Four Case Studies in Ethics, Article Review Example

Case 1: Ethics as Applied Science

Although intuitive to some extent, morality may be described as the application of understandings derived from ethical consideration. As such, some authors contend that the bridge between morality and ethics may be applied from the moral reasoning that is incumbent upon certain professions. Here, the main idea of this view, supporting arguments, interesting findings, and critique of certain ideas follow.

Jonsen and Toulmin begin their explanation of the differences between theory and practice by noting classical moral reasoning.[1] According Jonsen and Toulmin, there were two major positions in classic moral reasoning.[2] The first was a sort of geometric reasoning where universal principles were described as axioms and the derivative logic were described as theorems.[3] As such, conclusions follow necessarily from premises.[4] The logic is deductive, and thinking applies from general principles to specific analogies.[5] This was a purely theoretical ideology.[6] Similar to geometry, the ideas of particular constituents are perfect – for example, the ideal circle.[7] As soon as the paradigm is applied to real-life, it begins to fail because there is no such thing in reality as a perfectly perfect circle.[8]

The other form of reasoning can best be described as relativist in nature where one may be able to extrapolate general principles from a given case but the case itself is presumed to contain applicable substantive facts to determine a moral course of action.[9] The major difference between these two ethical paradigms was not reliant on time and the later is strictly temporal.[10] Jonsen and Toulmin’s main claim is that this dichotomy has been superseded the marriage of knowledge and technology we enjoy in modern society.[11] In this paradigm, scientific inquiry and professional applicability are simple two ends of the same continuum.[12]

It is in this professionalism vis-à-vis science that we find the theoretical scientist who purports to engage in the pursuit of understanding the world and the disciplined professional who seeks to change the world.[13] Nevertheless, where the theoretical scientist attempts to wrest principles from controlled observation, the professional cannot afford to ignore any of the facts of a given case.[14]

I found the explanation of the medicinal practitioner as occupying the midpoint between science and technology, between understanding and applicability, the most interesting. The reason is that it seems to be true. The medical practitioner relies upon rote understandings grounded in personal judgment in the line of duty.[15] Furthermore, when either fails, he or she falls back. They resort to techniques so basic they predate the profession as a formal discipline and science as a formal mode of thinking.[16]

That was one point I found somewhat puzzling. Even mystic sources of medical wisdom required some empirical understanding of how the body worked. Whether it was from precedent or from anecdotal evidence, it was not simply a priori.[17] That is the perhaps the only place where I thought the explanation was unsatisfactory.

Some authors contend that the bridge between morality and ethics may be applied from moral reasoning incumbent upon certain professions. The main ideas of this view based on the writings of Jonsen and Toulmin, their supporting arguments, some interesting findings, and critique of certain ideas has been presented. Morality is the application of understandings derived from ethical consideration.

Case 2: The Consequences of Lies

It has often been said that everyone lies, but there are differences. Although many of us know that lying is wrong in principle, we do not know exactly why it is so. Bok contends that lying is in some ways human nature. At the same time he identifies the reasons why lying is bad.[18] Here, the main ideas of his argument, some supporting arguments, interesting findings, and critique of some of his ideas follow.

People lie. As such, Bok goes on to say how the liar is hypocritical in that he expects not to be lied to but lies himself.[19] The author supports his claims about the danger of lying both to the public and to the liar.[20] He says the threat of being exposed is a threat against the integrity of the liar, and that lying itself damages the fabric by which society has coalesced.[21]

I thought it was interesting that the author spent so many words describing the consequences of lying to the lair himself. In my experience, people who are adept at deceit do not necessarily worry about being caught so much because it takes a somewhat immoral person to live by lying. Their character is such that to be caught in a lie is just another opportunity to lie. Nevertheless, I understand that most of his argument was based in political deceit.[22] That is where Machiavellian logic and game theory come into play.[23] In the dramas that unfold between nations, it is sometimes better to lie and save lives than to tell the truth and lose them.[24]

That being said, I must admit that I found his description of the liar lacking. Certainly, everyone has lied either wittingly or unwittingly, but there is a class of liars above all liars.[25] The liar that lies simply because they can.[26] It gives them a sense of power and control that is often only mitigated through violence or aggression which is frowned upon in civil society but perhaps necessary and right given the character of such liars. Furthermore, he could have gone on to discuss the mentality (or shall I say the mental illness) that marks this sort of liar.[27] We are not talking about politics in the grand sense but only in terms of interpersonal communication or perhaps small groups.[28] One of the so-called compulsive liars have personalities that could be described as symptomatic of borderline personality disorder or even antisocial personality disorder – people whose characters are so flaw that psychiatry manuals have a name for it.[29]Bok contended that lying is in some ways human nature, and he attempted to identify some of the reasons why lying is bad.[30] The main ideas of his argument, some supporting arguments, interesting findings, and critique of some of his ideas have been presented here. Nevertheless, there are differences between liars and circumstances where lying occurs.

Case 3: The Ethics of Business Management

Many contemporary ethicists contend that social responsibility is the duty of big business. This seems counterintuitive because the aim of business in a free enterprise society is to make profit. If acting social responsible looses your money in the long run, you are not applying the principles of business correctly. Friedman believes that social responsibility and business ethics are irreconcilable.[31] Friedman’s main idea, some supporting arguments, an interesting finding, and a critique of some assertions follow.

He says the business of the corporate executive is to carry out the wishes of the shareholders and board of directors.[32] Noting from the point of view of the corporate executive, to act socially responsible is at once outside the legal range of his duty and, perhaps, a euphemism for subversive social action.[33] Similarly, from the point of view of trade unions, it is an overstep of their ethical duties, and, in fact, could border on extortion.[34]

I thought it was interesting to read an author who claimed the bottom line is the bottom line for business people.[35] Most writers I have read claim that business ethics and social responsibility are part and parcel to a healthy market. I was glad to see someone finally just tell it like it is. The idea of social responsibility on part of business treads on the duties of government and threatens the free enterprise system on many levels.[36]

Although I am happy to hear someone voice the opinion of the opposition (from my previous understanding), I still believe social responsibility is everyone’s duty at least to some extent.[37] We cannot rely on the law to tell us what is right or wrong entirely, and sometimes cultural norms are subject to moral flaws.[38] It is incumbent upon each person, regardless of employment, to consider the social ramifications of their behavior in any given situation.[39]

Friedman believes that social responsibility and business ethics are irreconcilable.[40] Friedman’s main idea, some supporting arguments, an interesting finding, and a critique of some assertions have been presented here. Others would argue that social responsibility is the duty of big business, but this seems against the aim of business in a free enterprise system. If it looses too much money in the long run, it seems you may not be not applying the principles of for profit business appropriately.

Case 4: Principles of Economic Justice

Although it may be the aim of business to make profit, it does not necessarily mean that a society has to fall into grave disparity. One of the purposes of government is to ensure a level playing field for people – especially those of little power or wealth. It is the duty of society as a whole to protect its members, especially its most vulnerable members. Sandel fleshes out the dangers of economic disparity. The main idea of his opinion, some supporting arguments, an interesting finding, and a critique of some ideas follow.

The main point of the authors was about the dual nature of economic justice and its implications. Economic justice hinges upon two things freedom and welfare.[41] The object is to secure the freedom to acquire as much material wealth as one wishes without infringing upon the welfare of others.[42] He goes on to explain how capitalists have often excelled at the former while failing at the latter.[43]

For an analogous example, the topic of conscripted soldiers is fleshed out and how a volunteer military is better for many social and ideological reasons.[44] The author goes on to explain how the rich during the Civil War were able to pay someone else to fight for them if they were conscripted.[45] This was his primary example of economic exploitation. He went on to show how people who are carry children for other people are in similar position as soldiers who took the place of draftees for pay.[46]

I thought that parallel was interesting because I would not have drawn that conclusion had it not been presented to me there. I am not entirely sure where the analogy breaks down, but I do see where the wealthy and powerful can exploit lower class people who have material needs that must be met.[47] I also see how this is a violation of economic justice.

Although I find these analogies sufficient to express the point, I feel the author could have interjected some other examples – such as prostitution. Prostitution is a prime example of economic exploitation. The pimp gets a girl addicted to heroin or some other highly addictive drug, and when she is at her most vulnerable (sick with withdrawal symptoms); he offers her a way out of her misery in the form of sex for pay. From there, what little is left of her self-esteem is driven into the earth with cycle after cycle of the same game.

Sandel wrote about the dangers of economic disparity. The main idea of his opinion, some supporting arguments, an interesting finding, and a critique of some ideas follow. The aim of business to make profit, but it does not mean society has to fall into disparity. One of the functions of good government is to ensure a level playing field for those with little power or wealth.

Bibliography

Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

Esposito, John L. Islam and Politics. Syracuse University Press, 1998). pp. 147-8.

Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

Hardie, TJ & Reed A. “Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome”. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 38(3): (July 1998). pp. 198–201.

Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

Kuchinke, K. P. The self at work: theories of persons, meaning of work and their implications for HRD. (Elliott & Turnbull, 2005). pp. 141–154.

Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. (Barnes & Noble, 1993). pp. 32-33.

Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009). pp. 75-102.

[1] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[2] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[3] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[4] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[5] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[6] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[7] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[8] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[9] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[10] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[11] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[12] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[13] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[14] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[15] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[16] Jonsen, Albert R. and Stephen Toulmin, ‘Theory and Practice’, in The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 23-45.

[17] Sahakian, William S. & Sahakian, Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble, 1993). pp. 32-33.

[18] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[19] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[20] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[21] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[22] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[23] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[24] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[25] Hardie, TJ & Reed A. “Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome”. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 38(3): (July 1998). pp. 198–201.

[26] Hardie, TJ & Reed A. “Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome”. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 38(3): (July 1998). pp. 198–201.

[27] Hardie, TJ & Reed A. “Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome”. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 38(3): (July 1998). pp. 198–201.

[28] Hardie, TJ & Reed A. “Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome”. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 38(3): (July 1998). pp. 198–201.

[29] Hardie, TJ & Reed A. “Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome”. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 38(3): (July 1998). pp. 198–201.

[30] Bok, Sissela, ‘Truthfulness, Deceit and Trust’, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 18-33.

[31] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[32] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[33] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[34] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[35] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[36] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[37] Esposito, John L. (1998). Islam and Politics. Syracuse University Press. p. 147-8.

[38] Esposito, John L. (1998). Islam and Politics. Syracuse University Press. p. 147-8.

[39] Esposito, John L. (1998). Islam and Politics. Syracuse University Press. p. 147-8.

[40] Friedman, Milton, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in Thomas Donaldson and Patricia H. Werhane (eds), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993), pp. 249-55.

[41] Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102.

[42] Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102.

[43] Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102.

[44] Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102.

[45] Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102.

[46] Sandel, Michael J., ‘Hired Help / Markets and Morals’ in Justice: What’s the Right Thing to do? (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2009), pp. 75-102.

[47] Kuchinke, K. P. The self at work: theories of persons, meaning of work and their implications for HRD. (Elliott & Turnbull, 2005). pp. 141–154.