About Ethics - Assignment Example

Ethics Ethics Q1. In history, specifically within certain scholarly disciplines, it has been assumed that human beings use conscious, deliberate, and rational forms of thought when evaluating and solving problems. However, contemporary research shows that human beings use two systems of thinking that human. These include System 1 and System 2. Although one of these Systems does involve conscious, deliberate, rational forms of thought, the second of these Systems involves automatic, intuitive responding that occurs below the level of conscious awareness. Two persons namely Keith Stanovich and Richard West coined system 1 and system 2 thinking (Novaes, 2012). System 1 thinking is characterized by an unconscious and automatic way of thinking. This system has the universal cognition that occurs both in human beings and in animals, an aspect that is considered evolutionary. System one thinking is comprised of subsystems that work hand-in-hand within the same autonomy. System 1 thinking is responsible for instinctive behaviors that are programmed inherently. This system solves problems through the dependence of prior information that is associated with the system including automatic, holistic and fast cognitive ability (Kaufman & Singer, 2012). System 2 is recent compared to system 1. This system is characteristic of human beings only. This system is also understood as the explicit and rule-based system. It is slow, sequential, and domain-general and is performed in the central memory system. System 2 allows abstract hypothetical thinking that does not happen in system 1. This system functions with regard to logical standards and is rule based, demanding, analytic and controlled of cognitive capacity (Kaufman & Singer, 2012). The kind of individual ethical problem-solving that happens in business and organizations involves the application of system 1 and system 2 thinking. The use of instinctive information must be used then making an ethical decision. It also involves a holistic approach that will involve looking at the causes of the ethical problem and going towards the identification of a solution. System 2 is also significant because ethical problem solving in a business or an organization must be made using logic and reasoning. This happens in the sense that one has to think through an ethical dilemma or problem and go through certain processes that involve identification, ranking, developing an action plan, implementing it and reflecting on its success. An example of a system 1 response to an ethical dilemma in business is when one wants to solve a theft case. One must not think that it is ethical to refrain from stealing. It becomes automatic that it is ethical to avoid stealing. An example of system 2 response would be to report the theft to the management because of the use of logic that theft is costly to the business. System 2 might be problematic for the ability to recognize, evaluate and take action on ethical dilemmas in the sense that it is slow. One must think and get a reliable solution to an ethical dilemma. In addition, one must follow the laid down rules when solving an ethical dilemma. This makes system 2 ineffective (Novaes, 2012)e. Q2. Factors impeding Moral Awareness The failure to recognize a moral or ethical concern that has come up can affect an individual’s performance to respond effectively to the issue of ethical problems or dilemma (Simola, 2011, p. 129). The failure to recognize that one has a choice about the manner in which to respond to the ethical concern (Simola, 2011, p. 130). Lack of characteristics, such as training and experience, degree of social consensus and magnitude of potential consequences related to an individual and the ethical concern (Simola, 2011, p. 131). Lack of attentiveness and subjective experiences or emotional skills for moral awareness (Simola, 2011, p. 131). The assumption that it is easy to be ethical (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 70). Failure to use moral language (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 71) Issues Impeding Moral Evaluation Lack of empathy that helps in the maintenance of relationships in ethics (Simola, 2011, p. 132). Failure to understand the criterion for judging the potential courses of action relative to moral dilemmas (Simola, 2011, p. 132). Lack of empathic maturity through inadequate psychological development (Simola, 2011, p. 133). Lack of the abilities for the application of justice forms of ethical reasoning (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 73). Failure to develop soci0-emtional development (Simola, 2011, p. 133). Failure to make informed choices of what is right and what is not (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 73). Failure to follow the right decision even when known because of the pressures in the work environment. (Simola, 2011, p. 133). Following what other people do or expect them to do (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 73). Factors impeding Moral Intention Failure to give priority to moral values such as fairness, honesty, integrity and care over other values that are not required in an ethical dilemma (Simola, 2011, p. 133). The inability to give precedence to moral values even when it creates personal suffering or loss on the person responsible for the decision making (Simola, 2011, p. 133). The tendency to rely on conscious rationale and the failure to act upon the internalized desire to contribute to moral motivation (Simola, 2011, p. 134). Linking desire to intentional behavior to be able to act ethically (Simola, 2011, p. 134). Failure to reorient and internalize the values and capabilities required to form strategies towards ethical responses (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 76). Failure to put emphasis on design rather than default formulated in addressing ethical concerns (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 76). Failure to recognize that formal ethics and legal compliance programs can have a positive result (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 77). Factors Impeding Moral Action The failure to recognize that only discouraging unethical behavior is not enough to solve ethical problems (Simola, 2011, p. 134). Lack of skills that are required in creatively identifying non-zero sum solutions to ethical problems (Simola, 2011, p. 134). The failure of people to use different options when consider in the positions of various stakeholders that are included in the ethical problem (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 78). The failure to recognize that the intersection of differing interests does not mean that they will oppose each other but confront each other and lead to one result ranging from voluntary. Submission of a party, compromise between the parties involved, an integrative outcome and a struggle followed by a rule of one party (Simola, 2011, p. 135). The failure to understand the existing culture could make the action stage very difficult to handle The failure to communicate the importance of ethical standards (Simola, 2011, p. 135). The failure to understand that focus should be given to the reward system not because people should be rewarded when they do things the right way, but because the reward encourages them to do the right thing (Simola, 2011, p. 136). The failure to provide ethical leadership (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 79). Failure to align multiple formal and informal cultural systems in the support of ethical behavior (Tievino & Blown, 2004, p. 79). References Kaufman, S. B., & Singer, J. L. (2012, January 17). The Creativity of Dual Process “System 1″ Thinking. Retrieved from American TM: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/01/17/the-creativity-of-dual-process-system-1-thinking/ Novaes, C. D. (2012, November 12 ). Kahneman on System 1 and System 2 as fictitious characters. Retrieved from New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science: http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/11/kahneman-on-system-1-and-system-2-as-fictitious-characters.html?cid=6a00d8341ef41d53ef017c3362d511970b Simola, S. (2011). Elucidating the Role of Care in Ethical Decision-Making and Action. New York: Springer. Tievino, L. K., & Blown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Management Execulive, Vol. 18, No. 2, 69-80. Read More