Deontology and Values of International Management - Case Study Example

International Management Ethics- Case Study Author’s Name Institutional Affiliation Instructor’s Name Date 1. Tell me whether each of the following statements is descriptive or normative, and very briefly explain your answer: a. 'Harvard's stance overlooked the possibility that the hacker might have been a spouse or a parent.' Normative- The Harvard’s management was interested in upholding the ethical values of the institution regardless of who actually hacked their system. Harvard believed that every applicant was personally responsible for his or her mistakes. b. 'We should send a message to society as a whole that we are attempting to produce people that when they go out into the world, they will behave ethically.' Normative- the statement is about is focused on showing the people in the society what is expected of them. I.e. what ought to be done by the people in the society. c. 'This behaviour is unethical at best.' Descriptive- ‘at best’ describes how obvious and extreme the behaviour was to be termed unethical. 2. Assess the morality of what the curious applicants did from the point of view of: a. Egoism In this theory, the interest of an individual is considered the basis for morality. Egoism can be either descriptive or normative (Hooker et al., 2000). From the case study descriptive egoism prevails in that the applicants were propelled by their own self interests of knowing the outcome of their applications. The morality of their action can be judged by their personal interests. This is why the Harvard believed in holding the offenders accountable for their mistakes whether they actually committed unethical act by themselves or their spouses and parents. b. utilitarianism (act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism) Utilitarianism holds that an action is only right if it leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people in the society. In other words an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness of others (Goodin, 1995). The act utilitarianism evaluates the outcome of a decision or action as one act while rule utilitarianism analyses the consequences of an action as if it will replicate later in the future (Smart & Williams, 1993). The applicants acted against the utilitarianism theory of ethics because the consequences of their action led to happiness for themselves only. Moreover, their happiness was short-lived as they got disqualified and the society was also unhappy about their behaviour, hence going against the rule utilitarianism. c. deontology (Kant's ethics) In Kant’s theory, the morality of a person is judged through examinations of one’s nature of actions and the intentions or will of the agent rather than the achieved goals (Sullivan, 1989). This ethical deontology requires a person to act in such a way that his or she can will that the maxim of his action can be used as a universal law (Crisp, 2013). The MBA applicants went out of order by portraying unworthy behaviour which can never be adopted by others. Their unethical act portrays a bad picture to the Harvard- an institution with high reputation- and the entire society. They went against the Kant’s ethics of acting in a way that treats the humanity of one’s being and that of other people. The morality of their action is therefore judged on their unethical behaviour. d. Ross's pluralism (To answer this Q, read MIB pp. 81-83.) The theory holds that ‘Good’ is indefinable. This implies that moral truths are objective and self-driven. Ross developed this theory with reference to prima facie duties (Muller, 2012). These are duties which an individual faces daily and are carried out through an intuitive judgement. Six prima facie duties determine what is ought to be done. These are: Fidelity and reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence and self-improvement. In the Harvard case study, the applicants were not bound by any of the six prima facie to commit the unethical offense of hacking into the Harvard’s system. 3. In your view, was it wrong for the MBA applicants to take an unauthorised peek at their application files? Explain in some detail why you consider their actions to be morally permissible or impermissible. How did you arrive at this moral judgment? You can—but do not have to—refer back to Q2 in your answer. Yes. First, the applicants ought to have known that every action has a consequence and that an action is wrong in proportion as it tend to produce unhappiness. From the very beginning, glancing at their application files without permission was a show of immaturity. From a utilitarian (consequential) point of view, the action was wrong because its consequences resulted to pain and lack of happiness (Spinoza, 2001). Also, the MBA applicants were compelled by descriptive egoism to act in such unethical manner. This is to say that they were after satisfying their self-interests of knowing the fate of their admissions to the Harvard School of Business. In addition, the disciplinary action of disqualifying the offenders and bringing them to justice imply that hacking into the application files by the applicants was impermissible and obviously wrong. By punishing the applicants who illegally accessed their files was a way of upholding the Kant’s ethical principle of universalizing the moral codes of conduct that a good professional should have (Shaw, 2008). Lastly, the applicants were wrong to peek on their application files because there was no reasonable duty that warranted their action. After all, they would be notified about their success or failure of their admissions in the appropriate time. Therefore, they did not observe Ross’s pluralism and the six prima facie duties that bind them to take an action. 4. Briefly comment on the suggestion that context matters in all ethical decision making, including your moral reasoning process in this case. What specific context, for example, may be important in this case? Is the acknowledgement that 'context matters' equivalent to a belief in ethical relativism? Indeed context matters when in all ethical decision making processes. Perhaps determination of the facts of the situation is the first step in making ethical decisions (MacKinnon, 2011). It is important to make an honest effort of understanding the context and differentiating facts from minor opinions (Kumar & Steinmann, 1998). In this case, personal and professional contexts are important because they not only determine the consequences of the decisions made to the decision maker but also the ethicality of such decisions in the world of professionals. According to Hartman and DesJardins (2011), personal context matters in that even if one does not think critically about a decision, his or her action will not only involve making a choice but also taking a stand. The fact that an anonymous hacker had paved way for hacking into Harvard doesn’t mean that the applicants were to enter blindly. Yes they could not resist the temptation due to curiosity but again they could not avoid making a sound and ethical decision. They ought to have understood that whatever the outcome, they could be held personally responsible. However, the acknowledgement that context matters is not equivalent to a belief in ethical relativism. This is because ethical relativism comprises various beliefs that are different from each other but have a common belief that there is no permanent and universal criterion to determine what my not or may be an ethical act (Shomali, 2001). Ethical relativism holds that the ethics of a society evolve constantly to fit to the changing situations, and that there is no bearing for the consequences since the “correctness” of every consequence is interpreted differently (Jhingran, 2001). Hinman (2007) states that varied opinions exist in ethical relativism as to whether ethics is based on careful analysis of the world, culture or personal opinions. References Crisp, R. (2013). The Oxford handbook of the history of ethics. Goodin, R.., (1995). Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Hartman, P., & DesJardins, R. (2011). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Hartnack, J. (2001). Kant's theory of knowledge: An introduction to the Critique of pure reason. Indianapolis [u.a.: Hackett Publ. Comp. Hinman, M. (2007). Ethics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. Hooker, B., Mason, E., & Miller, D. (2000). Morality, rules, and consequences: A critical reader. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Jhingran, S. (2001). Ethical relativism and universalism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Kumar, N., & Steinmann, H. (1998). Ethics in international management. Berlin, Ge: Walter de Gruyter. MacKinnon, B. (2011). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Muller, S. (2012). Applied ethics in management: Towards new perspectives. S.l.: Springer. Shaw, W. (2008). Business ethics. Belmont: Wadsworth. Shomali, A. (2001). Ethical relativism: An analysis of the foundations of morality. London: Islamic College for Advanced Studies Press. Smart, C., & Williams, O. (1993). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Spinoza, B. (2001). Ethics. Ware: Wordsworth Editions. Sullivan, R. (1989). Immanuel Kant's moral theory. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press. Read More