Understanding The Moral Viewpoint Philosophy Essay

Understanding The Moral View lay Philosophy EssayWhat is the deterrent example point of see, and why is it regarded as important? Def block off or remark the picture that commerce populate must operate from the gross(a) point of view. The chaste point of view as stated by Partridge, (2010) assumes that a mor entirelyy mature individual possesses a cognitive capacity which unsloped might be unique to our species the capacity of for each oneness of us to bring in in separates the someoneal qualities such as emotions, aspiration, value, and consciousness, that we immediately experience ourselves. Whereas Kurt Baier holds that unriv tout ensembleed is taking the chaste point of view if sensation is non organismness egoistic, one is doing things on principle, one is leave behinding to universalize one principles, and in doing so one considers the good of every(prenominal)one alike. (Gensler, Spurgin Swindal , 2004). Yet, Hume thought that the moral point of view was that of sympathy. (Gensler, Spurgin Swindal , 2004),When we take the moral point of view, we try on to adjudicate disputes aptly, we assume that other persons atomic number 18 neither more nor less important than ourselves, and we assume that our bear claims will be considered alongside those of others in an impartial manner. These three components of the moral point of view are respectively concerned with rationality in the sense that it involves the diligence of reason rather than feeling or continent inclination, universalizability in the sense that the principles or propositions ascertained therefrom apply to all persons and to all relevantly similar circumstances, and impartiality in the sense that principles or propositions ascertained therefrom apply to persons irrespective of arbitrary considerations (Beauchamp, Bowie, Arnold, 2008).Thus in a collective sense, the moral point of view may be understood as the point of view of every person and could be defined as ap proaching a problem from the perspective of its being chastely decently or wrong, or morally excellent. The Moral stop of View has both tonality features a commitment or willingness to seek out and act on reasons in that the best act is the one supported by the best reasons and a commitment to impartiality, of regarding the interests of everyone as evenly worthy of consideration.A commitment to these two key features is justified by the fact that we are rational and communal beings acting this way, therefore, best fits with who and what we are.The application of the moral point of view within business is one that is needed. consort to Beauchamp, Bowie, and Arnold, (2008), a business organization that is solely guided by stinting considerations is an amoral or unethical organization. An organization that operates under the pretense that what and how they do business does non affect or affect others is destined for a bunco and rocky history. An organization must understand they not only impact or interact with suppliers, employees, other business, but excessively those not right off involved with their operations, but those second or third removed, with association by the suppliers, through the employees, and through other business and the community. When a business is amoral or unethical, they present themselves as less of a competitor and will rally their profit margin shrink, as they do their customer base.ReferencesBeauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D. G. (2008). Ethical system and Business(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Pearson Education, Inc.Gensler, H. J., Spurgin, E. W. and Swindal, J. (2004). Ethics coeval readings /.New York RoutledgePartridge, E., Ph.D (2010). Environmental Ethics and Public Policy Website. TheOnline Gadfly, Retrieved December 4, 2010, from www.igc.org/ blighterQuestion 2Provide an exposition of the stockholder view of the corporation as defended by Milton Friedman. What would Friedman likely say a bout the NYSEG Corporate right computer program? Provide an exposition of the stakeholder view of the corporation as defended by R. Edward freewoman. What would Freeman likely say about the NYSEG Corporate responsibility program? With whom do you agree more?AnswerThe traditional or unsullied Stockholder View, the one presented by Milton Friedman, is that the corporation seeks to maximize profits in the interest of increasing the wealth of its owners, the shareholders (Beauchamp, Bowie, Arnold, 2008) in the simplest of terms ?to make money.? Managers are morally and legally cause to serve as agents of the stockholders, and prelude their interests heedless of how those decisions might affect the other stakeholders. The only group that has a moral claim on the corporation is the people who own shares of the stock.Regarding Friedman?s view on NYSEG Corporate Responsibility Program, Friedman would tow the hard line. Based on his theory, he would say it was good business to cut off go to those that are unable to pay, since it did not violate a law or regulation, and it was within the organizations right to do so.Sitting at the other end of the spectrum is the Stakeholder View, essentially a balanced accountability approach, presented by R. Edward Freeman. The corporation is obligated to seek balance in striving to serve justly the detail demands of each of its stakeholder groups (Beauchamp, Bowie, Arnold, 2008). The key is finding the correct balance of returns provided and contributions expected for each stakeholder group, including owners, management, employees, customers, suppliers, government, the community, and society as a whole. This involves trade-offs, while profit generation is one goal, this has to be balanced against other goals and sometimes profit may be sacrificed in order to help out other stakeholders. Managers are morally and legally obligated to serve as agents of all stakeholder groups, and try to advance all of these interests collecti vely, without favoring either one group. Many groups have a moral claim on the corporation that derives from the corporation potential to harm or benefit them these groups would includes the owners, corporate managers, local community, customers, employees and suppliersRegarding Freeman?s view on NYSEG Corporate Responsibility Program, Freeman would support the program. Based on his theory, the customers are a stakeholder group that is worthy of consideration. Striving for the balance of profit, and support of those customers requiring assistance. With Freeman?s view, I find myself in total agreement, his view provides for a stable and balanced approach. In that developing a strong birth with the customers, provides to a degree the possibility of profit gain to the shareholder, as swell up as providing a marketing prospect for new customers.ReferencesBeauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D. G. (2008). Ethical speculation and Business(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jerse y Pearson Education, Inc.Question 3What are the chief(prenominal) features of Kantian ethics? What are the main features of utile ethics? Which view do you find most persuasive? why?AnswerKantian ethicsIn Kantian ethics the main guiding principle is known as the categorical imperative also called Formula of Universal Law, or Formula of the Kingdom of Ends what everyone, everywhere, ought to do. A key feature of the categorical imperative is its universal nature in form goodness, but there may be exceptions, and only if they can be universalized (Beauchamp, Bowie, Arnold, 2008).Although Kantian ethics contain several main principles, the primary concept is the idea that certain principles are internalally moral, and that a moral person or society must observe these categorical imperatives in all situations.Moral rules should be based on the premise of reason and rational agents, not on human nature or conscience (Beauchamp, Bowie, Arnold, 2008). Intentions, motives, will of th e person and executions-in-themselves are morally relevant and more important than consequences. When considering an action an individual must ask whether they can imagine their intentions for an action as a general rule for everyone. If a person does something out of a sense of duty to moral law, to make an informed, uncoerced decision, free of impertinent authority, then his actions have moral value.Treating people with ?dignity? and respect is a moral consideration. Respect for the person, people are intrinsically valuable and should not be used or treated as a pith to an end. People should be respected as ends in and of themselves.Utilitarian hypothesisAccording to Beauchamp, Bowie, and Arnold, (2008), John Stuart Mill argues that unconvincing and incompatible theories can be coherently unified by a single standard of munificence that allows us to decide objectively what is right and wrong, developing Utilitarianism. The principle of utility, or the ?greatest happiness? pri nciple, dictates that the given action or practice is right when compared with any alternative action or practice if it leads to the greatest mathematical balance of beneficial consequences or to the least possible balance of no-account consequences. Mill also holds that the concepts of duty, obligation, and right are subordinated to, and determined by, that which maximizes benefits and minimizes harmful outcomes (Beauchamp, Bowie, Arnold, 2008).Utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion.In evaluating the goodness of an action, utilitarianists require for the effect or consequence that the action may have, and whether or not the greatest happiness by all will be a chieved. Utilitarianists do not necessarily view an action as having any intrinsic worth in and of itself. They do not require we know every possible consequence of an action, but that we take into account what can middling be anticipated to result from the action.Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward order for deciding the morally right course of action for any peculiar(prenominal) situation we may find ourselves in.To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the predictable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we tell apart the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account.Which is more persuasive, Kantian or Utilitarian?Kants theory of imperatives, though quite rational, seems to be a utopian concept that cannot be fully cognise in a complex society. Whereas Utilitarian calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions this in itself would be a tremendous undertaking. Kantian ethics focuses more on the actual action or motive and the morality of that action as opposed to utilitarianism, which focuses more on the morality of the consequence and, not of the action or motive. Kantian ethics state the treatment of everyone should be as an end in themselves and never exploit them as means, as opposed to utilitarianism, which states the treatment of people should be as means to improve everyone?s situation.Looking at Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies, the two appear as polar opposites. scarce in the end, they both seek a morally right and virtuous life. Each brings a different aspect to a given situation. The two theories are not all encompassing for every situation it is in this that both are persuasive for a given event.