The Meaning of Ethics Followed by Identifying the Ethical Dilemma - Essay Example

?The concept of ethics is very important in the day to day operations of any business. As such, this essay seeks to critically analyse the given casestudy involving Kaspa, a financial organisation to establish the ethical dilemma it is facing after a terrorist attack at the subway station near its office building. It starts by explaining the meaning of ethics followed by identifying the ethical dilemma being faced by the organisation. Ethical perspectives will be discussed in relation to this dilemma. 1. In order to explain the main ethical dilemma(s) presented in the given case study, it is imperative to begin by defining the meaning of the two key terms namely; ethics and ethical dilemma so as to gain a clear understanding of the whole concept. The term ethics loosely refers to a distinction that is made between something that is morally good from bad in the way individuals behave. On the other hand, business ethics refers to the values, principles and standards that operate within an organisation and these attempt to make a distinction between business practice that is morally good from bad (Rossouw 2004). From this assertion, it can be noted that the concept of business ethics mainly derives from the value system that is used by a particular organisation in its operations towards the attainment of its set goals. Thus, DesJardins (2006) defines values as “essential and enduring tenets that help define the company and are not to be compromised for financial gain or short term expediency,” (p. 5). In view of the above definition of ethics, it can however, be noted that at times there is no universal agreement on what constitutes something that is good or bad. Thus, certain incidences arise at times in business where some people are no longer certain whether some actions should be considered as right or wrong (Hiti, 1999). People may look at the same thing but some may view it as morally bad while others will have a different view. This constitutes an ethical dilemma in business when people have conflicting views over a particular issue. In as far as business is concerned, it can be noted that the main objective is to gain profits and at times the issue of ethics is compromised for financial gains. Against this background, the ethical dilemma facing Gerald Smarten, CEO of Kaspa Financial Services is making a decision whether or not to offer assistance through providing the lobby and cafeteria of their building as temporary shelter for the victims of the fatal subway bombing as requested by the police department which is disputed by Ben and others. Ben the general counsel could not imagine the first floor of the Kaspa Tower being transformed into a shelter of bleeding victims and bodies of the dead citing that the facilities will suffer bad damages and create a bad image to the investors who may pull out their money as there would be chances that they may link the firm to the terrorist attack. The dilemma here is whether they can be humane by offering the requested shelter against the need to safeguard the business interests of the firm with regards to the long term relations with the investors. Of notable concern is that the bombing has taken place very close to their office building and 23 of their employees are missing which entails that they may also have been caught up in the attack. Legally they may say no, but morally, they also ought to show a humane face by offering assistance during an unprecedented crisis. 2. The utilitarian, virtue, deontological and libertarian ethics perspectives will be used in this section to compare and contrast the dilemma(s) that have been identified in the given case study. According to the utilitarian theory, “the choice that yields the greatest benefit to the majority of people is ethically correct compared to the choice that only benefit the organisation as well as its financial gains,” (Rainbow, 2002). This ethical perspective actually encourages people to work towards the outcomes that will give an advantage to the majority of people likely to be affected by certain actions. Whilst this perspective may be somehow controversial, in this case, the majority of the people are the investors given that they are the ones who are directly involved with the operations of Kaspa. On the other hand, it can be noted that Kaspa is not responsible for the bombing of the subway hence it may not be held liable for refusing to offer temporary shelter to the victims of the terrorist attack. The utilitarian theory suggests that in as far as business interests are concerned, the organisation should be guided by its values which incline it to act in certain ways that will make it different from the others. As noted in the definition above, values include financial, political as well as religious factors and these must benefit the majority of the stakeholders that are affected by the operations of that particular organisation. These values shape the operations of the firm towards the attainment of its goals. Essentially, the main purpose of business is to make profits hence actions taken by the firm should be beneficial to the majority of the stakeholders. This perspective is applicable to the case of Kaspa given that it has a duty to protect the interests of the investors who are the majority in as far as its business interests are concerned. The virtue theory is mainly concerned with establishing what a “good person” will do in specific real situations. Details of this theory can be viewed at the Medindia Health Network website at . The theory takes into consideration the reputation, morals and motivation when something irregular has just happened. In this case, there has been an unprecedented terrorist attack and the department of police has asked the management of Kaspa for temporary shelter for the victims of the attack. Ethically, the responsible authorities at Kaspa should respond positively by offering the much needed assistance given that this attack is unusual and there is no one who was anticipating that it can happen. Indeed, this is an irregular occasion which calls for the cooperation of the organisation in question. Tackling this dilemma requires the management of Kaspa to focus on the common good and in doing so they can find the right way to value things. According to this perspective, a virtue is an action that shows morality and is effective in guiding the operations of the organisation. The organisation is likely to be rewarded in kind for showing goodwill to the needs of the victims of the terrorist attack. Right thinking people will appreciate the gesture by the organisation and this can create a positive image which can help it to attract more investors as it will be viewed as socially responsible. Though less applicable to this given case, the deontology perspective is of the view that there are certain moral rules that govern our lives and these may not be broken at any given time. What is more important in this perspective is that we should do the right thing for the good of everyone as suggested by the famous philosopher, Immanuel Kant. A good example is drawn from the Ten Commandments which are used as a manual in our lives to distinguish between something that is good from bad. However, in this case, it can be noted that there are no prescribed laws that can be attributed to the given scenario given that Kaspa has its own obligation to protect its business interests and it is not bound by any rule which may not be broken. Kaspa is also not responsible for the disaster such that it can be said to have broken some of the moral rules that govern our daily lives. The libertarian perspective to ethics holds that the basic moral concepts are individual human rights and that the rights to be respected are non interference rights (Garret, 2008). These rights include the following: rights to life, liberty as well as property and one has a duty to respect the similar rights of others in order for him or her to equally enjoy the same rights. The non interference right to life is not to be killed or injured, whilst the non interference right to liberty is a right not to be kidnapped or enslaved while the non interference right to property is a right not to have one's legitimately acquired possessions stolen or degraded by the deliberate or negligent actions of others (Garret, 2008). As aptly prescribed in this perspective, Kaspa as a legitimate firm has the right to ensure that its property is not degraded by the actions of the others in the name of upholding morality standards given that it is not responsible for the terrorist attack in the neighbourhood. 3. The libertarian perspective will work best in this given scenario. This perspective holds that the basic moral concepts are individual human rights and that the rights to be respected are non interference rights (Garret, 2008). Rights to ownership of property are also enshrined in this perspective and Kaspa has the legal right to refuse with their property to be used as temporary shelter for the injured victims in the bomb attack. They are not the ones who have caused this tragic incidence hence they may not be liable to satisfy the needs of everyone at the expense of their core business. Though it is morally good to assist in the event of tragic incidences like this, it is not mandatory for them to readily accept any request which may jeopardise their business. Legally, they have a duty to safeguard their interests since they are involved in a legitimate business. Property rights are protected by the supreme law of the land unless there is an enforceable contract which requires both parties to fulfil their duties. In this particular case, there is no such contact and the verdict lies in their hands. Though it has its own flaws, it can be noted that the utilitarian theory is applicable to this case. It is based on the notion that an action that yields the greatest benefit to the majority of people is ethically correct. In the case of Kaspa, the majority of the people are their shareholders and they must be considerate to their interests by any means necessary. Businesses operate in a dynamic environment that is characterised by stiff competition hence there is every need to put measures that ensure that the interests of the stakeholders are given prominence. It will be costly for the organisation if it loses its valuable investors if it gives precedence to other issues, though morally, which do not directly contribute to its well being. Philips (2004) suggests that the stakeholder theory puts more emphasis on property rights. He suggests that the stakeholders own the firm by virtue of owning equity shares which they wish to maximise and the firm has an obligation to unsure stakeholder fairness. Stakeholders are groups whom the organisation has accepted benefits and to whom the organisation has incurred obligations of fairness. According to this perspective, normatively legitimate stakeholders (those stakeholders to whom the organisation has an obligation) have precedence over the others and it is the duty of the managers to know their interests. In this particular case, priority should be given to the interests of the investors who are the majority stakeholders. If they are against the decision made, they may shun the organisation which may affect its viability. Thus, careful consideration has to be taken in the decision making process with regards to this issue given that there are mixed reactions especially on the action that can be taken with regards to the main issue raised in the case study. Basically, decision making is used to describe the act of seeking information, interpreting that information, and based on such perceptions arriving at a conclusion especially in relation to strategic issues (Schultz et al 2005). The diagram below illustrates the decision making process that can be used to help Kaspa to reach an amicable decision. Fig 1 Decision making model Over and above, it can be seen that the concept of ethics is mainly concerned with making a distinction between something that is morally good from bad. In as far as business is concerned, this concept is at times controversial given that there are conflicting interests with regards to the survival of business and the need to uphold moral principles. As discussed above, there is an ethical dilemma facing Kaspa with regards to offering temporary shelter to the victims of the terrorist attack. It has been noted that the libertarian, utilitarian and stakeholder perspectives to ethics are applicable to this case since the organisation in question is not responsible for the terrorist attack therefore cannot be held at ransom which can negatively impact on its business. References An introduction to biomedical ethics (25 February 2011). Medindia Health Network Retrieved fromhttp://www.medindia.net/education/familymedicine/biomedical-ethics-theories.htm. An introduction to biomedical ethics. 2011. Medindia Health Network. http://www.medindia.net/education/familymedicine/biomedical-ethics-theories.htm. Bugela, M.J., 1996. Living ethics. Developing values in mass communication. Boston. Allyn and Bacon. DesJardins, J., 2006. An introduction to business ethics. 2nd Edition. Boston. McGraw Hill international Edition. Garret, J. 16 January, 2008. Ethical theories. http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/320/320et.htm McNulty, E.J., ND, The CEO Can’t Afford to Panic Phillips, R., ‘Ethics and a manager's obligations under stakeholder theory.’ Ivey Business Journal Online; Mar/Apr 2004; ABI/INFORM Global Rossouw D. (2004). Business Ethics: 3rd Edition. Oxford. CT. Rainbow, C., 2002. Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles. Davidson College. http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/Indep/carainbow/Theories.htm. Schultz, H. et al 2005, Organisational behaviour. Van Schaick. Pretoria. Weiss, J.W., 1994. Business ethics: A managerial, stakeholder approach. California. International Thompson Publishing. Read More