Professional and Business Ethics - Assignment Example

Q To be good is a natural human instinct but to be bad one has to think, one has to plan. There can be no scientific or logical reasoning to be good whereas people try to justify their bad or wrong actions. To be moral is not a weakness; it is the process of realization that goodness is the true nature of the self. If Bob steals candies from babies and pushes old ladies in front of the trolleys, there has to be something inherently wrong with him. This is a weakness and not that morality is a weakness. He needs to be told that there is a justification for being good. Suppose for a moment we presume that others steal candies from him so he takes revenge through babies. He chooses babies because he can overpower them. He thus justifies his actions saying that morality is for the weak. Hence, in stealing from babies he is actually displaying that he is powerful and strong. He feels the same when he pushes the old ladies in front of the trolleys. Both these groups – the babies and the old ladies are physically weaker than him and this makes him feel superior; his actions convince him that he is not weak. Hence if he tries to be moral, it would display his weakness, which is why he argues that morality is for the weak. Suppose we assume that what is good is objective. This implies that an object external to us can make us good or bad. NO! Goodness has to be subjective. Goodness is human nature and is not dependent on anything external to us. A person or an object cannot make us become good or bad. For instance if we see someone stealing, this does not mean that I too steal. This is objective but even when I see someone stealing I do not steal and that is subjective. This is to be good. Suppose we argue that Bob needs some motivation to be good. Firstly, to be good should require no motivation but in the case of Bob let us assume he does require some motivation. As Lauer says, if we require some motive to be good it implies that by being good we hope to get something which is better than being good. Being good itself provides contentment and being bad constantly agitates the mind. If Bob seeks justification for being good, according to Quentin Lauer, there are three types of justifications – logical, scientific and objective. Logical justification cannot motivate a person to be good as in the case of the Nazis. There can be no scientific justification for adhering to moral values either. Thus there has to be an objective justification but the question arises what it means for moral judgments to be objectively true. Every human being knows which moral judgments are true or not. They also know through experience which acts are good or bad. This is the knowledge or the goodness that is a part of human nature and no logic can explain this judgment. Without this inherent nature of being good, it is not possible to motivate a person to be good. Motivation is cognitive while emotions, religious conviction and love are non-cognitive aspects of rationality. So merely knowing the distinction between good and bad cannot motivate a person to be good. At the same time, morality does not end by knowing what is good. Again, to be good is human nature. This can be explained through an example. While walking on the road if we see someone fall down, instinctively we rush to lend a hand to that person. Or if we see a blind person trying to cross the road, we would stretch out our hand in support. This is instinctive and one does not even pause to think whether to help. This affirms Lauer’s contention that all human beings have a moral nature. Hence no motivation can induce Bob to be good. The only justification is that being moral is human nature. This cannot be explained through logic or scientific explanations. Q 3. Aristotle (Text, 625) contends that some people believe that the purpose of life is to make as much money as possible. Such men thus concentrate upon just living and not on how they live. They nurture unlimited desires and seek unlimited sources to satisfy their desires. Such men would go to any length to satisfy their desire to maximize their wealth and they would utilize their faculties in a manner which is contrary to nature. To them a good life denotes bodily pleasures. They thus turn every quality to make more money. This is the case of Bob who believes that every think should and can be marketized. He also makes more money than his friend Arnold who believes in selling only what is necessary and good. Even though Robert Kuttner believes that the market is free and self-regulating. It thus allows people the liberty to market anything and everything but just because a person wants to market something, this human motivation cannot be reduced to the market model of a man. A capitalist system is a superior form of organization Bob is not justified in selling every thing as just because majority wants something, it does not mean something is right. Everything of value cannot be marketized. Theory of economics does not state that everything should be marketized whereas morality represents the way people would like the world to work (Levitt et al). Economics is the study of incentives – how people get what they want or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing. Incentive can be social, moral or economic. According to Adam Smith economic growth rests upon division of labor. In the economic process there is struggle between men for possession of goods or in other words a struggle for subsistence (Veblen). Want and demand are two separate issues. A person may want something to satisfy his physical wants or higher wants like spiritual or aesthetic wants. Possession of wealth confers social security and gives them honor. An individual exchanges money for some goods to satisfy wants. This exchange value becomes important. Here the utility of the thing becomes important which means that the exchange value is important. This implies that a person will exchange his wealth for some thing that will satisfy his want. Thus he will not purchase something just because it is available or anything that is marketized. Kuttner further clarifies that if markets optimize outcomes then everything should be marketized but if some human activity does not behave like an efficient market or the outcomes are not optimized then the economic theory fails to guide the marketing process. Now according to J S Mill, government intervention is necessary to control the markets. Authoritative interference of government would impose restrictions on persons from just doing whatever they think fit. Individuals need rules and regulations to abide by so that there is some discipline in the economic. If the government allows free will to pursue any object of general interest there would be chaos in the society. According to Mill the government should interfere only to the extent that it does not affect the interest of others. Merely collecting taxes by the government is not sufficient. To have a harmonious economy, just allowing people to marketize whatever they wish is not the right approach. Because Bob makes more money does not mean his approach is right and the government should interfere because it harms others. They may be lured into buying what they do not require and not necessarily to fulfill their wants. Read More