They are willing to see that others have the sincerity to work with a diverse group of individuals. The guidance of right and wrong directs the challenge of the time. When ethical principle are violated there is little room for compromise. Being the obligatory person finding yourself solving conflicts are often frustrating. Conclusion When articulating an ethical obligation one must be effective with their words in order to express their position.
Examine how both deontological and teleological ethical systems can be used to help people make moral decisions. Deontological and teleological ethical systems attempt to provide those who follow them with contrasting moral guides, recommending wrong and right concepts of behaviour. Deontological ethics derives from the Greek word, "Deon" which translates to "duty", for all deontologists, morality is a matter of duty. This ethical theory judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule, so essentially, deontology is concerned with the intent behind an action as well as the nature of the action itself. Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral.
Meta-Ethics is a branch of ethics which is concerned with the language that is used in ethical arguments. Many would say that if we do not know what we are talking about, then there is not point to ethical debate. This differs from normative which deicides whether or not something is bad or good and gives us a guide for moral behaviour. Meta-ethics is about normative ethics and tried to make sense of the terms and concepts used. The terms good and bad are used a lot in day to day sentences - but what do they really mean?
3) Social contract ethics: Action on the basis of the norms, values and strategy of my organization or community. Rightness of an action determined by the customs and norms of a community. 4) Personalistic ethics: Actions based on my personal convictions. Rightness of an action determined by one’s conscience. Evaluate your negotiation in four levels: Ethical: appropriate as determined by some standards of moral conduct Prudent: wise, based on trying to understand the efficacy of the tactic ant its consequences Practical: What a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation Legal: what the law defines as acceptable practice People tend to regard other people’s unpleasant behavior as caused by disposition or personality, while attributing the causes of own behavior to factors in social environment Ethically ambiguous tactics Standards of truth telling Bluffing Negotiation is based on information dependence Dilemma of trust: is that a negotiator who believes everything the other says can be manipulated by dishonesty Dilemma of honesty: is that a negotiator who tells the other party all of his exact requirements and limits will, inevitable, never do better than his walkaway point Deception in negotiation can rise to the level of legally actionable fraud Identifying ethically ambiguous tactics (check page 188 table 8.3, kind of useful) Tactics can be seen appropriate even if ambiguous
In a sense, critical thinking is a form of analysis and determination of fact vs. fiction, identifying the unknown, coming to an understanding, etc… By taking the path of a critical thinker, a person develops a mental process of evaluation which helps to determine their ethical standards. By incorporating the critical thinking process into their mindset, it enables them to more effectively make decisions based upon truths and verified information, rather than unknowns and variables. By eliminating the variables, you bring to view the plain truths which exist and make a decision based upon that . Having a critical approach to ethical analysis is very important and remains one of the principle factors as far as I am concerned I think that people should have a very analytical mind if they are to be truly successful ethically, because it is too easy to forget and not care; resorting to self sufficient forms of thinking
“The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.” Evaluate this claim. The right to study and possess knowledge is a fundamental right for every human which is enshrined in nearly every single country’s constitution. However, the decisions that are made when this knowledge is applied could potentially have repercussions. At this point, ethics becomes involved in the use of knowledge. In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong.
The term value has multiple meanings dependent upon the context applied. Various notions are applied to the word, for example, ‘intrinsic worth or goodness’; something that represents usefulness;’ reference to light or shade’; financial rate of value; as well as, ‘moral principles or standards’ (Chambers Dictionary, 1998). In relation to personal values a broad definition is: ‘A person’s principles or standards of behaviour: one’s judgement about what is important in life (New Oxford Dictionary of English, Revised Edition, 2001, cited in Beckett & Maynard, 2006, p6). Good. Things that are important to an individual are determined by their internal fundamental beliefs and principles that establish their code of morality, which is formed by socialisation as well as cultural and personal life experiences.
This ambiguous and vague claim above is stating that an ethical responsibility will be placed on you if knowledge is being possessed by you. This claim is simply making an assumption that ethical responsibilities will be placed by having knowledge. This presumption made is pointing out that the possession of knowledge is tied with understanding moral standards and values, it is also pointing out that by having knowledge will gain people an understanding towards consequences caused by actions thus carrying responsibilities towards conducting or observing or stopping others conducting different actions at the first place. In other words, this claim can be understood as a duty of following the morally correct principles and standards will be placed on anyone who has ideas and understandings which can lead them into achieving their personal goals. (scu) (Small Business) (stevedenning) In my opinion, the possession of knowledge and knowledge itself does not carry an ethical responsibility at all times but it does carry ethical responsibilities under certain circumstances.
In this lens it is taught to focus on the processes, and the systems needed for an ethical organization. The difference between the first two lens discussed is that the Right and Responsibility Lens, and the Results lens focused on the individual, the Relationship lens focuses on the community. However in the relationship lens it has a few more concerns, such as how to protect the basic liberties of all people. These liberties are broken down into rights such as; The right to notice, The right to voice, not to veto, The right to have contracts honored. The Relationship Lens helped influence my decision by giving us a process by which basic liberties can be protected.
This can be hard to accomplish when individuals misperceive what is morally right with other moral agents such as self-interest, personal desires, and peer/community beliefs. “Because of complexities such as these, ethically motivated individuals must learn the art of self-critique, of moral self-examination, to become attuned to the pervasive everyday pitfalls of moral judgment: moral intolerance, self-deception, and uncritical conformity. The rules and principles of critical thinking do apply to ethics because they both follow the same guidelines. Critical Thinking helps people determine for themselves whether something is right or wrong. It is a form of analysis and determination of fact vs. fiction, identifying the unknown and coming to an understanding.