ethics asnmnt ansrs

8/12/2019 Ethics Asnmnt Ansrs

1/30

Top 10 Unethical

Business ActionsRORY HYNES SEPTEMBER 13, 2011This list was originally titled Most Evil Corporations but the author thoughtit would be best to keep the sites neutral status and minimize theprobability of this list being classified as slander. As long as there has beenbig-business there have been dubious and flat-out immoral actions takingplace to preserve profit, market share and public image. This list cannot beranked too effectively, as the extent and severity of the misdeeds cannot bemeasured, but the items have been chosen because of their human andlong-term cultural impact.

10 Wal-Mart

Lack of compassionTip of the iceberg can describe the story below. Wal-Mart is company No. 1in the world. It has the most revenue over any other company ($421Billion). But its riches equal its controversies. This story is probably themost apt at describing the unethical treatment of its workers, because ofthe sheer senselessness of it.

In 2000, a collision with a semi-trailer left 52-year-old Deborah Shank withpermanent brain damage and in a wheelchair. Her husband and three sonswere fortunate for a $700,000 accident settlement from the truckingcompany. After legal costs and other expenses, the remaining $417,000was put in a special trust to care for Mrs. Shank. However, six years laterthe providers of Mrs. Shanks health plan, Wal -Mart, sued the Shanks forthe $470,000 it had spent on her medical care.

Wal-Mart was fully enti tled to the money; in the fine print of Mrs. Shanksemployment contract it said that money won in damages after an accident
http://listverse.com/authors/?Rory%20Hyneshttp://listverse.com/authors/?Rory%20Hyneshttp://listverse.com/authors/?Rory%20Hynes


2/30

belonged to Wal-Mart. A federal judge had to rule in favor of Wal-Mart, andthe family of Mrs. Shank had to rely on Medicaid and social-securitypayments for her round-the-clock care. Wal-Mart may be reversing the

decision after public outcry.

However this case pinpoints Wal- Marts often criticized treatment ofemployees as a commodity and its sometimes inhuman business ethics.

9 Trafigura

Dumping Toxic waste on the Ivory Coast andgagging the media

Earlier in the year, there was media frenzy in the U.K. over celebritiesgetting court injunctions to silence the press from reporting on their variousmisdeeds and grubby encounters. This story actually stems from a far moreserious beginning, in 2006.

Trafigura is a multinational formed in 1993, trading in base metals andenergy, including oil. It makes almost 80 billion USD a year. In 2006, itcaused a health crisis affecting 108,000 people, after a ship leased by thecompany was told that, due to toxicity levels higher than expected, theprice of transferring the waste on board to the processing plant in theNetherlands had increased twenty-fold. To avoid the charge, Trafiguraordered the ship to dock at other seaports until they could find someonewho would dump the waste. At Abidjan, Cte dIvoire, one of Africaslargest seaports, the waste was handed over to a newly formed dumpingcompany, Compagnie Tommy, which illegally dumped the waste, instead ofprocessing it. Many people there became sick due to exposure to thewaste, and investigations began to determine whether it was intentionallydumped by Trafigura. Trafigura said in a press statement that their testsshowed the waste not to be as toxic as had been claimed.This was proven false by a 2009 UN report posted by Wikileaks.


3/30

When newspapers came to publish their own findings, which proved thatTrafigura was guilty of releasing toxic waste, they lawyered up and startedfiring legal notices to all news outlets which were saying there was a

connection between the dumping and the injuries reported in the IvoryCoast. The Guardian newspaper had conclusive evidence that Trafiguraknew of the dumping, and had a report they were ready to publish, howeverthe libel firm hired by Trafigura, Carter Ruck, applied for a super-injunctionso that the paper couldnt publish the report until a court decision wasmade. This caused MP Evan Harris to question the freedom of the press inthe country. However, after a twitter campaign that spread the story in amatter of hours, the libel firm responsible backed down and allowed thereport to be published.

Carter Ruck are still pursuing a libel case against BBC Newsnight forallegations made on television (later proven true by an independent report).

8 Thomas Edison/Radio Corporation of AmericaAttempting a monopoly of patentsThe ability for inventors and aspiring minds to call an idea their own, andtheirs alone, is a very important mark of a fair society. Unfortunately, historyis littered by examples of intellectual property being swallowed up by bigcorporations. In particular, Thomas Edison and the companies he formedwith his vast wealth (RCA, General Electric) have always had a habit oftrying to abuse the patent system for profit. The reason that Hollywood isthe home of the movie industry is that film-makers in the 1920s were forcedto abandon the east-coast because of the high royalties that Edisoncharged them for use of camera technologies. Edison even had hiredgoons to harass them for money.

But it was a policy of the RCA (Radio Corporation of America) that causeduntold damage for inventors of the 20th century. The official company

policy was that The Radio Corporation doesnt pay royalties and,allegedly, David Sarnoff, the proud general manager of the company,


4/30

boasted we collect them [royalties]. They repeatedly steamrolledinventors and small businesses to acquire their patents without licensingthem, forcing the companies to colla pse into the RCAs arms because of

the mounting legal fees. However, there is one notable exception theinventor of electronic television, Philo T. Farnsworth, had his patent forelectronic television and other components (notably the image dissector)ap proved in the early 30s, and no matter what the RCA did, they couldntget round Farnsworths patents. In 1939, a month after the war had started,the RCA accepted to pay, for the first time in their corporate history, a$1,000,000 patent license for Farns worths electronic television. Legendhas it there were tears in the eyes of the RCA men as they signed thedocument.

This whole practice was extremely unethical in terms of the technologiesthese companies prevented from reaching the market. Farnsworth hopedthat television would bring people together and prevent war, but becauseof the RCAs actions and endless lawsuits, television never got going untilthe 50s.

7 DyncorpSex trafficking, reckless chemical usage

The first Private Military Company on the list, and certainly not the last,Dyncorp is a medium sized PMC with revenues of $3 Billion. PMCs areprobably the most likely company to become involved in unethicalsituations. They are being paid by governments to protect areas, and oftentake the same roles as soldiers. Mixing money with killing is never going tobe straightforward; the laws that apply to a PMC soldier are always a grayarea, so the law often doesnt catch those that commit a crime.

Dyncorp has been employed in Plan Colombia (part o f the war on drugs)and, in 2001, a group of Ecuadorian farmers filed a class-action lawsuit

against DynCorp under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture VictimProtection Act and state law claims in US federal court in the District of


5/30

Columbia. The plaintiffs claimed that from January to February 2001,DynCorp sprayed herbicide almost daily, in a reckless manner, causingsevere health problems (high fever, vomiting, diarrhea, dermatological

problems) and the destruction of the food crops and livestock ofapproximately 10,000 residents of the border region. In addition, theplaintiffs alleged that the toxicity of the fumigant caused the deaths of fourinfants in this region. Although the usage of herbicides was sanctioned byUS congress, Dyncorp never mapped out areas of civilian crops to avoid.

When Dyncorp was employed in Bosnia at the turn of the 21st century, itwas revealed, by whistle-blower Ben Johnston, that DynCorp employees

and supervisors engaged in sex with 12 to 15 year old children, and soldthem to each other as slaves. Ben Johnston ended up fired, and laterforced into protective custody. According to Johnston, none of the girlswere from Bosnia itself, but were kidnapped by DynCorp employees fromRussia, Romania and other places. DynCorp has admitted it fired fiveemployees for similar illegal activities, prior to Johnstons charges. In thesummer of 2005, the United States Defense department drafted a proposal

to prohibit defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forcedprostitution and labor. Several defense contractors, among others,DynCorp, stalled the establishment of a final proposal that would formallyprohibit defense contractor involvement in these activities.

More allegations of this sort appeared in 2009, involving employees hiring Afghan dancing boys for their pleasure.

6 ChevronHiring military force for use on native peoples

Ever since attainable petroleum oil was discovered in 1956, in the NigerDelta, Nigeria, companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron havebeen making the most of the poor area. In the 70s, the Nigerian

government began forcing them to abandon their land to oil companieswithout consultation, and offering negligible compensation.


6/30

The government took control of this land so that it could be distributed tothe oil companies. Resistance movements from the native people turnedviolent in the early 90s, and were threatening to disrupt the operations with

mass action. This led to the government declaring that disturbing oilproduction was an act of treason.

Chevron had a military base at their Escravos facility, in the Delta State ofNigeria, which housed over a hundred soldiers. In 1999, when leaders ofthe Ikiyan people came to negotiate with the soldiers, who were alreadyattacking different villages, they were shot at and up to 62 people werekilled by the soldiers, including a seven-year-old girl. The soldiers

proceeded to set the villages ablaze, kill livestock and destroy fishingequipment.

5 Blackwater

The biggest security PMC in the world and, like Dyncorp, is a minefield

(sometimes literally) of ethical problems. However, treatment of its workersis what will be shown here.

Blackwaters employee contracts routinely include clauses such as:

1) If you defy a direct order, for any reason, you will be abruptly terminatedand Blackwater will withhold all back salary and bring legal action againstyour family.

2) If you die or are injured on a mission due to the negligence ofBlackwater, you cant sue them. If you sue them, they will withhold all yo urback salary and bring legal action against you and your family.

3) You can be terminated for any reason whatsoever, and if you sue themfor wrongful dismissal they will withhold all your back salary and bring legalaction against you and your family.


7/30

Basically, their contracting system holds employees in a state of legalservitude until they quit, and if they have a problem with Blackwater theywill be sued by them until they go away. An infamous picture has circulated

on the Internet of two Blackwater contractors dead, strung up after theydangerously went through Fallujah in a Jeep. Their superiors at Blackwaterordered them to do the run, even though they objected and the US Armyhad deemed it operationally dangerous, and refused to allow soldiers toenter. Blackwater also failed to provide a heavy gunner who was promisedto the men to safeguard their trip. As a result, and the fact they couldntrefuse the order without bankrupting themselves and their families, theyended up like that.

Blackwater show that they often ignore safety protocol to fulfill a defensecontract and get paid. Though Backwaters main source of controversy arethe constant allegations of arms smuggling and connections in thegovernment securing them no-bid contracts.

4 Matthias RathAlternative treatments for HIV/AIDS Matthias Rath is a doctor turned vitamin entrepreneur. He runs the Dr. RathHealth Foundation and founded the Dr. Rath Research Institute. He hasbeen called the most powerful crackpot on the Earth due to the largeamount of funds he has gotten from investors who can see the value ofselling vitamin pills to cure the most serious of ailments. In the UK, his adverts claimed that 90 per cent of patients receivingchemotherapy for cancer die within months of starting treatment, andsuggested that three million lives could be saved if cancer patients stoppedbeing treated by conventional medicine. The pharmaceutical industry wasdeliberately letting people die for financial gain, he explained. Theseadvertisements are highly detrimental to cancer sufferers and cancerresearch groups, it can be easy to look at someone who has lost all theirhair to chemotherapy and think that it is a poison, but it is scientifically

proven to fight cancer.


8/30

Before advertising standards agencies from all over Europe were finallyable to stop some of the dishonest adverts (challenging alternativemedicine claims are always difficult due to the very nature of the topic),

Rath had made his fortune and walked into South Africa with all the acclaimand wealth he needed to place full page advertisements in newspaperssaying The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here. Anti -retroviral drugswere poisonous, and were a conspiracy to kill patients and make money.Tragically, Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the right place.Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the time, was well known asan AIDS protester, and to international horror, while people died at therate of one every two minutes in his country, he gave credence and supportto the claims of a small band of campaigners who state that AIDS does notexist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral medication does moreharm than good, and so on.

So, throughout the turn of the 21st Century, when the AIDS epidemic wasat its peak, the South African government was arguing that HIV is not thecause of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for patients.

They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes, and they refused toaccept free donations of drugs. One study estimates that if the South

African national government had used anti-retroviral drugs for preventionand treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (whichdefied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV infections and343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007.

Rath profited from all this anti-science feeling with his vitamin pills, which

sold very well even though they were not supported by any trusted medicalresearch. Matthias is constantly suing medical professionals for slander,when they say that his pills are useless and should not be seen as analternative to tested medicines.

3 Dow Chemical/Union CarbideRejecting liability of Bhopal Disaster


9/30

Dow Chemical already had a sinister reputation before they acquired UnionCarbide, in 2001. Dow Chemical put a lot of money into its developmentand manufacturing of napalm for the U.S. military, a chemical which wasinfamous in the Vietnam War for giving people horrific burns and damaging

a generation of unborn babies. Union Carbide, though, is directly responsible for the deaths of around8,000 Indian people in December 1984, and the birth defects that followed.The Bhopal disaster occurred when a pesticide factory in Bhopal, India,owned and operated by Union Carbide Corporation, leaked large anddeadly amounts of Methyl isocyanate, a highly poisonous gas. So manypeople were affected because the workers at the plant were so poor that

their families set up homes outside the factory gates.

Union Carbide offered $350 million in compensation, the Government ofIndia said that the damages cost $3.3 billion; the Government, in the end,had to settle for $470 million. Throughout the years, UCC have had to fundhospitals and response centers after being nagged by officials, but manystill say that what UCC have donated is negligible when compared to thehuman cost of the disaster.

Dow Chemical, who are the wealthier new owners of Union Carbide, haveyet to make significant reparations to the people of Bhopal.

2 SiemensAiding the Final Solution During World War Two, Siemens was a major player in the Nazification ofGermany, rebuilding the army, creating a giant infrastructure: railways,communications and power generation. More significantly for this list, they built factories at the camps Auschwitzand Buchenwald. It was typical for a slave worker to build electricalswitches for Siemens in the morning, and be snuffed out in a Siemens-made gas chamber in the afternoon. The allies destroyed four fifths ofSiemens operated buildings to destroy the brand of the Nazis; Siemenswas seen as an icon of Nazi industry.


10/30

Siemens is one of the few companies that still exist today, with the samename as when it exploited Jewish labor in the 40s. They are still paying upin lawsuits filed by holocaust survivors. In a move destined for failure,

Siemens tried to trademark the name Zyklon in 2002, with the intent ofmarketing a series of products under the name. Including gas ovens.

1 Congo Free StateGenocide Profiting from genocide and turning a blind eye to it is one thing, but onlyone organization has committed what can be called genocide for the sakeof industry. Founded in 1885, by Leopold II, King of the Belgians, theCongo Free State garnered control over areas now known as the Congo,Rwanda and Burundi through a non-governmental organization, the

Association Internationale Africaine. Leopold had acquired the Congo atthe Berlin Conference of 1884, which was to regulate the Europeancolonization of Africa. While under the pretense of conducting humanitarian efforts, e.g. buildingchurches and educating the people, it established an industry of collectingivory, en masse, using huge amounts of slave labor. Surveyors hired byLeopo ld found that the greatest riches that the tribes people could accesswas ivory. Employing the Force Publique (a combination of a police force,tax collector and gang of enforcers, who had been drafted from able-bodiedCongolese men to serve the State), the men would troop along riversfinding villages, separating the men, women and children (rape wasexceedingly common) and telling the men that if they did not find a certain

amount of ivory they would never see their families again, though a lot ofthe time the families had already died of disease. Collecting ivory becameharder once the elephant population had been decimated, so the FPchanged tactics to frightening the villagers away and taking any suppliesleft behind, then burning everything to the ground.

The other chief export was rubber, Leopold wanted the workers to beproficient and highly motivated so this meant that failing to meet rubbercollection quotas was punishable by death. The officers in charge of a


11/30

particular village would have to bring the hands of those who didnt reachtheir quotas as proof that the officers hadnt used the bullets to hunt forfood. Some soldiers cheated by simply cutting of the hand, and leaving

them to die, saving ammunition. This even caused small wars betweenvillages; hands had become a valuable item to have, as they can behanded into the officer when they couldnt fill their unrealistic quota.

The entire control of the nation was put under very few people and KingLeopold was the definite ruler (he ditched the faade of the AssociationInternationale Africaine soon into his rule). He directly maintained thecountry more than just about all other dictators before, and since, and it

was his policy that for each bullet fired, a hand must be represented asproof it was used to kill a Congolese worker. This was purely for the sake ofcost-cutting. He was running the most cost-efficient company the world hadseen.

The rubber and ivory industry was grinding to a halt due to the lack ofmotivation for slaves and the dwindling supply of ivory. Leopold wasamassing severe debts, until the rubber boom of the 1890s, which wasneeded for telegraph wire and car tyres. Rubber overtook ivory as thecountrys main export, and profits went through the roof.

Estimates of the number of deaths that King Leopold II and the Congo FreeState caused range from 10 million to 22 million, both valid claims. It alsoshould be noted that, at the time, Africas entire population was between 90and 133 million people.

The Congo Free State ended in 1908, after whispers of the crimeshappening in the Congo became shouts. The Congo Reform Movement,which included among its members Mark Twain, Joseph Conrad, Booker T.Washington and Bertrand Russell, led a vigorous international movementagainst the mistreatment of the Congolese population. The Europeannations had finally decided that Leopold was abusing the Berlin Treaty, andso it was annexed to Belgium, who retained it until 1960.


12/30

Leopold never intended to keep the nation for a long time, it was his twentyyear get-rich-quick scheme, and it worked. Leopold died the wealthiest manin Europe after living the high-life, spending the massive profits on his

favorite luxuries: expensive homes, yachts and teenage prostitutes.

To learn more about the fascinating story of the Congo Free State Irecommend watching the BBC Documentary White King, Red Rubber,Black Death

Relation between Law and Morality or Ethics ANKITA

Law is an enactment made by the state. It is backed by physical coercion. Its breach is punishable by the courts. It represents the will of the state and realizes its purpose.

Laws reflect the political, social and economic relationships in the society. It determines rightsand duties of the citizens towards one another and towards the state.

It is through law that the government fulfils its promises to the people. It reflects the sociologicalneed of society.

Law and morality are intimately related to each other. Laws are generally based on the moralprinciples of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society.

They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideasof the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people andcreate and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality.

Laws regarding prohibition and spread of primary education are examples of this nature.Moralitycannot, as a matter of fact, be divorced from politics. The ultimate end of a state is the promotionof general welfare and moral perfection of man.

It is the duty of the state to formulate such laws as will elevate the moral standard of the people.The laws of a state thus conform to the prevailing standard of morality. Earlier writers onPolitical Science never made any distinction between law and morality.

Plato's Republic is as good a treatise on politics as on ethics. In ancient India, the term Dharma

connoted both law and morality. Law, it is pointed out, is not merely the command of thesovereign, it represents the idea of right or wrong based on the prevalent morality of the people.

Moreover, obedience to law depends upon the active support of the moral sentiments of thepeople. Laws which are not supported by the moral conscience of the people are liable to becomedead letters.

For example laws regarding Prohibition in India have not succeeded on account of the fact thatfull moral conscience of the people has not been aroused in favor of such laws.

As Green put it, "In attempting to enforce an unpopular law, a government may be doing moreharm than good by creating and spreading the habit of disobedience to law. The total cost of suchan attempt may well be greater than the social gain."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378#docid=-3146068175882284969http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378#docid=-3146068175882284969http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378#docid=-3146068175882284969http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378#docid=-3146068175882284969http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378#docid=-3146068175882284969http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378#docid=-3146068175882284969


13/30

Although law and morality arc interdependent yet they differ from each other in their content,definiteness and sanction.

Some points of distinction between law and morality may be brought out as follows:

Law:

1. Law regulates and controls the external human conduct. It is not concerned with innermotives. A person may be having an evil intention in his or her mind but law does not care for it.

Law will move into action only when this evil intention is translated into action and some harm isactually done to another person.

2. Law is universal in a particular society. All the individuals are equally subjected to it. It doesnot change from man to man.

3. Political laws are precise and definite as there is a regular organ in every state for theformulation of laws.

4. Law is framed and enforced by a determinate political authority. It enjoys the sanction of thestate. Disobedience of law is generally followed by physical punishment.

The fear of punishment acts as a deterrent to the breach of political law.

5. Law falls within the purview of a subject known as Jurisprudence.

Morality:

1. Morality regulates and controls both the inner motives and the external actions. It is concerned with the whole life of man.

The province of law is thus limited as compared with that of morality because law is simplyconcerned with external actions and docs not take into its fold the inner motives.

Morality condemns a person if he or she has some evil intentions but laws are not applicableunless these intentions are manifested externally.

2. Morality is variable. It changes from man to man and from age to age. Every man has his ownmoral principles.

3. Moral laws lack precision and definiteness as there is no authority to make and enforce them.

4. Morality is neither framed nor enforced by any political authority. It does not enjoy the

support of the state. Breach of moral principles is not accompanied by any physical punishment.The only check against the breach of morality is social condemnation or individual conscience.'Moral actions are a matter of choice of inner conscience of the individual, laws are a matter ofcompulsion'.

5. Morality is studied under a separate branch of knowledge known as Ethics.

We may conclude the discussion in the words of Gilchrist, "The individual moral life manifestsitself in manifold ways. The state is the supreme condition of the individual moral life, for without the state no moral life is possible.

The state, therefore, regulates other organizations in the common interest. The state, however,

has a direct function in relation to morality."


14/30

Points to Remember

Laws may be defined as external rules of human conduct backed by the sovereign politicalauthority. Law and morality are intimately related to each other.

Laws are generally based on the moral principles of a particular society. Some points ofdistinction may be brought out as follows:

(a) Laws regulate external human conduct whereas morality mainly regulates internal conduct.(b) Laws are universal; morality is variable.(c) Laws are definite and precise while morality is variable.(d) Laws are upheld by the coercive power of the state; morality simply enjoys the support ofpublic opinion or individual conscience.(e) Laws are studied under Jurisprudence but morality is studied under Ethics.

KOHLBERG'S METHOD

Kohlberg's (1958a) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- andlower-class families in Chicago. They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added tohis sample younger children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other Americancities and from other countries (1963, 1970).

The basic interview consists of a series of dilemmas such as the following:

Heinz Steals the Drug

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was onedrug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that adruggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive tomake, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He

paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sickwoman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but hecould only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told thedruggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him paylater. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to makemoney from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal thedrug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)

Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to thisdilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer. The interviewer wants to knowwhy the subject thinks Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug. Theinterview schedule then asks new questions which help one understand the child'sreasoning. For example, children are asked if Heinz had a right to steal the drug, ifhe was violating the druggist's rights, and what sentence the judge should give himonce he was caught. Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the

answers. The interview then goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a goodsampling of a subject's moral thinking.


15/30

Once Kohlberg had classified the various responses into stages, he wanted to knowwhether his classification was reliable. In particular, he. wanted to know if otherswould score the protocols in the same way. Other judges independently scored asample of responses, and he calculated the degree to which all raters agreed. This

procedure is called interrater reliability. Kohlberg found these agreements to behigh, as he has in his subsequent work, but whenever investigators use Kohlberg'sinterview, they also should check for interrater reliability before scoring the entiresample.

KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES

Level 1. Preconventional Morality

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar

to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authoritieshand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To theHeinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug

because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were toit. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of theconsequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get

punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).

Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinzs theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. Forexample, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's notlike he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even thoughthe child agrees with Heinzs action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern iswith what authorities permit and punish.

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yetspeak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external tothemselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that thereis not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Differentindividuals have different viewpoints. "Heinz," they might point out, "might thinkit's right to take the drug, the druggist would not." Since everythingis relative, each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests. One boysaid that Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn'thave to if he wants to marry someone younger and better-looking (Kohlberg, 1963,

p. 24). Another boy said Heinz might steal it because

maybe they had children and he might need someone at home to look after them.

But maybe he shouldn't steal it because they might put him in prison for moreyears than he could stand. (Colby and Kauffman. 1983, p. 300)


16/30


17/30

We see that Don defines the issue in terms of the actors' character traits andmotives. He talks about the loving husband, the unfair druggist, and theunderstanding judge. His answer deserves the label "conventional "morality"

because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire

community "anyone" would be right to do what Heinz did (Kohlberg, 1963, p.25).

As mentioned earlier, there are similarities between Kohlberg's first three stagesand Piaget's two stages. In both sequences there is a shift from unquestioningobedience to a relativistic outlook and to a concern for good motives. ForKohlberg, however, these shifts occur in three stages rather than two.

Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. Stage 3 reasoning works best in two- person relationships with family members or close friends, where one can make a

real effort to get to know the other's feelings and needs and try to help. At stage 4,in contrast, the respondent becomes more broadly concerned with society as awhole. Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performingone's duties so that the social order is maintained. In response to the Heinz story,many subjects say they understand that Heinz's motives were good, but they cannotcondone the theft. What would happen if we all started breaking the laws wheneverwe felt we had a good reason? The result would be chaos; society couldn'tfunction. As one subject explained,

I don't want to sound like Spiro Agnew, law and order and wave the flag, but ifeverybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong,then I think you would have chaos. The only thing I think we have in civilizationnowadays is some sort of legal structure which people are sort of bound to follow.[Society needs] a centralizing framework. (Gibbs et al., 1983, pp. 140-41)

Because stage 4, subjects make moral decisions from the perspective of society asa whole, they think from a full-fledged member-of-society perspective (Colby andKohlberg, 1983, p. 27).

You will recall that stage 1 children also generally oppose stealing because it breaks the law. Superficially, stage 1 and stage 4 subjects are giving the sameresponse, so we see here why Kohlberg insists that we must probe into thereasoning behind the overt response. Stage 1 children say, "It's wrong to steal" and"It's against the law," but they cannot elaborate any further, except to say thatstealing can get a person jailed. Stage 4 respondents, in contrast, have a conceptionof the function of laws for society as a whole--a conception which far exceeds thegrasp of the younger child.

Level III. Postconventional Morality


18/30

Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. At stage 4, people want to keepsociety functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily agood one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moralideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They

begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from theirown society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold.They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. Theyare said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22).

Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as asocial contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of allThey recognize that different social groups within a society will have differentvalues, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. Firstthey would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected

Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law andfor improving society.

In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they donot generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to upholduntil we can change them by democratic means. Nevertheless, the wifes right tolive is a moral right that must be protected. Thus, stage 5 respondent sometimesdefend Heinzs theft in strong language:

It is the husband's duty to save his wife. The fact that her life is in dangertranscends every other standard you might use to judge his action. Life is moreimportant than property.

This young man went on to say that "from a moral standpoint" Heinz should savethe life of even a stranger, since to be consistent, the value of a life means any life.When asked if the judge should punish Heinz, he replied:

Usually the moral and legal standpoints coincide. Here they conflict. The judgeshould weight the moral standpoint more heavily but preserve the legal law in

punishing Heinz lightly. (Kohlberg, 1976, p. 38)

Stage 5 subjects,- then, talk about "morality" and "rights" that take some priorityover particular laws. Kohlberg insists, however, that we do not judge people to beat stage 5 merely from their verbal labels. We need to look at their social

perspective and mode of reasoning. At stage 4, too, subjects frequently talk aboutthe "right to life," but for them this right is legitimized by the authority of theirsocial or religious group (e.g., by the Bible). Presumably, if their group valued

property over life, they would too. At stage 5, in contrast, people are making moreof an independent effort to think out what any society ought to value. They often

reason, for example, that property has little meaning without life. They are trying


19/30

to determine logically what a society ought to be like (Kohlberg, 1981, pp. 21-22;Gibbs et al., 1983, p. 83).

Stage 6: Universal Principles. Stage 5 respondents are working toward aconception of the good society. They suggest that we need to (a) protect certainindividual rights and (b) settle disputes through democratic processes. However,democratic processes alone do not always result in outcomes that we intuitivelysense are just. A majority, for example, may vote for a law that hinders a minority.Thus, Kohlberg believes that there must be a higher stage--stage 6--which definesthe principles by which we achieve justice.

Kohlberg's conception of justice follows that of the philosophers Kant and Rawls,as well as great moral leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Accordingto these people, the principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties

in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity, of all people as individuals.The principles of justice are therefore universal; they apply to all. Thus, forexample, we would not vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others. The

principles of justice guide us toward decisions based on an equal respect for all.

In actual practice, Kohlberg says, we can reach just decisions by looking at asituation through one another's eyes. In the Heinz dilemma, this would mean thatall parties--the druggist, Heinz, and his wife--take the roles of the others. To do thisin an impartial manner, people can assume a "veil of ignorance" (Rawls, 1971),acting as if they do not know which role they will eventually occupy. If thedruggist did this, even he would recognize that life must take priority over

property; for he wouldn't want to risk finding himself in the wife's shoes with property valued over life. Thus, they would all agree that the wife must be saved--this would be the fair solution. Such a solution, we must note, requires not onlyimpartiality, but the principle that everyone is given full and equal respect. If thewife were considered of less value than the others, a just solution could not bereached.

Until recently, Kohlberg had been scoring some of his subjects at stage 6, but hehas temporarily stopped doing so, For one thing, he and other researchers had not

been finding subjects who consistently reasoned at this stage. Also, Kohlberg hasconcluded that his interview dilemmas are not useful for distinguishing betweenstage 5 and stage 6 thinking. He believes that stage 6 has a clearer and broaderconception of universal principles (which include justice as well as individualrights), but feels that his interview fails to draw out this broader understanding.Consequently, he has temporarily dropped stage 6 from his scoring manual, callingit a "theoretical stage" and scoring all postconventional responses as stage 5 (Colbyand Kohlberg, 1983, p. 28).

Theoretically, one issue that distinguishes stage 5 from stage 6 is civildisobedience. Stage 5 would be more hesitant to endorse civil disobedience


20/30

because of its commitment to the social contract and to changing laws throughdemocratic agreements. Only when an individual right is clearly at stake doesviolating the law seem justified. At stage 6, in contrast, a commitment to justicemakes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader. Martin Luther

King, for example, argued that laws are only valid insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobeyunjust laws. King also recognized, of course, the general need for laws anddemocratic processes (stages 4 and 5), and he was therefore willing to accept the

penalities for his actions. Nevertheless, he believed that the higher principle of justice required civil disobedience (Kohlberg, 198 1, p. 43).

Factors influencing business ethics:

Leadership, strategy and performance, individual characteristics, corporate culture andenvironment

Leader is a person who leads the people towards achieving a common goal. Leader can begood or bad, great or small they arise out of the needs and opportunities of a particular timeand place. Not all leaders are considered to be perfect in their decision making because eachand every decision they make will depend upon the character of person which differ from

person to person. Character of a person includes their inborn talents, learned and acquiredtraits which were imposed upon them by life and experience. Leaders are models and mentorsto their followers therefore they follow the path way set by their leaders. In a largeorganisation the top level managers or CEO are considered to be the executive andsupervisory leader. The CEO should have strong commitment towards ethics and ethical

conduct and should give a constant leadership in renewing the values of an organisation.They play a key role in creating, maintaining and changing the ethical culture. It is necessaryfor the leader to set good examples, and follows ethics. One such good leader is JRD Tatawho set a good example for his successor and they still follow it. Where there are goodleaders there will be good ethical practices in business.

Corporate governance: is the set of systems and processes that a company follows to ensurethat it is in the best interest of the stake holders. Stakeholders are the shareholders,employees, customers, creditors and the community.

Sustainability has three components according to john elkington's triple bottom line concept

they are economic, social and environmental. According to elkington the business does nothave one single goal of attaining profit but to extend the goal set by adding environmentaland social values. Thus sustainability has become the new goal set by the organisation.

Environmental perspective: natural resources.

Economic perspective: about the future generation.

Social perspective: over exploiting of employees and not providing equality in genderemployment, caste creed and religion based employment employing child labour.

Organisational culture: is the set of shared values, beliefs, goals, norms etc that prevailswithin an organisation. The organisational culture emphasis on ethics but as it grows it may


21/30

change, as in the case of tyco where its organisational culture supports unethical practices. Ifthe company makes huge profits in unethical way then individual who joins the organisationwould also have to practice unethical things to survive in the company. As in the case ofenron where many executives and managers knew that the company was following someillegal and unethical practices, but the executives and the board of directors did not know

how to make the ethical decisions and corporate ethical culture. Thus they fall back andmanagers have to pay in the form of fines and imprisonment.

Business ethics is the application of ethical principle in the organization or business. Anorganization should produce or make its own ethical cultures, but this ethical cultureformulated should be drawn from the concept of what is ethical to all and not what is right forthe organization itself. The employees of the organization, also has to follow the same ethical

principles. The organisation being ethical will provide certain social responsibilities such asthey do not harm the stake holders, the general public and the society as well. "business thattreat their employees with dignity and integrity reap rewards in the form of high moral and

productivity" (Frederic, Post and Davis).

There are three major types of ethical issues that arise in a business they are, face to faceethics, corporate policy ethics and functional area ethics. Face to face ethical issues happen

between the employees of an organization in their day to day organizational life. theemployee face these ethical conflicts when their personal standards differs from what their

job demands. Corporate policy ethical issues happen in the basic operations of a company.The top level management including the board of directors and CEO's are responsible forethical practices of the organization. Functional area ethics issues arise at all functional levelsof the organization. For example in the accounting department, if unfair pressure is put onemployees to deliver an audit report which has been altered or not showing current accountsof the organization would be un ethical, as it does not follow the standards and policies set bythe organization.

Causes for unethical issues:

There are many reasons for an organization to follow unethical practices they are personalgain and selfish interest, competitive pressures on profits, business goals and personal goals,cross cultural contradictions. When an employee gives more importance to his greed orconcern for his personal gain rather than any other concerns, irrespective of the harm it can

bring to the organization is termed as unethical practices that arise due to personal gain andselfish interest. When a company has tough competitors in a limited or static market; it may

engage some unethical practices just to be in business or to protect their profits. If theorganization uses some unethical means to achieve its goal that is unaccepted by itsstakeholders will give rise to ethical issues under business goal and personal goal. Here theorganisaiton has set a goal that would conflict with the personal goal of its stake holders.Under such conditions the individuals involved have two choices either to follow the ethicalways of the organization or "blowing the whistle" on organization.

Environmental perspective relates to the exploitation of natural resources in business. Thecompany should make sure that the natural resources are not exploited; it should sustain theresources so that the future generation can also enjoy them as we did. One such example isthe restriction of fishing in the North Sea, to sustain the availability of diminishing cod fish to

the consumers.


22/30

Economic perspective of sustainability relates to the economic growth and fall in the society.The short term adjustments made by the companies such as bribes and cartels will only be fora short period of time, it will never achieve a long time sustainability the organizationsattitude towards the environment in which it is embedded. If the organization does not paytaxes are said to behave unethically similar in the case of organization that does not give

donations to public institutions such as schools, hospitals, police and other justice systems.

Social perspectives of sustainability refers to the social future of an organization which it isable to give.

Business ethics if practiced properly in an organization would provide scope to itsstakeholders (which includes employees, customers, shareholders, bank and other lendinginstitutions, government), personal policy level, social level and internal policy level.

Arguments For and Against Business Ethics

Some people object to the entire notion that ethical standards should be brought into business organizations. They make three general objections. First, they argue that the pursuit of profit in perfectly competitive free markets will, by itself, ensure that the members of a society are served in the most socially beneficial ways. Of course, the assumption that industrial markets are perfectly competitive is highly suspect. Even more, there are several ways of increasing profits that will actually harm society. Producing what the

buying public wants may not be the same as producing what the entirety of society needs. The argument is essentially making a normative judgment on the basis of some assumed but unproved moral standards ("people should do whatever will benefit those who participate in markets"). Thus, although the argument tries to show that ethics does not matter, it can do this Business Ethics only by assuming an unproved moral standard that at least appears mistaken. Second, they claim that employees, as "loyal agents," are obligated to serve their employers single-mindedly, in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interest. As a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve his or her employer as the employer would want to be served (if the employer had the agent's expertise). An employer would want to be served in whatever ways will advance his or her self-interests. Therefore, as a loyal agent of his or her employer, the manager has a duty to serve his or her employer in whatever ways will advance the employer's self-interests. But this argument itself rests on an unproven moral standard that the employee has a duty to serve his or her employer and there is no reason to assume that this standard is acceptable. An

agent's duties are defined by what is called the law of agency, (i.e., the law that specifies the


23/30

duties of persons [agents] who agree to act on behalf of another party and who are authorized by the agreement so to act). Also, agreements to serve another do not automatically justify doing wrong on another's behalf. Third, they say that obeying the law is sufficient for businesses and that business ethics is, essentially, nothing more than obeying the law. However, the law and morality do not always coincide (again, slavery and Nazi Germany are relevant examples). Some laws have nothing to do with morality because they do not involve serious matters. These include parking laws, dress codes, and other laws covering similar matters. Other laws may even violate our moral standards so that they are actually contrary to morality. Thus, none of the arguments for keeping ethics out of business seems forceful. In contrast, there are fairly strong arguments for bringing ethics into business. One argument points out that since ethics should govern all human activity, there is no reason to exempt business activity from ethical scrutiny. Business is a cooperative activity whose very existence requires ethical behavior. Another more developed argument points out that no activity, business included, could be carried out in an ethical vacuum. One interesting argument actually claims that ethical considerations are consistent with

business activities such as the pursuit of profit. Indeed, the argument claims that ethical companies are more profitable than other companies. The data is mixed on this question, but even though it cannot demonstrate that ethical behavior is always more profitable, it does clearly show that it is not a drag on profits

Kantianism

Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant , a German philosopher bornin Knigsberg , Prussia (now Kaliningrad , Russia ). The term Kantianism or Kantian is sometimes alsoused to describe contemporary positions in philosophy of mind , epistemology , and ethics .

Kantian universalizability

An alternative conception of universalism in ethics rejects golden rules and seeks toanchor all ethical justification in a more formal fundamental universal principle, whichdoes not refer to desires or consent to fix the content of ethics. The most famous andmost ambitious attempt to go further is Kants categorical imperative, of which thebest known version runs: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the sametime will that it should become a uni versal law ([1785] 1903: 421). Kant claims toshow that all imperatives of duty can be derived from this one imperative as theirprinciple (421). He insists that in such derivations no reference be made either toanyones happiness or desires, consent o r agreement, and that the categorical

imperative is not a version of a golden rule (which he dismisses as trivial, 430,footnote). Kant's views have been influential: a German scholar recently commented
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningradhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningradhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningradhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mindhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mindhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mindhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mindhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningradhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6nigsberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant


24/30

that "Kant succeeded with his objection almost in invalidating the golden rule anddisqualifying it from future discussion in ethics" (Reiner 1983: 274).

English language philosophy has been less convinced that Kant undermined golden ruleapproaches. J.S. Mill was neither the first nor the last to think that Kants claim toderive all principles of duty from the categorical imperative was complete nonsense. Hewrote of Kant

when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails,almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not tosay physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the mostoutrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of theiruniversal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur. (1861: 207; originalemphasis)

There has been widespread scepticism about Kant's supposed claim to show that'immoral rules of conduct' are self-contradictory. However, he in fact makes the morecircumspect modal claim that we should not act on principles which we cannotsimultaneously "will as universal laws". An example of such a principle is that of falsepromising. Kant holds that false promisers who try (incoherently) to will false promisingas a universal law thereby will the destruction of the very trust on which their ownattempts to promise falsely must rely. Hence when we try to act on such principles Kantholds that

we in fact do not will that our maxim (principle) should become a universal law - sincethis is impossible for us - but rather that its opposite should remain a law universally: weonly take the liberty of making an exception to it for ourselves (or even just for thisonce). ([1785] 1903: 424; original emphasis)

In "deriving" an "actual principle of duty" from the categorical imperative, Kant takes itthat agents not only seek principles of universal form and cosmopolitan scope whichprescribe the same for all, but shun any principles which cannot be "willed for all".Kantian justifications of such principles, unlike golden rule justifications, do not appeal toeither the desires, the happiness or the acceptance of those on the receiving end, norindeed to actual or hypothetical desires of any or of all agents. The distinctive modalcharacter of Kantian universalizability is its appeal to what can be willed for all (ratherthan to what actually is or hypothetically would be willed by all). It remains a matter ofconsiderable controversy whether a strictly Kantian approach can be used to constructan account of specific principles of duty, virtue or entitlement, or whether it is indeed tooformal and minimal to sustain these derivations.

Categorical imperativeThe categorical imperative (German : Kategorischer Imperativ ) is the central philosophical concept in

the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant . Introduced in Kant's 1785 Grounding for the

Metaphysics of Morals , it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.

According to Kant, human beings simply occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed

up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He

defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary .

Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone dependent on them having certain ends to the meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy#Deontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy#Deontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy#Deontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy#Deontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language


25/30

if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;

if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its

authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its firstformulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a

universal law .[1]

Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it

could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong

because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are

concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued,

hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral

judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on

subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the

categorical imperative, as an alternative.

Indian values .

INDIAN VALUES, ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS, AND EDUCATIONALCONSIDERATIONS

By Joann Sebastian Morris 1. Cooperation

Cooperation is highly valued. The value placed on cooperation is strongly rooted in the past, whencooperation was necessary for the survival of family and group. Because of strong feelings of groupsolidarity, competition within the group is rare. There is security in being a member of the group and innot being singled out and placed in a position above or below others. Approved behavior includesimproving on and competing with ones own past performance, however. The sense of cooperation isso strong in many tribal communities that democracy means consent by consensus, not by majorityrule. Agreement and cooperation among tribal members are all-important. This value is often at oddswith the competitive spirit emphasized in the dominant society.

A common result of the disparity between cooperation and competition is that, under certaincircumstances, when a fellow Indian student does not answer a question in class, some Indianchildren may state they too do not know the answer, even though they might. This practice stemsfrom their noncompetitive culture and concern that other individuals do not lose face.

2. Group Harmony

Emphasis is placed on the group and the importance of maintaining harmony within the group. MostIndians have a low ego level and strive for anonymity. They stress the importance of personalorientation (social harmony) rather than task orientation. The needs of the group are considered overthose of the individual. This value is often at variance with the concept of rugged individualism.

One result of the difference between group and individual emphasis is that internal conflict may result

since the accent in most schools in generally on work for personal gain, not on group work. TheIndian child may not forge ahead as an independent person and my prefer to work with and for thegroup. Some educators consider this to be behavior that should be discouraged and modified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#cite_note-Ellington-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#cite_note-Ellington-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#cite_note-Ellington-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianhttp://trak.in/tags/business/2007/06/02/key-indian-value-common-denominators-in-a-diverse-nation/http://trak.in/tags/business/2007/06/02/key-indian-value-common-denominators-in-a-diverse-nation/http://trak.in/tags/business/2007/06/02/key-indian-value-common-denominators-in-a-diverse-nation/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#cite_note-Ellington-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)


26/30

3. Modesty

The value of modesty is emphasized. Even when one does well and achieves something, one mustremain modest. Boasting and loud behavior that attract attention to oneself are discouraged. Modestyregarding ones physical body is also common among most Indians.

Indian children and their parents may not speak freely of their various accomplishments (e.g.traditional Indian dancing: championships or rodeo riding awards won.) Therefore, non-Indians aregenerally unaware of special achievements. Regarding the matter of physical modesty, many Indianstudent experience difficulty and embarrassment in physical education classes and similar classes inwhich students are required to undress in front of others.

4. Dignity

Value is placed on respect for an individuals dignity and personal autonomy. People are not meant tobe controlled. One is taught not to interfere in the affairs of another. Children are afforded the samerespect as adults. Indian parents generally practice noninterference regarding their childs vocation.Indians support the rights of an individual. One does not volunteer advice until it is asked for.

A conflict in these essential values is evident in circumstances in which Indians resist the involvementof outsiders in their affairs. They may resent non-Indian attempts to help and give advice particularlyin personal matters. Forcing opinions and advice on Indian on such things as careers only causesfrustration.

5. Placidity

Placidity is valued, as is the ability to remain quiet and still. Silence is comfortable. Most Indians havefew nervous mannerisms. Feelings of discomfort are frequently masked in silence to avoidembarrassment of self or others. When ill at ease, Indians observe in silence while inwardlydetermining what is expected of them. Indians are generally slow to demonstrate signs of anger orother strong emotions. This value may differ sharply from that of the dominant society, which often

values action over inaction.This conflict in values often results in Indian people being incorrectly viewed as shy, slow, orbackward. The silence of some Indians can also be misconstrued as behavior that snubs, ignores, orappears to be sulking.

6. Patience

To have the patience and ability to wait quietly is considered a good quality among Indians. Evidenceof this value is apparent in delicate, time-consuming works of art, such as beadwork, quillwork, orsandpainting. Patience might not be valued by others who may have been taught "never to allowgrass to grow under ones feet."

Educators may press Indian student or parents to make rapid responses and immediate decisionsand may become impatient with their slowness and deliberateness of discussion.

7. Generosity

Generosity and sharing are greatly valued. Most Indians freely exchange property and food. Therespected person is not one with large savings, but rather one who gives generously. Individualownership of material property exists but is sublimated. Avarice is strongly discouraged. While theconcept of sharing is advanced by most cultures, it may come into conflict with the value placed bythe dominant society on individual ownership.

Some edu cators fail to recognize and utilize the Indian students desire to share and thus maintaingood personal relations with their peers.

8. Indifference to Ownership


27/30

Acquiring material goods merely for the sake of ownership of status is not as important as being agood person. This was a value held by many Indians in times past. The person who tried toaccumulate goods was often views with suspicion or fear. Vestiges of this value are still seen amongIndians today who share what little they have, at time to their own detriment. Holding a "give-away" atwhich blankets, shawls and numerous other items, including money, are publicly given away to honorothers is till a common occurrence, even in urban areas. Because of this traditional outlook, Indians

tend not to be status conscious in terms of material goods. Upward social mobility within the dominantnon-Indian society is not actively sought.

Non- Indians frequently have difficulty understanding and accepting the Indians lack of interest inacquiring materia l goods. If the students family has an unsteady or nonexistent income, educatorsmay incorrectly feel that economic counseling is in order.

9. Indifference to Saving

Traditionally, Indians have not sought to acquire savings accounts, life insurance policies and the like.This attitude results from the past, when natures bounty provided ones needs. Not all food could besaved, although what meat, fruit or fist that could be preserved by salt curing or drying was saved.Most other needs (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, and land) were provided by nature in abundance, and

little need existed to consider saving for the future. In Indian society, where sharing was a way of life,emphasis on saving for ones own benefit was unlikely to be found. This value may be at odds withthe dominant culture, which teaches one to forgo present use of time and money for gratersatisfactions to come.

Emphasis on the European industrial viewpoint in most educational systems causes frustration andanxiety for the Indian student and parent, since it conflicts sharply with so may other values honoredby Indians (sharing, generosity, and so on).

10. Indifference to Work Ethic

The Puritan work ethic is foreign to most Indians. In the past, with nature providing ones needs, littl eneed existed to work just for the sake of working. Since material accumulation was not important, one

worked to meet immediate, concrete needs. Adherence to a rigid work schedule was traditionally notan Indian practice.

Indians often become frustrated when the work ethic is strongly emphasized. The practice ofassigning homework or in-class work just for the sake of work runs contrary to Indian values. It isimportant that Indians understand the value behind any work assigned, whether in school or on the

job.

11. Moderation in Speech

Talking for the sake of talking is discouraged. In days past n their own society, Indians found itunnecessary to say hello, good-bye, how are you and so on. Even today, many Indians find this typeof small talk unimportant. In social interactions Indians emphasize the feeling or emotional componentrather than the verbal. Ideas and feelings are conveyed through behavior rather than speech. ManyIndians still cover the mouth with the hand while speaking as a sign of respect. Indians often speakslowly, quietly, and deliberately. The power of words in understood: therefore, one speaks carefully,choosing words judiciously.

The difference in the degree of verbosity may create a situation in which the Indian does not have achance to talk at all. It may also cause non-Indians to view Indians as shy, withdrawn, ordisinterested. Indians tend to retreat when someone asks too many questions or presses aconversation. Because many Indians do not engage in small talk, non-Indians often consider Indiansto be unsociable.

12. Careful Listening

Being a good listener is highly valued. Because Indians have developed listening skills they havesimultaneously developed a keen sense of perception that quickly detects insincerity. The listening


28/30

skills are emphasized, since Indian culture was traditionally passed on orally. Storytelling and oralrecitation were important means of recounting tribal history and teaching lessons.

Problems may arise if Indian students are taught only in non-Indian ways. Their ability to follow thetraditional behavior of remaining quiet and actively listening to others may be affected. This value maybe at variance with teaching methods that emphasize speaking over listening and place importance

on expressing one s opinion.

13. Careful Observation

Most Indians have sharp observational skills and note fine details. Likewise, nonverbal messages andsignals, such as facial expressions, gestures, or different tones of voice, are easily perceived. Indianstend to convey and perceive ideas and feelings through behavior.

The difference between the use of verbal and nonverbal means of communication may cause Indianstudents and parents to be labeled erroneously as being shy, backward or disinterested. Their keenobservational skills are rarely utilized or encouraged.

14. Permissive Child Rearing

Traditional Indian child-rearing practices are labeled permissive in comparison with Europeanstandards. This misunderstanding occurs primarily because Indian child rearing is self-exploratoryrather than restrictive. Indian children are generally raised in an atmosphere of love. A great deal ofattention is lavished on them by a large array of relatives, usually including many surrogate mothersand fathers. The child is usually with relatives in all situations. Indian adults generally lower ratherthan raise their voices when correcting a child. The Indian child learns to be seen and not heard whenadults are present.

In-school conflicts may arise since most educators are taught to value the outgoing child. While anIndian child may be showing respect by responding only when called upon, the teacher may interpretthe behavior as backward, indifferent, or even sullen. Teachers may also misinterpret and fail toappreciate the Indi an childs lack of need to draw attention, either positive or negative, upon himself or

herself.

Difference Between Values andBeliefs

Values vs Beliefs

Knowing the difference between your beliefs and values can be alittle confusing. People use both to guide their actions and behavior

and to form their attitudes towards different things, but they are

essentially different.

Beliefs are the convictions that we generally hold to be true, usually

without actual proof or evidence. They are often, but not always

connected to religion. Religious beliefs could include a belief that


29/30

God created the earth in seven days, or that Jesus was the son of

God. Religions other than Christianity also have their own set of

beliefs. Non religious beliefs could include: that all people are

created equal, which would guide us to treat everyone regardless of

sex, race, religion, age, education, status etc with equal respect.

Conversely someone might believe that all people are not created

equal, which results in racist and sexist values and attitudes.

Beliefs are basically assumptions that we make about the world and

our values stem from those beliefs. Our values are things that wedeem important and can include concepts like equality, honesty,

education, effort, perseverance, loyalty, faithfulness, conservation of

the environment and many, many other concepts.

Our beliefs grow from what we see, hear, experience, read and think

about. From these things we develop an opinion that we hold to be

true and unmovable at that time. From our beliefs we derive our values, which can either be correct or incorrect when compared

with evidence, but nonetheless hold true for us.

It is possible for our beliefs and values to differ over time as we

encounter evidence or have experiences that challenge our

previously held views. Conversely our beliefs and values can also be

strengthened by experience or evidence. For example, someone who

believes in God might have that belief confirmed when they see a

loved one recover from cancer and see it as a miracle delivered from

God. However, a person might have their belief in the essential

goodness of human beings shaken and changed if they have a truly

terrible experience.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-sikhism-and-christianity/http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-tumor-and-cancer/http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-tumor-and-cancer/http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-sikhism-and-christianity/


30/30

Everyone has an internalized system of beliefs and values that they

have developed throughout their lives. These may stem from

religion or may develop separately to religion.

ethics asnmnt ansrs

Documents