an unethical decision maker. However, for its past decisions, of which the company or individual is not proud of, one cannot charge it as unethical. The slavery promoted by the Americans ancestors is now considered a crime and sin. The same people are now not considered unethical because of their past decisions.
References
Esikot, I. F. (2012). Globalization versus Relativism: The Imperative of a Universal Ethics. Journal of Politics and Law, 5 (4), 129-135.
Marques, J. (2015). Universalism and Utilitarianism: An Evaluation of Two Popular Moral Theories in Business Decision Making. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 8 (2).
Learning Activity 2
In reviewing this week’s readings, a major theme is “When good people do bad things”. Do you think it is possible for this statement to be true in light of all the support mechanisms that are available in today’s society? Make sure you support your answers.
Yes, I think this statement is completely true. Good people certainly do bad things unintentionally. It is true that in today’s society, the astonishing ways of communication, and advanced support for persons taking an ethical stand, it does not look possible. However, the current cases of whistle-blowers in which companies were shunning their employees not to open their bad acts and decision give us a peek into the real scenario (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011). It I true that with the freedom of electronic and social media, the support of the good peoples is always there. However, good people still commit bad things accidentally.
As the author explains, the culprits of these bad things are; the repetitive nature of work, less focuses on distractions, and moral exclusion of others. The author explains how the repetitive nature of our jobs makes us less critical of the tiny important details which have enormous consequences if ignored. It happens even with the presence of all the support mechanism. Then the focused nature of our jobs also makes us become loose attention of the distractions (which are in fact warnings for some ethical issue).
The third reason given by the author is one of the most crucial ones; the moral exclusion of the “others”. The author here points out to a very fundamental issue. The community, country, individuals, groups, or companies whoever it is, the ones with which we are not familiar with are always the ones which would be blamed first, excluded from the moral boundaries (Moberg, 2017). The unfamiliarity with the “others” makes us unfair to the “others.” We do not consider that they are similar to human beings or individuals with similar emotions, routines, families, relations and thus similar values. We readily judge us to be better the “others.” These are the causes which have led us to be less skeptical or be judgmental of the scenarios which led to becoming ethical dilemmas. Thus, in the presence of the support mechanisms, any good man can still become hostile to these factors to do a bad thing.
References
Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It. Princeton University Press.
Moberg, D. J. (2017). When Good People Do Bad Things at Work. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/when-good-people-do-bad-things-at-work/
+447462439809