A Process of Making a Decision - Essay Example

Ethics al Affiliation Decision-making has always been a challenge to many people. The reason behind the challenge is the existence of complicated issues that the person expected to make a decision must consider. For a clear decision to be made, people often make considerations of a number of things. While some will be more interested in assessing the action itself in terms of molarity and its effects to other people, others will make decisions depending on the results or the consequences. For the first group, a decision will be made to ensure that there is morality and this remains constant regardless of the outcome or the effects of the decision. For the second group, however, a decision will be made to ensure that the results are favorable; the ends in this case will justify the means. These two groups of people are consciously or unconsciously applying different moral theories to determine their actions. This paper provides a report of a case scenario in which decisions must be done. Also gives a decisional recommendation for a person in a moral dilemma based on a moral theory. The moral theory used in the report is Kantian moral theory. Table of Content Abstract …………………………………………………........………………………….. 2 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Kemal’s Dilemma ………………………………………………………………………. 4 Possible Decision Based on Kant’s Theory ……………………………………………….. 5 Basis of Decision Change …………………………………………………………………. 6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………... 7 References ………………………………………………………………………………… 8 Ethics Introduction The case scenario presented in this report represents a man, Kemal with a job that he solely depends on to provide for himself, his family, who include aged and ailing parents and other dependents. The job however has an opportunity for improving. The airline company he works for is looking for a chance to obtain landing rights in an economically vibrant country. If this becomes a reality, then his salary, as well as his bonuses, will improve, and his life will be better. He expects that the new life will be simpler, and his many commitments will no longer be a problem. He has the responsibility of planning and budgeting for this acquisition or landing rights, and he is the sole decision maker in this. Due to the competition, however, there are chances that a competitor airline company will be awarded the rights. He however has a chance to improve his company’s chance in the project by giving bribes to several managers and ministers in the country, which would even assure his company the award. The demand is within the projects financial means, and only his decision is required. Kemal’s Dilemma The situation that Kemal is in presents an ethical and moral dilemma. First, he considers the possibility that when he gives the bribes and the presents as his manager advices, his company will be assured of the landing rights in the country. With such an award, Kemal expects that his financial situation will improve drastically, and he will be able to provide for his family and take care of his parents, as he would wish. The budget of the project allows the use of funds for legal advice and other means to ensure the awarding, but the company policy is strongly against corruption. Secondly, Kemal considers that giving bribes is morally wrong. It is something that is wrong regardless of the expected consequences or the outcome. Doing t even for a ‘good’ course is wrong and will implicate on his morality. However, there is very little chance that he will be caught. He has to make a decision. Possible Decision Based on Kant’s Theory Based on Kant’s moral theory, Kemal should take the second decision. This means that even though Kemal is in great need of life improvement and income increase, which is possible if the airline, is awarded the landing rights, he should use the legal and morally upright method of corporate application. Even if a competitor is giving the bribes, Kemal should not let this affect his decision. The reasons behind this recommendation are two according to Kant’s moral theory. First, according to this theory, if a person cannot rationally wish that everyone else in the world acted as they choose to act, and then he or she should not act as such. In Kemal’s situation, it is expected that no rational human beings like corruption for what it is. Kemal, therefore, would not recommend people to be corrupt. If this is so, then he should also not act in a corrupt way. The second reason is also based on Kant’s theory. The theory suggests that the decision should be made only if the actions it supports respect the main goals of human beings rather than personal purpose or interests. Corruption defies morality. To explain Kemal’s decision based on this we would say that giving bribes in order to be awarded the airline landing rights is in pursuit of personal purpose and not compatible with morality or the common good. He should, therefore, pursue what represents the common good and that action which he could suggest to anyone based on its morality (Altman, 2011). Kant’s theory represents one of the powerful moral principles that prohibit acts that are only based on personal interests. It presents a logical approach to how the world could be ruled without actions and decisions that make it an intolerable society. The sets of rules, as applied in the Kemal’s case above are applicable to everyone and are in respect to morality and to human life. The theory significantly creates a distinction between duty and moral inclination. In this case, he provides an instinct that the morality is not based on personal preference or purpose. You cannot be said to promote happiness if your actions are undermining the very happiness of another person even if it is for the greater good (Sullivan, & Kant, 1997). Basis of Decision Change There are situations where decisions initially made can be changed based on a change in the underlying or prevailing conditions and emergence of influences. It is, therefore, important to examine two scenarios that could make Kemal consider changing his decision. A question may arise as whether Kemal’s decision is expected to change if the law categorically prohibited giving of gifts to enhance business and political favor. Based on this theory, such a prohibition would only emphasize the decision recommended. The reason behind this is that Kemal would be even more compelled to avoid bribes and the so-called gifts since his chances of being caught and losing everything are even higher. In as much as his decision will still be moral, it would be to some extent coerced by the fear of legal proceeding and greater loss that the mere failure to acquire landing rights. In a similar way, if the gifts did not comprise materials and sending of money but only lavish entertainments and holidays for the officials, the action would remain morally wrong and unacceptable. It defies the two conditions described in Kant’s theory. First, it is not something that one would recommend being the norm and secondly, it is still based on personal gain and not on the common good (Sullivan, & Kant, 1997). In both situations, therefore, Kemal’s decision not to give bribes or gifts in order to increase the chances that his company will be favored in the awarding of the landing right will still be recommended. This decision will mean that Kemal’s company has less or equal chance of getting the rights as other competitors, but there is no undue advantage. If the company is favored on the basis of its merits, then Kemal will be happy that the country saw his company worth of the award, and his life will change altogether. The change will not affect his morals, and his conscience will be clean. If, on the other hand, the company is not awarded, Kemal will continue with his current lifestyle with a clean conscience. Moreover, it is not assured that giving the gifts will automatically award the company landing rights. Conclusion In conclusion, therefore, we recommend that Kemal ignore the desire to go against morals in order to meet his personal purpose. He may be in great need of the financial improvement that comes with the award of landing rights but the means to use to reach this are not moral. As a rational being, Kemal should be aware that according to Kant’s moral theory, moral actions are based on the categorical imperative. This means that the morality is a command, and it is unconditional. Even if he would be performing the action to serve his personal interests and fulfil the purpose, the means of achieving this are contradictory to the purpose. Kant describes a morally right decision as that which a person’s determination is in accordance with the moral duty rather than on self-interests (Altman, 2011). There is, therefore, a general commitment in every person to act morally as a duty. Kemal should, therefore, take the recommendation because it is his duty as a human being to observe and maintain morality, and this duty should override his desires to fulfil personal interests. Moreover, it is a decision that is for the common good and can be encouraged for others to follow. References Altman, M. C. (2011). Kant and applied ethics: The uses and limits of Kants practical philosophy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Sullivan, R. J., & Kant, I. (1997). An introduction to Kants ethics. Cambridge. Cambridge Univ. Press. Read More