The dilemma faced is whether or not the ex-employee should cash the check, or return it to its rightful owner. If I were faced with the same dilemma, I would follow The Ethical Reasoning System of Deontology. Deontology is often referred to as the theory or study of moral obligation. It is the idea behind the Golden Rule, which states, “Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.” The concept of moral obligation and benevolence is of essence when faced with an ethical dilemma. I would return the money to the company because that is what is right and acceptable.
In this case the individual was laid off and given a severance package because Global Investment Banking was down sizing and as a result they no longer required the positions. Had the individual been fired it would have been due to something he personally did, such as going against company policy or code of conduct, and as a result would have been terminated and would not have received a severance package. The stakeholders in this ethical dilemma include first and foremost the individual, Global Investment Banking, and the managing director. The individual had also been offered another position in the same company as part of the Eastern European Sales group. He also had interviewed with two other investment banks, one of
Joe could lose his job and even worse he could put the company in place for a lawsuit. The ethical theory that supports how I think Joe should respond to this invitation is the utilitarianism theory. This approach states that a decision that maximizes the ratio of good over evil for all those concerned is the ethical course, (McAdams, Neslund, & Neslund, 2007). The utilitarianism theory should be used because Joe should think which action he should take that would benefit the most involved. If he goes on the trip it is only good for Bill.
I believe that this concern should be left to the company owners as individuals. Personally, I don’t agree with the fact that the way America gets other countries to bend over backwards is by threatening to cut off financial business ties. I feel that America is trying to gain control of the world by doing so. However, I do agree that any sort of discrimination is unethical and should not be tolerated. That is something that each countries governments should have control over, not a foreign country that threatens to cut off business associations.
If Sheryl Conan uses the direct method as her supervisors wants her to it will distort the cost of goods sold and hides the decline in market value. Investors and stockholders in the company would be harmed if Dick Wright’s preference is used. By using the direct method to write down inventory it would be manipulating critical information that would be used to figure out costs of goods sold; which in turn would give wrong calculations to determine selling prices and to establish profit margins. These incorrect calculations would also mislead possible future investors in the company by not clearly showing the decline in market value. Sheryl Conan should use the allowance method that would reflect that would clearly disclose the decline in market value and not use the other method as her supervisor wants her to.
I think that a business leader needs to act and conduct themselves in the best interests of their employees, and clients. This paying of multi million dollars spent on bonus for the executives is a huge ethical dilemma. The tax payers didn’t even get their money back prior the disbursement of the bonuses. This is the type of leadership that is stewardship but with bad unethical decisons As a leader, you can put the needs interests, and goals of others above your own and use your personal gifts to help others achieve their potential. The questionnaire in Leader’s Self: Insight 6.2 enables you to evaluate your leadership approach along the dimensions of authoritarian leadership, participative leadership, stewardship, and servant leadership.
In addition, “consumers have the basic right to be protected from the loss or injury caused on account of defective goods”. This becomes an ethical issue when Consolidated did not inform consumers because of fear of losing the contract or in other words, “profit” all while knowingly putting the lives of others at risk is morally and ethically wrong. (Schooling) For this issue as a resolution, lives should not have been placed at risk in the first place. A product recall should have been done to replace the flak jacket before anything occurred. This would have caused some negative media but in the long run Consolidated would have been
The Maxxo brothers apart of the board of directors didn’t want that for his loyal employees. AgroVate refused Pearson’s offer and secretly conspired with Stopper a larger company about merging with them. Can the AgroVate board legally adopt defensive measures against Bijoux? I am not sure but I think AgroVate can adopt a defensive measure against Bijoux. For AgroVate to be able to adopt a defensive measure the board first has to have reasonable grounds for believing that a danger to corporate effectiveness existed.
He therefore ought not disobey the State. He furthers his argument by saying that disobeying the State and escaping would be committing a wrong act, and would be an injustice against the people of Athens. He says that if he escaped, he would not be able to live life the same way he was used to living. Also his sons would not be able to grow in Athens and would then be raised by strangers rather than by the State that raised him and has been loyal to him. He emphasizes that although one should not disobey the State, one can always try to persuade the State to improve is as a whole in truth and
Ayn Rand Belief in Today’s society. Ayn Rand's belief of those human relationships should exist without sacrifice. Every man is responsible for his own survival, and it is morally wrong to sacrifice yourself for someone unimportant to you, and equally immoral to expect someone else's sacrifice for your sake. Ayn Rand’s belief doesn't eliminate charity, just shouldn't bring harm to you in order to help someone. Of course, you could deleteriously affect your own welfare to help someone, but it might not be a sacrifice depending on the circumstances.