Self-Determination in the Age of Reason - Assignment Example

Assignment 1 Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Assignment 1 In the modern day of an informed consumer, business ethics has become an important checkpoint for a good organization. Generally, the more ethical an organization is, the more likely it is to have a good image in the market, hence translating to more profits. After the year 2000, car companies flocked to China in a bid to help the country expand its automobile industry after indications that the China auto industry would grow tremendously. The move was good to China and Asia’s economy. However, there have been many critical issues with respect to the move leading to increased pollution and reliance of oil, a non- renewable energy. The following paper will look at the ethical issues surrounding this move with respect to the utilitarian, Kantianism justice Rawls, tights and normative ethical realism theories. The utilitarian theory was put forward by Stuart Mill. In his theory, Mill was of the thought that ethical things are those things that are meant to lead to happiness in the majority of people in the population (Pettit 1993, p.230). Therefore, according to Mill, something is not ethical if it leads to the opposite of happiness. Mill was able to develop his theory with the aid of Jeremy Bentham. In fact, Mill worked on Bentham’s original work to come up with the theory. According to Bentham, the theory has four main aspects. The first aspect is that the theory acknowledged the role played by pain and happiness in a human being’s life (Sweet 2008, p.1). According to Bentham, pain is an indicator of lack of happiness. It is a form of suffering which occurs after bad consequences occur as a result of a bad action. Secondly, Bentham proposes that an action is gauged as being ethical or not according to the degree of pain or happiness which it is likely to result to (Sweet 2008, p.1). On this point, Bentham indicates that an ethical action is that which results to a maximum amount of happiness. As a result of this, in the third aspect, Bentham equates pain with an evil action while pleasure is equated with a good deed. In the last aspect, Bentham proposes that pain and happiness are measureable. Mill worked on Bentham’s theory and came up with the utilitarian theory which had three main aspects. The first one is that the quantity of pain or happiness is not so much central to the theory as the quality of the pain or happiness which is experienced. On the second aspect, Mill points out that the degree of happiness or pain cannot be measured, hence removing the illusion of high and low degree of pain or pleasure. Lastly, Mill points out that an ethical action is one that leads to the n happiness to the largest amount of people (Palmer 1999, p.33). Mill’s perception of the utilitarian theory has been used more than Bentham’s although the two are often considered together in matters which are confusing. Linking the Utilitarian theory with the case study at hand, it can be seen that the action by car companies to support China’s automobile industry is unethical. This is due to the following reasons. Firstly, the actions by the companies were not meant to lead to happiness for majority of people. The car companies were driven by their business avarice to China (Velasquez 2012, p.264). Their core business at China was to make profits and not to lead to the happiness of the Chinese population or the world’s population. This objective was to be realized no matter what was at expense. This explains the reason as to why the great companies in the expansion for instance GM and Volkswagen announced their increased sales and never talked about the consequences of their actions to the environment and its impact on the depletion on the non renewable energy resources. Secondly, the move by the automobile companies led to pain in the greater number of people. Although the revenue from the high sales led to happiness in the shareholders of the company, it led to pain in the larger China’s and world’s population which has to put up with the increased pollution, global warming and risks of running out of oil reserves sooner than later. Owing to the fact that the actions led to pain in the majority of the population, it is unethical. The Kantianism theory of ethics was put forward by Immanuel Kant. Just like Mill and Bentham, Kant acknowledged that an ethical action is one which brings about happiness in the largest number of people. The difference between the two theories arises in the actions/ type of actions which lead to happiness. Kant proposed that there are people who derive happiness from doing evil things (Davis 1993, p.205). For instance, theft and rape are some of the actions which lead to happiness to some people. Another example is the killing of millions in an inter-country war; the winners are happy. But are their actions really ethical? No. therefore, Kantianism is an example of a deontological ethics model where an action is judged by its consequences but rather o whether it leads to the fulfillment of one’s duty. According to Kant, one should do an action because it is the right thing to do. On this aspect, Kant introduces the concept of free will. According to him, human beings are have been given the chance to choose what they want to do (Davis 1993, p.206). Therefore, an individual or organization should do what it is obligated to do; not considering the consequences which result from it; the underlying factor should to do the correct thing. Kant further points out that one should not do wrong things even though some of them may lead to happiness; the underlying factor here would be not to do the wrong things because it is wrong to do them. This explains why the theory is referred to as a duty based theory due to the basic fact that it is based on an obligation to fulfill one duty; the right thing to do. Linking the Kantianism theory with the case study, one point stands out clear; the automobile companies did not do their duty. They did not did not do the right thing. As organizations which manufacture cars, the companies should have know the consequences of having too many automobiles in the world, and specifically so in one country. As a result of this, they should have taken upon themselves as their duty to protect the environment by regulating the number of vehicles that they pumped into the market. On this point, it is important to note that China is suffering heavily from the effects of pollution. Vehicles account for a high percentage of carbon gases in the environment (Velasquez 2012, p.264). Moreover, their manufacture leads to the emission of high volumes of carbon gases. In the light of global warming is a direct result of the accumulation of carbon gases in the atmosphere, the vehicle companies should have known better and desisted from expanding China’s automobile industry. If they had to do so, they could have taken up the task of regulating the number of vehicles released or eliminating the emission of carbon gases. The recent blocking of the sun by toxic gases in Beijing is an indicator of the high pollution in the country. With the Air Quality Index reading over 300, its can be seen that the continuous emission of carbon gases to the atmosphere which has been partly contributed by the many number of vehicles and car manufacturing activities has started to have its toll in China (Garnaut 2013, p.1). From this account, it can be seen that the action by car companies to help China expand its automobile industry is unethical as per the Kantianism theory. The Justice theory of ethics was put forward by John Rawls. The theory equates justice to fairness (Prasad 2008, p.1166). In the justice theory, Rawl purports that it is the duty of people and institution to uphold justice in their deeds, hence upholding ethics. In order for justice to be upheld in decision making, Rawl introduces the need to have a social contract. The contract is hypothetical and its aim is to put people in one common platform, which he refers to as the original position where they all agree on a collection of morally and ethical principles of justice. It is upon this collection that they will be able to make ethical decisions. In order to arrive at the original position, Rawl introduces a veil of ignorance which is aimed at restricting the knowledge of basic facts and information which is associated with people in an original position (Prasad 2008, p.1168). However, the veil of ignorance provides the people with the required knowledge to make the justice principles in which they are to make decisions upon. The importance of the ignorance position is to ensure that people are not driven by urges of greed, affection or envy; their decision and actions are driven by principles of justice. As a result of the original position, Rawl points that each person should have the maximum degree of liberties in the system. Secondly, the economic and social imbalances should be arranged in such a manner that they provide the greatest benefits to the most disadvantaged people in the society. Thirdly, economic and social imbalances should be associated with potions and offices in fair opportunity conditions. In such a scenario, Rawl point out that the system works to ensure that every person gets justice from the system. Looking at the case study from the perception of a justice theory, it can be seen that the action by car companies falls short of the expectations of an ethical/ just action as put by Rawl. If the car companies, the Chinese and the broader world’s population were put in a social contract and a veil of ignorance put over them hence putting them in an original position, they would come up with principles of justice which are aimed at ensuring that every person enjoys the maximum benefits in the society. This means that they would rule the expansion of China’s automobile industry as unjust due to the fact that it deprives many people off the opportunity to enjoy their liberties. Moreover, the system would work so as to benefit the disadvantaged in the society which is not the case with the automobile industry’s expansion. Lastly, the actions by the car companies were driven by greed to make money which is would not be present in an original position (Velasquez 2012, p.264). From the above, it can be seen that the actions by the car companies are unethical. The rights ethics theory is a deontological/ duty based ethical theory in that it upholds the need to do the right thing. The theory points out that an ethical action is that one which upholds the rights of other people (Almond 1991 p.259). According to the theory, a right is something which can be claimed from the society. From the theory, ethical rights are justified by the existence of ethical rules. The rights theory points out that an action should not deprive other people of their rights. Linking the rights theory with the case under study, it can be seen that the actions by the car companies to help China expand its automobile industry led to the deprivation of many of the people rights. Firstly, it denies the people the right to a good environment which is as a result of pollution (Velasquez 2012, p.264). It also deprives the future societies off the right of enjoying natural resources due to its impact on the oil which is a non renewable natural energy source. On a broader perspective, the actions deny the people a chance to life. Pollution is known to have negative impacts on life expectancy in addition to exposing people to life threatening situations. Therefore, the action is unethical from a rights theory perspective. The last ethical theory which this essay is going to discuss about is the normative ethical realism theory. The theory holds that there is no universal ethics due to that fact that what is perceived as ethical changes from one society to another (George 1993, p.8). For this reason, ethics behind an action can only be evaluated from the perception of the specific society in which it was done in. taking a look at the case study from the perception of the normative ethics realism, it can be acknowledged that the Chinese society does not like the idea of pollution and depletion of natural resources which associated with high number of automobiles on the roads. The Chinese government had for a longtime censored the media on environment and pollution hence cutting short the voices of the people in this critical issue. Therefore, the action by the car companies to expand the Chinese automobile industry is unethical from a normative ethical realism theory. In conclusion, this paper has identified that the action by car companies to help China expand its automobile industry are unethical. From a utilitarian ethical point of view, it has been seen that the action did not consider the happiness of the majority. The pollution and the increased pressure on natural resources were leading to ‘pain’ in many people, hence making the car manufacturer’s actions unethical from a Kantianism theory point of view, the car manufacturers did not do the right thing; hence making their action unethical. In addition to this, if the car companies, the Chinese and the world population were put in an original position as per the justice theory by Rawl, the action by the car companies would be unethical since it would be against the principle of justice which is established by the society. The increase in the number of vehicles as a result of the mass production which followed the expansion of China’s automobile industry led to the deprivation of many rights to the Chinese as seen from the essay. Therefore, the action by the car companies is unethical from the perspective of the rights ethical theory. Lastly, the essay has discussed about the normative ethical realism theory where it has been seen that the Chinese society would not want the consequences of the actions of the car manufacturers since it would affect them negatively. This makes the move by the car companies to help China expand its automobile industry unethical. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that the action by the world’s car manufacturers to help China expand its automobile industry is unethical. References Almond, B., 1991. ‘Rights’ In A companion to Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford UK Branmon, J., n.d. Kant: Self-Determination in the Age of Reason, Retrieved on 26th March 2012 from http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Kant.htm Davis, N., 1993. ‘Contemporary deontology’ in A companion to ethics: Blackwell, Oxford UK George., D., 1993. Competing with Integrity in International Business, pp. 8-22. Garnaut, J., 2012. Toxic Air Blocks Out the Sun in Beijing, The Age World, Retrieved on 26th March 2012 from http://www.theage.com.au/world/toxic-air-blocks-out-the-sun-in-beijing-20130113-2cn72.html#ixzz2HpIWoOOX Palmer, D., 1999. On the Viability of a Rule Utilitarianism, Journal of Value Inquiry,Vol. 33, no.1; pp. 31- 42 Pettit, P., 1993.’Consequentialism’. In A companion to ethics. Blackwell, Oxford ,UK Prasad, A. 2008. Towards A System of Global Ethics in International Business: A Rawlsian Manifesto. Management Decision, Vol.46, no.8, pp.1166-1174. Sweet, W., 2008. Jeremy Bentham (1748—1832), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved on 26th March 2012 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/ Velasquez, G., 2012. Business Ethics: Concepts & Cases (7th ed.). Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Read More