1-Question 8-Should a person be permitted to place a value on a human life? Should a company? Should the government? If not, how would decisions be made about whether to market certain products (that might be risky for some, but helpful for others), how much those who have lost family members in disasters should be compensated, and so on?
Well, relative to the decision-making process and different ethical business consideration, a man should be permitted to create value in the human life. However, it is not simple, as there are some complications, as far as intentions of people, organizations and the government is concerned. It seems pertinent to view the value of the human with different perspectives, derived from this chapter. Being a responsible person in the society, everyone is triggered by different social values. The act of an individual can be beneficial for other, or it may be harmful to other society stakeholders. To gain something, everyone has to take several risks. However, these risks are usually going negative with the perspective of other people. Maybe a person can get the benefit, but it may take something from other unintentionally. Therefore, the ethical consideration comes into the life, as human ethics must be carried to make decisions. For Instance, if a person, in society finds something to create the value for a group, it must think about the other view of the decision. If it is going to hurt another group of people, the act or decision can be avoided.
On the other hand, different organizations aim to create value for customers along with all key stakeholders. First, the management of the company has to define the value, which it intends to create. For example, if the company makes the high-quality cars to avoid accidents on roads, it creates the value for the customers. Interestingly, using the name of ethics, the company management makes this decision to strengthen its competitive position in the competitive market. It can be said that the company creates the values of itself, which makes the value creation activity little controversial. Furthermore, if it is a value for customers, it is only for the customers, not other people. The example of value creation can be derived from natural disasters, as government, companies, and the individual can use the moral reasoning approach to compensate for each other. The dollar value of the human is not enough, as it is a big time think bigger to make the difference.
2-Question 9-How do you feel about the use of cost-benefit analysis where human life is part of the cost calculation? Might the infusion of moral language have changed the decision makers’ thinking? For example, what if decision makers had talked about their responsibility for killing 180 human beings?
It seems awkward to link the human life and value to the cost-benefit analysis. Usually, cost-benefit analysis refers the value through dollar. Human life cannot be a part of dollar calculation. There are many elements, which can be included in the cost calculations. For Instance, the organization, instead considering the money in the cost-benefit analysis, should put human life. The management can conduct its analysis to calculate the numbers of human, which are saved from disasters and other death uncertainties. The most important thing is to understand the value and worth of human life, which can help to make the difference between money and humans. The pertinent example of the National Traffic Safety Association can be illustrated it is using the cost-benefit analysis to develop the automotive safety design standards. Even the insurance and government agencies are using the cost benefits analysis, and it is quite visible in the era. The worth of human life has not measured, or it cannot be measured through dollar. Obviously, the language has to play a role in the decision making, as taking responsibility and showing the solidarity with the family members seems worthy and justifiable. If the decision makers talk about their responsibility for killing 180 humans without the consideration of any place, time and context, definitely, it can create the human value and justify the worth. Ethically and morally, I do not believe in making the human life part of the cost-benefit analysis. It is not quantitative like other business decisions and benefits. Moral and ethical responsibility is visible if we are aware and make broad decisions.
3-What did you learn about yourself and others from the MFQ?
My MFQ shows some remarkable results, as my results are a difference between liberal and conservatives in the society. Interestingly, the result revolves around the five psychological foundations of morality. Harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity are five psychological foundations of morality. My score for harm is higher than another because I want to prioritize the human life. Liberals usually want to take the risk to get some advantages. Conservatives are low on this foundation as they stay moderate. I have learned that human preference in the society regarding the human life is different. For me, human life is the main preference, and therefore, I scored 4.3. I believe in justice in the society, as it also depicts moral values for people. My score is high (3.8), just ahead of liberals. In society, I think protecting human from harm is triggered by justice, and I want to be the first to bring justice for the people, as it seems good for protection and human value. Conservatives do not look assertive, but they also need justice to live in the society. I scored 4.0 in loyalty, which is comparatively quite high as compared to liberals. To create moral values, I have to strict with the ethical decisions and moral values in society or organizations. Liberals like mobility and change, which may hurt the other people. Conservatives look assertive in loyalty with the same intention. If I am authorized in the society, I can effectively create moral values. Making decisions independently of crate mortal values can influence others. My score is 3.7, higher than other participants. Delegation may disrupt moral values. The big thing that I have learned about myself in purity foundation is avoidance, as usually ignores things, which are disgusting if benefits are ensured. 3.2 Score puts me lower than conservatives because they seem so certain of quality and often depict resistance to change different things.
4-How will you create ethical interactions with others who might have different moral foundations?
Interestingly, the results of MFQ have portrayed different moral foundations in society. To create and maintain the ethical interaction, I have to examine the results of liberals and conservatives along with the comparison to obtain the factors, which can support ethical interactions. Ethical interactions, even having the contradictions in foundations, can be demonstrated effectively. The bigger a thing is respect, which must, we I can carry to create the influence. For Instance, if I want to convince others, I must have to listen to others and derive insight. I have to accept that we are part of the society and integrity is required for long-term sustainability. Ethical interactions need measures regarding human life in the society. Observations or opinions of other moral foundations should not be ridiculed or violently opposed, and it can be the biggest ethical considerations that I can contain. Differences in opinions and preferences are obvious. To deal with these differences, there is a need for exceptional citizenship to enhance the viability of ethical intentions.
+447462439809