Thursday, November 28, 2019

Difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics Essay Example

Difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics Paper What is the difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics? What role do values play in each of these two approaches to ethics? Provide examples to illustrate your points. Descriptive ethics is founded on the belief that humans are ‘hard-wired’ to be selfish. That is, they are for the most part absorbed in fulfilling their own desires and goals. The capitalist economy is a good example of this instinct in humans, whereby, ‘greed is good’ is an accepted mantra for business corporations and individuals alike. Descriptive ethics promotes a ego-centric decision making model, whereby, an individual is morally entitled to pursue his own happiness through independent action. Cultural relativism is another term coupled to descriptive ethics. This school of thought contends that what is right or wrong is specific to the particular cultural milieu. Normative ethics, on the other hand, takes a more didactic approach to human action in that it prescribes ‘what’ is morally right through rational deliberation. While descriptive ethics merely documents what people believe to be morally right, normative ethics tries to ‘fin d out’ if there is merit in such beliefs. In this light, it is fair to claim that the normative ethical framework is more rigorous and rationalistic than the descriptive ethical framework. Normative ethics thus offers a better model for decision making. We will write a custom essay sample on Difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Difference between descriptive ethics and normative ethics specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer In practice, what can be said for and against utilitarianism, or a results-based approach to ethics? The utilitarian totem is ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number of people’. This objective for the evaluation of ethics is very appealing intuitively. It is also politically consistent with principles of democracy. But the issues with Utilitarianism crop up due to qualitative factors. For example, what exactly does ‘happiness’ mean? Moreover, are the values and conditions that create happiness universally the same? Even further, why should happiness or pleasure or utility be the arbiter of morality? Indeed, the purpose of moral inquiry is not so much happiness but justice. Under utilitarian ethics, the ends always justify the means. But to the extent that the means involve human action and assent, normative ethical evaluation comes into play. So, practical issues such as this have given Utilitarianism the tag of being an idealistic or utopian ethical system. In practice, what can be said for and against deontology, or ethical theories of the right? Deontology is a sharp contrast to Utilitarianism, in that actions are deemed right or wrong not through their consequences. In the contrary, those actions that are considered to be duties, including obligations, responsibilities and commitments are valued as moral. Deontological ethics aligns very well with the mandates of major religions of the world, including Christianity. For this reason, the theory has drawn criticism. It is easy to see how the concept of ‘good will’ can be equated to divine grace and hence co-opted as a justification of religious dogma. But Deontology has certain clear merits, especially the logic behind the Categorical Imperative that Kant theorized. The main appeal of Categorical Imperative is their emphasis on universal laws. What is a virtue? How can virtue-based moral reasoning help you resolve an ethical issue in business? Illustrate your points with one or two examples. The basis of virtue ethics is the understanding that virtues promote human flourishing. Though all virtues have their merits and utility only some of them are relevant for moral-based reasoning. These moral virtues include justice, mercy, generosity, humility, tolerance, compassion, love, etc. Since moderation is a core principle of virtue ethics, it especially helps give moral direction for business leaders. For example, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) code of conduct asks businesses to focus on people, the environment and only then profits. Many of the virtues such as compassion, generosity and justice are as applicable to businesses as they are to individuals. It is fair to claim that our society would improve significantly if only all businesses would incorporate virtue ethics into their code of conduct. Since character building is central to virtue ethics, it fills the lacuna left by Deontological and Utilitarian ethical models.

Sunday, November 24, 2019

THE IMPACT OF HOSTILE TAKEOVER IN JAPAN

THE IMPACT OF HOSTILE TAKEOVER IN JAPAN THE IMPACT OF HOSTILE TAKEOVER IN JAPANIntroductionAccording to corporate finance theorists, the objective of the firm should be to maximize value or wealth. This means for stockholders to maximize stock prices. By focusing on maximizing stockholder wealth, the firm exposes itself to the risk that managers, who are hired to operate the firm for stockholders, may have their own objectives. This can lead to conflicts between both parties. Stockholders have the power to discipline and replace managers who do not attempt to maximize their wealth. For managers there are several techniques to protect themselves for these actions (Osano, 2001).In other words: stock price maximization is the most important goal of most corporations. Stockholders own the firm and elect the board of directors, who then appoint the management team. Management is supposed to operate in the best interests of the stockholders. However, it is known that because the stock of most large firms is widely held, the mana gers of large corporations have a great deal of autonomy.Epic Tap Takeover 2010This means that managers might pursue goals other than stock price maximization. Therefore managers run the risk of being removed from their jobs, either by the firm's board of directors or by outside forces.Hostile takeover is a process that occurs when management does not want the firm to be taken over. These are most likely to occur when a firm's stock is undervalued relative to its potential because of poor management. In a hostile takeover, the managers of the acquired firm are generally fired, and any who are able to stay on, lose the autonomy they had prior to the acquisition.A potential agency conflict arises whenever the manager of a firm owns less than a substantial percentage of the firm's common stock. In most large corporations, agency conflicts are...

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Film review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Film review - Essay Example Despite Israel’s desire for peace, its detractors proceed the efforts of indicting it. Dershowitz made the film attractive, forming the mix of interviews of historians and politicians. We are able to hear, for example, the opinions of Michael Oren and Aharon Barak. Sometimes Dershowitz appears in front of his listeners, commenting on some issues or giving us the hint about the next episode. Sometimes the viewer sees him conducting and talking to some of his interviewers. For those who do not see contradiction being concerned about human rights, the book â€Å"Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid† by Jimmy Carter was written. He supports this idea and his book contains many attacks on Israel. This work had pushed Dershowitz to make  his own project The Case for Israel. This part begins with the Carter’s arrival at Brandeis University in order to publicize the book. His idea was that Palestine has more rights, including the rights for land, than Israel. He said they do not want negotiation, Palestinians want to be separate. Dershowitz said he can’t â€Å"fully comprehend† this position and he had a lot to talk about and challenged him to hold a debate, but Jimmy Carter refused (â€Å"The Case for Israel†). Alex Safian, an associate director, tells that Dershowitz found discrepancies in that Carter spoke at meetings and interviews, and that was published in his book in fact (â€Å"The Case for Israel†). This film was made as a response to Carter. It is possible to listen to an opinion of professor of law Amnon Rubinstein, who proves that in Israel â€Å"the law is equal to all citizens, all residents† without taking into account race, skin color, gender and religion (â€Å"The Case for Israel†). Dershowitz has courage to claim that Carter â€Å"has blood on his hands of four thousand Palestinians and over a thousand of Israelis and is a co-conspirator of the crime against Palestinians† (â€Å"The Case for