Business Ethics and Moral Principles - Essay Example

Business Ethics Number Question A right is an ethical, social or legal principle of freedom or entitlement. It can be said to be a normative rule on what is permitted of individuals or owned by them according to the social convention, legal system or ethical theory (Fiester, 2006). A legal right is an abstract idea which is due to an individual or a governmental body based on law. A moral right is a natural right that which is not contingent upon the laws, customs or beliefs of any specific government or culture. However, it is based in some ethical or universal morals. A human right is a right that is inherent to all human beings, irrespective of their nationality, sex, location, ethnic or national origin, religion, color, language or whichever other status (Fiester, 2006). What is common among all of the rights is that there is a freedom or entitlement to an individual. Question 2 There are three features that define a moral right. One feature is that moral rights are natural meaning that they are not invented or created by the government. Moral rights are universal and this means they do not change from one nation to another. Finally they are equal in meaning and they are the same for all persons, irrespective of race, gender or handicap (Fiester, 2006). Question 3 We know that people need human rights since they need protection. Human rights give people protection from other people or state. Individuals should have rights so as to be able to protect their freedom, interests, equal status, values, opportunities and other projects of life against the attack by those powerful than them. A utilitarian basis, in a sense that is strict is the one that argues that one should do something as it will produce more happiness to the greatest number than doing something else. Act Utilitarianism (AU) is defined as the moral theory that holds that the morally right action, the action that one has a moral duty to perform, is the one that is likely to maximize utility (Barasbi, 2011). The utilitarian argument in the sense of a looser is the one that claims that one should do something due to its good results, where bad or good results need not be restricted to what increases or decreases happiness. However, it may comprise other things that a strict utilitarian theory attaches no negative or positive fundamental value to. Kantian ethics is based on what Immanuel Kant alleged is the absolute principle of morality, the Categorical Imperative. He alleged that there were a few diverse though equal ways of positioning a Categorical Imperative. The first is the universal law which states that one ought to act only on principles that one can will to be universal law that is applicable to everybody. The thought here appears to be that when individuals act morally, they want everyone else to observe the rules however, except themselves. The other manner of stating the Categorical Imperative is the principle of humanity. It states that whenever one acts he has to be sure always to treat “persons” as “ends” and not as “just means” (Barasbi, 2011). When Kant talks of “persons” he means any being that has the ability of making moral judgment and conforms to them. Persons have the free will and reason. According to Kant’s principle of humanity it is just persons who have dignity and have to be treated as “ends.” Animals have a use value and they can be treated as just means or possessions. Animals can be used in experiments to test new drugs; however, persons can only be used is such experiments with their informed consent. He believes that killing one healthy person is not right, even if it maximizes the utility for the entire society. This is not correct as it takes human beings as “only a means” (Barasbi, 2011). According to Kant, if a person commits suicide since he believes that the remainder of his life will be full of more discomforts than pleasure, then he fails to see himself as an end. As long as one has the abilities that make him a person, then he has dignity and he should respect that dignity. Another objection by Kant to the AU is that it is degrading for humanity to believe that and behave as if pleasure were the point in life. He thinks that the point of life is the performing of one’s personhood abilities in moral consideration and choices (Barasbi, 2011). Question 4 Human beings are said to have a natural right to liberty as liberty conforms to the nature of human beings, to the natural ability that humans posses for their own life plans and behave accordingly. According to Locke, God made human beings and he does nothing in vain, and thus accordingly, God intends that humans would use their ability for independent self-direction. However, if this is true, then God intends that humans not to interfere with one another so that they may not prevent the application of this ability (Hudelson, 1999). These premises argue only of what the case is. They talk of what human nature is and the intentions of God. Nothing has been said of what should be the case. However, Locke adds that humans should do what God requires. He is thus able to bridge the gap that is there between “is” and “ought” (Hudelson, 1999). John Locke argues that private property is a natural right as the ownership of property is the only means an individual can maintain himself in bodily comfort. Even if the natural state of everything on earth plus in it is that of universal ownership, with no previous personal claim by any individual, individuals cannot use any of these things unless a certain technique appropriation is applied (Hudelson, 1999). According to Locke, the method of appropriation is labor. In this case, the definition of labor is basic. If an individual uses any kind of natural or lawful effort to get something that was taken as a universal property, this thing becomes his personal property. At that point, there is no other individual who can take possession of the thing in question without the consent of the original owner (Hudelson, 1999). References Hudelson, R. (1999). Modern political philosophy. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Fiester, A. (2006). Casuistry and the moral continuum. Politics and the Life Sciences, 25, 1, 15-22. Barasbi, K. B. (2011). Moral Principles. Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, 50, 2, 8-38. Read More