Management for a Small Planet - Essay Example

Management for a Small Planet Introduction Ethical dilemmas constitute the primary characterisations of contemporary organisations. Desjardins (2009) defines ethical dilemmas as complex situations involving apparent mental conflicts between moral imperatives, where taking one option leads to transgression of another. Both profit making and non-profit making organisations face numerous dilemmas as they strive to make day to day decisions. Common Humanitarian Fund is one of the non-profit making organisations that faced a complex ethical dilemma when making a critical decision. Decision makers need to institute proper ethical theories in to their decision making endeavours in order to make decisions founded on morality. The most common theoretical foundations of ethics include Utilitarianism, Kantianism, postmodern theory and human right. These four theories consider ethical standards as the basis for all decision making endeavours and provide rational bases for effective choosing of particular alternatives. Summary of the Case Common Humanitarian Fund was providing humanitarian services to Congolese affected by war in the year 2013 (Cengage, 2014). A peculiar parasite found in the water destroyed the corneas of eleven people, who consequently went blind. An organisational agency, Doctors Without Borders, has volunteered to deploy four doctors to aid in the process of transplanting corneas (Cengage, 2014). The corneas are scarce in Africa. Recently, the director of Doctors Without Borders called Common Humanitarian Fund and informed that the UK Aid agency is willing exchange fifteen corneas for a truck and ten cases of medical supplies. The directors of Common Humanitarian Fund is concerned with the origin of the corneas; credible sources reveal that a wealthy Hong Kong tradesman bought them from an urgency who buys body parts for transplant from executed prisoners. According to the director of Doctors Without Borders, there is no problem using the corneas. However, the director of Common Humanitarian Fund is not comfortable with the source of the corneas (Cengage, 2014). Common Humanitarian Fund has a few days to decide whether they are willing to accept the corneas or else Doctors Without Borders forwards them to someone else. Ethical Frameworks for Decision Making Utilitarianism Utilitarianism theories require decisions to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The theory of utilitarianism is founded on the premise that moral decisions consider the consequences of the choices (Crane & Matten, 2010). It is critical for decision makers to consider the possible results of their choices when determining appropriate courses of action. According to Jeremy Bethany and John Stuart Mill, the best decisions do the greatest good for the masses. Thus, the theory of utilitarianism requires decision makers to select alternative courses of action that guarantee the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The present case requires the director of Common Humanitarian Fund to decide whether to accept the illegally-acquired corneas or abandon the refugees continue suffering from blindness. Common Humanitarian Fund may have a limited time to decide whether to use donated corneas from undesirable sources. The director for Doctors Without Borders believes that it may not have any direct consequences on the parties involved. The current situation is that eleven citizens are directly affected, while several others are indirectly affected; these include their next of parents, friends, siblings and relatives. If they are healed, all these will be happy and they will continue living unhappy lives if nothing is done. However, the main long-term effect is that it may encourage the corrupt prison wardens to continue with their illegal business. The business seems to be abnormally profitable, an indication that the prison wardens may even begin killing prisoners so that they can extract their corneas. This will in turn cause pain to some other people. The utility that the blinded people will derive from outcomes of decisions are either based on act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism. Utility is the ability of a good or service to satisfy a need (Bannerjee, 2007). There are four steps of utilitarianism in deciding the current case. First, the Common Humanitarian Fund needs to identify the issue or action under consideration. In this case, the issue is that eleven people are blind and they need urgent supply of cornea, which Doctors Without Borders have offered to supply despite that the source of these corneas is questionable. Second, the theory will require participants in the decision making process to specify the parties that might be affected by the chosen alternative. The third step of utilitarianism theory will involve determining the positive and negative consequences that the decision may have on the involved parties (Crane, Matten & Spence, 2013). Fourth, it is vital to sum up the merits and demerits of the selected course of action, and take the one with more benefits than costs. Thus, the merits arising from the director of Common Humanitarian Fund accepting the corneas exceed the demerits. The blind will restore their sights and they will be happy with their families. Refusing to use the corneas may not stop the continuity of the illegal business. The director of Doctors Without Borders has the choice of donating the corneas to another person. Additionally, it is vital to appreciate that the end justifies the means; the refugees are suffering from blindness and the only way to help them is to accept the corneas. Act utilitarianism states that what is best in a specific context provides the highest level of utility (Scott, 2010). The best decision to make on the basis of utilitarianism is to ignore the source of the corneas and do good to many people who are currently suffering from blindness. Kant’s Categorical Imperative Kant based his theory of categorical imperative on the premise that decision makers should focus on right decisions regardless of the costs. Immanuel Kant argued that decision makers have the responsibility of considering the alternative courses of action that are morally upright regardless of the consequences (Crane & Matten, 2010). The fundamental tenet of Kant’s theory is doing the right regardless of the personal costs that may arise. Kant’s approach to moral reasoning is the best example of deontological ethics; in the current case, deontological ethics would require the executives of Common Humanitarian Fund to make choices on the basis of their primary duties. The proponents of the theory of categorical imperative argue that the personal interests of people may contradict their obligations. According to this theory, one person’s right choice is also right for all (Scott, 2010). The main concern of Common Humanitarian Fund would be whether directors from other humanitarian organisations would make the same decision when faced with a similar dilemma. Kant argued that other people may have the potential to achieve our goals; however, he emphasized that these people’s rights should be respected and not used as tools for our own survival (Gibson, 2007). The consequences of the current situation include continued suffering of the infected refugees and their affected families. The director of Common Humanitarian Fund has only alternative available: accepting the corneas from the donor who has bought from corrupt prison wardens. The act of acquiring the corneas from executed prisoners does not coincide with society’s moral standards. Kant’s theory requires the director of Common Humanitarian Fund to do the right regardless of the possible consequences. The obligation of the director is to ensure that the infected people have gotten their corneas transplanted while his personal interest is to ensure that he obeys the societal standards of morality. The director would have accepted the corneas since other people have accepted it too. Doctors Without Borders have an option of giving the corneas to another humanitarian agency, implying that other organisations might be ready to take them. Since the director is aware that the source of the corneas is illegal, Common Humanitarian Fund should not accept them. This is because extraction of the corneas from the prisoners did not respect the right of the prisoners and implies using other people to satisfy our goals, which is contrary to Kant’s categorical imperative. If the director accepts the corneas, he will be one of the agents encouraging this exploitative business to take roots in the society. Perhaps by refusing the corneas, someone people may realize that it is immoral to infringe the rights to life others for the sake of money. The director, based on his personal interest, may refuse to accept the corneas because their source contradicts the premises of Kant’s categorical imperative. However, the director’s obligation is to help the infected people restore their sights. Therefore, the director can ignore the source of the corneas and concentrate on helping the infected people restore their sight. This is because the cornea will be used elsewhere, leaving his people in continued sufferance. Postmodern Ethics The decision concerning the current case can be made based on post modern ethics. Jamieson (2008) argues that there are three crucial postmodern alternatives that help to eliminate the extreme relativism that characterise postmodernism; these are the Golden Rule, morally and socially constructed ethics, and the realist perspective. The Golden Rule suggests the necessity of social contract existing in the society (Jamieson, 2008). People desire to live in a world free of social evils such as murder, rape, child abuse and other crimes. The social construct appreciates cultural diversities across the world and the constraints posed by these diversities. Most cultures across the world prohibit businesses related to human flesh; this is because cultures are opposed to murder and other crimes related to murder. However, some cultures prohibited in one part of the world have been found permissible or encouraged in other cultures across time and place (Raufflet & Mills, 2009). Thus, there is a possibility that the culture from where corneas come from permit this kind of business. If it permitted in the culture, then the director of Common Humanitarian Fund should accept the corneas. The realist perspective posits that there exist some Ultimate Truths; however, people are not fully aware of these truths. Social evils that people engage in are not fully known. This implies that the affected people, or those involved in the cornea business are not aware that it is wrong to do the same. The director of Doctors Without Borders might not be aware of the long-term consequences of continuing to participate in this business. The director of Common Humanitarian Fund is aware of the demerits of the business. Stead and Stead (2009) appreciate that there are different variations regarding the interpretation of the Universal Truths. In this case, there are several universal truths; first, the corneas cannot be useful if a corpse is buried with them, they can be useful if they are transplanted to the living. The problem arises if the prison wardens engage in intentional killing of prisoners in order to extract their corneas. Second, the infected people need sight, which can only be possible if the director accepts the corneas. Third, the traders of prisoners’ body parts have several markets for these parts and there is no effective machinery to regulate this business at the moment. Considering these Universal Truths, the director of Common Humanitarian Fund should accept the corneas. Human Right Eleanor Roosevelt and John Locke constitute the principal pioneers of the human rights concept. Bannerjee (2007) defines human right as moral principles and norms that describe the standards of human behaviour. Human rights are protected by both national and international law. Gibson (2007) describes human rights as egalitarian because they are the similar everywhere. All people have the right to live; however, in this case, prison wardens could be accelerating the death of prisoners in order to extract their corneas for sale. Additionally, there might be no freedom of choice among the prisoners to donate their body parts, including the current corneas in question. The prison wardens would be failing to observe the basic principles of morality, which fosters freedom and equality in moral choices. The basic premise of justice as fairness is to guarantee equal rights and opportunities behind the veil of ignorance. The director of Common Humanitarian Fund should consider the willingness of the prisoners during the donation of the corneas before he accepts or rejects the donated corneas. The process of executing corneas guarantees human rights if the warden prisoners allowed equal rights to prisoners’ life and the victims whom the corneas were going to be transplanted. A democratic society ensures justice and fairness for the prisoners, and gives them the right to decide whether they offer the corneas or not. The current case, however, reveals that the wealthy Hong Kong businessman had bought the corneas from an agency who buys body parts for transplant from prisoners. The case also informs the director that this business is a plan by corrupt prison wardens who make huge profits from this unethical act. They are, thus liberal with executions, especially of political prisoners. Based on this theory, the director should reject the offer from the Doctors Without Borders because the source of the corneas contracts the ethical foundations of justice as fairness Conclusion Ethics theorists have developed moral foundations for guiding effective decision making process. The decision makers concerned with this case should determine their best option based on theoretical frameworks. The theories considered in this case include Utilitarianism, Kantianism, postmodern theory and human right. Using Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and postmodern theory, the director of Common Humanitarian Fund can accept the corneas. However, human right theory does not allow infringing other people’s rights for others’ personal benefits. These theories should be considered in making both present and future decisions because they form a crucial background for effective decision making. References Bannerjee, S. B. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Cengage, L. 2014. Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. New York : Oxford University Press Crane A, and Matten, D. 2010. 3rd ed. Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L. J. (eds) 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context, 2nd edition Routledge, London. Desjardins, J. 2007. Business, Ethics and the Environment: Imagining a Sustainable Future Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. Desjardins, J. 2009. An Introduction to Business Ethics New York:McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Gibson, K. 2007. Ethics and Business: An Introduction Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jamieson, D. 2008. Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Raufflet, E. and Mills, A. 2009. The Dark Side: Critical cases on the downside of business Greenleaf publishing, Sheffield. Scott, J. 2010. The Sustainable Business, EFMD, Brussels. Stead, J. G. and Stead, W. E. (3rd edn) 2009. Management for a Small Planet, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield. Read More