Ethical and Professional Practice Issues - Essay Example

Business Ethics Case Study Practical ethical viewpoint development Different ethical viewpoints exist depending on the individual and the case to which one is handling. This part aims to get a slight overview of four ethical viewpoints to result in picking an ethical view point for use in the case study. Utilitarianism requires that the right action present happiness to the individual and to others affected by the case while a wrong action results in pain or unhappiness to the person or to others (Boylan, 2014). The argument that can be provided by the utilitarian theory is that if an action results in harm to others and makes them unhappy or have pain, it is a wrong action and, therefore, unethical. My assessment of the strengths of utilitarianism is that it is simple and provides a straightforward manner of an ethical decision making of minimizing pain to the users and to the others and that, the principles put forth are applicable in the society. Deontology makes a moral action through focusing on adhering to moral rules (Boylan, 2014). The right choice is when the moral rules dictate that it is right and has no place for subjectivity while the wrong choice is which is not morally accepted by the set moral rules and it is believed to be wrong. The argument that can be fronted by deontologists is that adherence to moral duty may lead to an action that ought to have been considered immoral, but if the right motivations led to the decision, the action is considered moral. Actions are not considered based on their consequences, but the rightness or wrongness of an action based on moral rules of behavior guiding the decision. The main strengths of deontology are ability ti make concern to family, friends, and relatives, use of moral standing, and better performance of one’s duties. Ethical Intuitionism believes in the existence of moral beliefs that are discovered through intuition and through intuitive awareness, one decides on the wrongness or rightness of a choice through assessing these moral values and beliefs (Boylan, 2014). The argument in this case would be the choice of an action was based on the intuitive moral beliefs of a person that the decision was morally right. The main strengths of intuitionism are that it allows individuals to answer issues instantly and clearly, is dependent on human nature and is very simple. Virtue ethics emphasizes on the person and not the action where a right action is the choice that could be taken by a virtuous person with the wrong action being the action that a non-virtuous person would take. The argument would be that the action is pegged on the wholeness of an individual in terms of possessing and living the virtues. The main strengths of virtue ethics are the ability to access character, build a good society through helping members be righteous, and clearly defines on how to be human. Ethical viewpoint The ethical viewpoint chosen for this case study is Utilitarianism owing to the presence of pain to a particular person and provides a straightforward manner of analyzing the ethical issue. Ethical Conflict The worker is being exploited for the advantage of the leaders of the union who could be pushing for a political relation with Lela Lefty by funding her campaign. Lack of transparency to the needs of the campaign by the shop steward and the lack of acknowledgment for the injury to the worker since the action is against his beliefs and reduces his disposable income. There is a deliberate fabrication and falsification of information when the shop steward says joining a union involves working together but this only applies to job-related matters, not political affiliation, and campaign funding. Unequal competition is evident in the case since the worker has been pitted against the decision of a large organization that could have many members having different views on the funding of the campaign and there is lack of clear-cut measures to resolving the issue. There are no efforts to assist and affirm human dignity of all the parties involved owing to the lack of care or cognizance to the human dignity and feelings of the worker by the shop steward. The views and beliefs of the worker were not considered in making a decision in the case of funding the campaign. There is, therefore, no encouragement to fulfill the human rights of the work including freedom of expression, right to make political choices, and use of personal funds for personal benefit and other uses by choice. The shop steward is not even pretending to be in a position to take personal responsibility for the choice to withhold the workers funds and fund the campaign where he tells the worker to get lost. The case shows indiscriminate and uncaring behavior of the shop steward reducing the possibility of taking personal responsibility on the case. The case permits the worker to seek justice or restitution from having to use personal funds to fund the campaign of a politician he/she detests. There s no prohibition to seeking measures to allow the worker to be exempted from funding the campaign for personal reasons, but this is being denied by the shop steward. The professional practice issue at stake is the rightfulness of a union to face all the members in the union to use personal funds to support the campaign of a given candidate. This is a professional practice issue since the union is supposed to present the issues of the members as a whole in an amicable manner but this case the issue is not work related and the worker’s position have not been considered in the decision to withhold their pay. The practical ethical viewpoint chosen for the case is utilitarianism with the linking principles being the need to avoid causing harm or pain to a person or other people when making a certain decision. The ethical decision for the case is evident in the fact that the decisions that have been made have resulted in harming the worker and there is a need to institute measures aimed at providing a solution to the worker without affecting the union or other members. The characters perspective adopted in the case is the workers owing to the harm inflicted on the worker through lack of consultation and the forceful withholding of personal funds for political funding of a politician who is detested by the worker. The detection questions defining obligation and prohibition in the utilitarian approach include; Does the decision have any harm to the individual or any other people related to the decision? Does the decision result in happiness of all the parties concerned through catering for their rights and obligations to the issue? Application of detection questions There is harm to the worker in the case, where the worker detests the politician to whom his personal income has been withdrawn to fund his/her campaign despite the non-consideration of his opinion. The decision to use of personal funds without considering his opinion results in harm and the choice of candidate to fund the campaign without freewill for the union member. The harming of the worker shows that there is an ethical issue to be resolved to avoid hurting any of the embers when making the decision. The decision does not result in happiness in all the parties affected by the decision with the choice favoring the steward and other members of the union fronting for the election of Lela and not favoring the workers detesting Lela. Since all the parties are not happy with the decision made in the case, an ethical issue exists and ought to be resolved, since utilitarian ethical approach requires an ethical decision to result in happiness by all the parties. There is a relationship between the dictates of the ethical issues and professional practice in the case. The ethical issue dictates that the workers be treated in a manner that a decision by anybody does not harm their members and the need for fairness and ensuring all members ate happy with the decisions. The professional practice requires issues in the case require professionalism in the actions of all the leaders of unions, ensuring the needs of all the members of the union are respected and campaigned for, and a requirement for the workers to work together as professionals to aid in meeting the needs of the union. Ethical and professional practice issues would work together in the case to ensure the needs of the workers are respected in making decisions are unethical and beyond the professional needs of the workers in the union. Ethical and professional practice may oppose each other when the ethical consideration or ensuring no harm is afflicted to any member cannot be achieved when the professional practice issues are respected. Assessing embedded levels There is deep depth of professional practice issues as the professionalism of the union is affected by the forceful withholding of money belonging to a worker and using the money to fund the campaigns for a politician making it a nonprofessional issue. The ethical issues in the case are deep owing to the harm inflicted to the worker by the union that is expected to protect the needs of the workers. The union is obligated to act in a manner that protects the workers, but this is not the case showing the depth of the ethical issue. The depth of the cost issue is medium since the amount in the case represented the withholding of a worker’s personal income by a union. Applying ethical issues There are different options available for the worker including petitioning the union to release funds and not use it to fund the campaign, stopping membership to the union, and putting up the measure in the meeting of the union. The other options includes suing the union for using his personal funds against his will and seeking for the funds to be transferred o fund another politicians campaign. The thoughts against the position include the disagreements with supporters of Lela within the union, use of a lot of time to seek the refund of the $ 48, and the professional repercussions that might result from seeking a different opinion from that of the union’s leaders. The pivotal premise for petitioning for a refund of the $ 48 to the worker is that it will ensure no harm for all the parties and will augment fairness and integrity of the union. The decision will also see that the views of the union members concerning political affiliations will be respected resulting in no forceful withdrawal of personal funds. The premise for the arguments against the position is that the position will see the worker set against the needs of the union. However, the needs of the worker are harmed by the decision to fund the campaign, and reduced professionalism may affect the integrity and transparency of the union in the long-run. The best course for the worker to take is to petition through a meeting with the leaders of the union for the refund of the $ 48 withheld by the union for personal use or for him to decide to fund the campaign of a politician of his liking. References Boylan, M. (2014). Business ethics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read More