MGT230 question - Assignment Example

4. How do we know when whistle-blowing is morally right or wrong? Justify your answer using Kantian theory. Refer to the text for a list of when to whistle-blow (when other avenues have been exhausted, when from moral motivation, when there is a real danger to others etc), Firstly, discuss each item on the list individually. Then use ethical theory to demonstrate that whistle-blowing is morally permissible under these conditions. ANSWER:Is whistle-blowing morally right or wrong? What is morally right or wrong is quite a big consideration prior to answering this question.

Although people might be able to know what is right or wrong, some would assert that at some point this issue could be subjective. What is right for one may not be that right for others and vice versa. However, from the point of view of Kantian theory of ethics, people have the capacity to act rationally, and that means they could act on motives that are universally defensible. This means that if whistle-blowing is done in a good motive, then such is considered universally defensible and should become a good rational choice for one.

However, any motives could be considered universally defensible because people act rationally. This means that since whistle-blowing is a rational choice, then one can substantially universally defend it as a good act or choice. Thus, this is a means to an end, because Kantian theory argues that people act something because that is the rational thing to do. Whistle-blowing could be a way to solve conflict or expose the truth for the benefit of every concerned. This makes this act a means to achieving the desired end.

The end, which is the output of a rational choice, would still remain universally defensible because it is part of the rational choice itself. Considering that people act on rational motives, then the rational thing to do is act on duty. Knowing that whistle-blowing is a rational choice, then doing so is acting on duty or on the basis of a good will. Thus, it is clear therefore that Kantian ethics finds whistle-blowing ethical, as far as it is acted on duty, a rational choice or a means to an end.

Question 4: Whistleblowing List of circumstances when whistleblowing is justified 3 justifications= 0.5 mark; 4-5 justifications = 1 mark Discussion of above Up to 2 marks Application of Kantian theory: Universal law Up to 2 marks Application of Kantian theory: Means to an end Up to 2 marks Application of Kantian theory: Good will Up to 2 marks Clear statement regarding whether Kantian theory application finds whistleblowing ethical 5. Is it unrealistic to imagine that there will be no sexual interaction between individuals in the workplace?

Why/why not? Can a policy that prevents workmates from having an intimate relationship be morally justified? Firstly, provide your response to the first part of the question. What do you think? Then provide your reasoning (e,g, if you argue that it is unreasonable, you might argue that owing to long working hours, many people do not have very much time to socialize outside of their workplace and/or that when individuals work together closely, it is natural for bonds to form. If you argue that it is reasonable, provide your reasoning e.g. adults should be able to control themselves in the workplace, if they are aware of the rules, they should either comply or find alternative employment - there are plenty of other arguments for/against the premise of the question).

Finally, answer the last part of the question – since it uses the term ‘morally justified’ you should use ethical theory to support your particular stance. Marks would be awarded for discussions of relevant concepts such as informed consent and/or free association. ANSWER:It is unrealistic to imagine that there will be no sexual interaction between individuals in the workplace. In the first place, everyone has a choice. Everyone has a free will even if there are policies trying to prevent sexual interaction from happening in the workplace.

They might have it unnoticed, but the fact prevails that it is indeed unrealistic to imagine that there will be no sexual interaction between individuals in the workplace. Although adults have to think mature enough, they are not exempted from experiencing certain feeling or emotion leading to a very profound sexual interaction in the end. However, a certain policy can prevent workmates from having an intimate relationship can be morally justified. This is because an organization can initiate an informed consent.

This means that the consent of everyone will have to be considered first before initiating such policy. This can make certain policy morally justifiable. It is acted on the basis of good will, as far as Kantian ethics is concerned. However, people have the right to express their emotions, as far as free association is concerned, which is the uncensored expression of the ideas, impressions and others including emotions. Even if such right may be implemented in the midst of initiating the policy preventing workmates from having an intimate relationship, it does not change the fact that such policy remains binding and morally justified.

This could only be possible if informed consent was initiated prior to the implementation of the said policy for everyone to adhere to.