First, a definition of ethics: the principles of human rights is required to conduct and the duty to behave with integrity. In a nutshell: When is it ethically right thing to do.
There is a lot of ethics and we all agree we have it. But what is exactly "what?" Lets tackle ethics first business, because it is simple and straightforward. The problem comes when prompted by your boss, something that you're not sure do, if you do the right thing.
It consists of two parts, theBusiness ethical question:
What to do when you are asked to do something, would your actions ethical?
If you personally to make decisions, how can this be ethical?
Following orders
This part is easy. You need to understand your loyalty
Be faithful to oneself.
Next you will be loyal to the company
Finally, loyalty to their leader.
Remember the sequence: Yourself, the company and therefore the supervisor.
TexasInstrument must follow three simple rules in hand, if the ethical merits of a policy question:
If you know it's wrong to simply not do.
If you're unsure, ask.
Ask until you get a response.
What happens when you are asked to do the immoral and there is no way out? You should always "go to hell money" available, just say so. Go to hell and let the chips fall where they may. Withdrawal is far superior to reduce the standard level.
MakingEthical decisions
This is a short article that I wrote when I studied ethics. First a brief history, followed a brief overview of the school of ethics, I'm (utilitarian ethics) and then the "how-to" ethical decisions. This is an easy to read as a word-list of the products to be suitable for readers of eighth grade.
Those who specialize in the study of heat and write Ethicans ethics. At every point of view are very strange. These are primarily to criticize othersethicans and any school of ethical thinking than those who favor it.
Ethicans attempt to create a school of ethics that applies to every occasion. The search is for a uniform system of ethics is similar to finding a unified theory of physics. It can happen in physics, but not in ethics. Ethics is an emotional identity, trying to appear as a logical and rational discipline. Fails miserably.
In addition, the ethical thinker, not a logical thinker. TheyQuarrel among themselves and give themselves as great thinkers. If you want to read the classic examples of poor writing, logic of corruption and pettiness, read the classics of ethics. But they were brilliant.
For example), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873, as the great defender of utilitarian ethics was considered brilliant. At the age of seventeen had completed advanced studies in Greek literature and philosophy, chemistry, botany, psychology and law. As a member of UKParliament, was considered a radical because the actions so brazenly in public ownership of natural resources that support equality for women, compulsory education, and birth control. He was one of the founders of women's suffrage.
His 1863 essay on utilitarian ethics is considered the cornerstone of utilitarian principles. This is a shameful example of the letter. For example, the sixty-first phrase is two words long. And things get worse. Word ProcessingIndigestion grammar seriously trying to analyze it.
Since 1863, I doubt that a dozen people have read the document of 24,000 words, from beginning to end. I'm not one of them. It 'a masterpiece of confusion, poor grammar, poor punctuation and making little sense. The concept is correct, but the explanation Mill is so incompetent that borders on criminal.
Indeed, the concept can also be expressed in less than five hundred words. Take a few examples, and two thousandWords would be about right. Strange, that is approximately the length of the test.
I said they were crazy deal. Consider the founder of ethics utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). He was a man: he was a child prodigy, reading the works seriously at the age of three years, playing the violin at the age of five years and has studied French and Latin at the age of six. He joined the University of Oxford at the age of 12 years, he studied law and was admitted as a solicitor. Quite a man.
In 1771, thirty years before the industrial revolution,Jeremy Betham invented the Panopticon. An appeal was all the privacy of prisoners from behind a transparent wall, a watchtower surrounds removed.
Jeremy has been with his invention, was determined to a Panopticon as his coffin, and have impressed on public exhibition. Secure and strange request. But there is a difference between right and it is disgusting.
Lord, if you're a little 'picky, you can decide to hear this, so please close your eyes. Onlinewith his wishes, his body was dissected in front of his friends. Her skeleton fully clothed and with a head made of wax (being the original mummified), is in a glass case at University College, which has helped to keep updated. He may, on the Web and the image updates every fifteen minutes will be taken into account.
Her head was embalmed and will be retained by the university.
There are about fifteen schools of ethics. Includes minor changes, there are countless. After examining many of the mainstream --Schools, I can honestly say that I speak very little idea of what, except for the utilitarian ethic.
Fool That I Am, I deepened into utilitarian ethic, as it makes sense to apply to my lifestyle.
My ethical system is based is based on utilitarian ethics: the doctrine that what is good for good, and consequently, that the values of ethical conduct by the utility of the results is determined. Items for is his thesis that the ultimate goal of moral action is the realizationthe greatest good for the greatest number. This goal is also regarded as the object of all laws and is the ultimate criterion of all social institutions, including businesses.
Like all other ethical systems, but there is, if you expect to solve all the ethical problems. No ethical system can solve a wide range of issues between government and industry to particular ethical issues.
Fortunately, I have serious limitations for which I am grateful. Seeking answers to myProblems and opportunities. I do not have the ability nor the need for issues such as abortion, euthanasia solution, and suicide. I can not solve the problems of the world. As I said, about my abilities and I am grateful to my limits.
A beauty of utilitarian ethics is that there are only two definitions: the good and evil. Good is a good feeling, every person between the pleasures of the flesh is defined by extreme self-sacrifice. Between these two extremes thereare included in the price of looking at things such as material rewards. Evil is evil to any person of such minor irritations, like a splinter in the finger, as defined by the evils of Hitler. Again, there are somewhere in the material damage.
A final consideration: the morality. Arrive at the table with the moral and religious convictions. Ethics does not teach or suggest a moral belief. You are who you are. If you are morally corrupt, a thief or completely insensitive, ethics is of little use to you. The only way onecan improve their moral values, is probably a form of revelation.
Living an ethical system, is not in conflict with religion or its absence. All major religions, whether of love or the right to appeal to you, for other well and minimize the evil in all its forms. The ethic is to present a method to help you achieve your religious duties of the right thing at the same time minimizing the bad. A religion is not a requirementethics.
The solution to ethical problems with the utilitarian ethic is a logical, almost mathematical, step-by-step approach.
Let's say you want to make a business decision. If you do not affect humans, there are ethical considerations. Ethics refers only to be with people. This does not mean you can abuse your animals. Nor can the house until you move, even if you burn yourself. Wanton destruction is unacceptable.
If the slaughter of animals for human consumptionethical? How about the use of animals for testing, which causes pain? I have no idea how on this topic. But I know I could not in such industries, but it took me will benefit from their practice. As I said, I have some important limitations in my thought process is to address these fundamental issues.
Fortunately, all to make the difficult problems that face me. In truth, I'm not sure I can fix the face to them, not to mention them.
So the reality of everydayRuntime
Suppose you try to install some form of safety or pollution of the device.
We think of three possible methods, A, B and C. And throw in a fourth option D, simply do nothing. Let's make a list with all the advantages (good), about ourselves and others. Let us now see the disadvantages (bad) to themselves and others. Assess the good and evil, not only for ourselves but for all those involved. Consider the employees, shareholders, suppliers, community andGovernment.
The first test is that you benefit from any negative side effects? The test is, after the test, that if somehow the evil side is not done, is still not resolved to the benefit of whom? If you would benefit only if the event occurred bad, then the action is immoral. It is unethical to profit from any form of harm inflicted on others. This test quickly determines which are theft, murder, fraud, and train more immoral acts.
With the list were above the methodhas the lesser evil. Assuming that all three methods to achieve your goals, but only the procedure with the least bad ethics. To choose a method that does not minimize the negative consequences is unethical.
Consider the ethical merits of the dismissal of people who want to work. It happens all the time. Now, the lack of employment may receive minor orders reach not just the money, are expected to say a builder took the construction workers, because it has exceeded theMoney. The house is still there to be completed, but there is no money. Employees will certainly be damaged by the dismissal. You pass the first test, because we are not able to enjoy their hardness.
Now let's see what happens when the redundancies will not happen. Finally, companies lose money, become less competitive, and the problems are multiplied by the lack of redundancy. The result can only be that of many others, such as employees, suppliers, shareholders or the Community with a significant 'Business fails. As unpleasant, dismissal for lack of work is not ethically good, but ethical.
So that the method is simple. Consider all the alternatives and choose the lowest with the damage for all. Easier said than done.
Over time, the act is carried out, and you or anyone else thinks of a better solution than the problem or bad opportunities. It was the original action ethical? Yes, you tried your best to act ethically. Not smart enough not a sin. Must learnlive and enjoy the gift of God to your limits.
The more time passes. Since the problem itself, there is no guarantee that the ethical decision you made in the past, would now be ethical. The times are changing priorities. What was important, then perhaps it is not important. What was then a minor role is now a major concern.
In the business world we try to find the best balance for all: employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, government agencies and the community. Creditsany change with time. For example, in recent years, the governments drive to improve the health and safety at work, minimize and to join the fight against pollution in the foreground. Twenty years ago were only thought to be. Forty years ago, there were problems. The times are changing. The new balance will be left with the changing times.
If we pay too much for supplies and salaries, the costs are too high and we lose our competitiveness. Redundancies, and perhaps business occursharms all employees, shareholders, suppliers, customers, etc.
If our wages are too low, you lose a good employee and their ability to affect the operation.
Our family life is being developed similar. The balance of your children affect changes, calling for a rebalancing of privacy. Consider the balance when the children were still small, if you have an empty nest. Both the logic and ethics applications are treated well your children. Be good to your children. EverRemember: You choose your nursing home.
I can understand where it has been my ethics. But for my purpose, although none of them, silly.
It was written to clarify my thinking in an ethical and appropriate reasoning, to develop my style of life. Over the years, I have a great problem solver when it comes to personal problems at home and at work.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น