Philosophy Essay 代写 Understanding The Moral Viewpoint

8年前 452次浏览 Philosophy Essay 代写 Understanding The Moral Viewpoint已关闭评论
 Philosophy Essay 代写 Understanding The Moral Viewpoint

什么是道德的观点,为什么它被认为是重要的?辩护或批判的观点,生意人必须从道德的角度操作。道德的观点正如Partridge(2010)认为,道德成熟的人拥有的认知能力,这可能就是我们的独特的物种:我们每个人的个人素质,如情感、愿望、价值观、意识和识别能力,我们立即体验自己。而Kurt Baier认为,一是以道德的观点如果不利己,一个是做事情的原则,一个愿意实现一个原则,并在这样做,认为每个人都好。(Gensler斯帕金和史温朵,2004)。然而,休姆认为道德的观点是同情的。(Gensler斯帕金和史温朵,2004),Philosophy Essay 代写 Understanding The Moral Viewpoint

当我们以道德的角度,我们寻求裁决争端的理性,我们假定其他人不多也比我们更重要,我们认为我们自己的索赔将是与那些在一个公正的人。这三个组成部分的道德观点分别关注理性在某种意义上说,它涉及到的原因,而不是感觉或单纯应用可普遍化倾向,在这个意义上,原则或命题,由此确定适用于所有人和所有相关类似的情况下,公正的原则或命题,由此确定适用于人而任意的考虑(Beauchamp,Bowie,&阿诺德,2008)。Philosophy Essay 代写 Understanding The Moral Viewpoint

What is the moral point of view, and why is it regarded as important?� Defend or criticize the view that business people must operate from the moral point of view. The moral point of view as stated by Partridge, (2010) assumes that a morally mature individual possesses a cognitive capacity which just might be unique to our species: the capacity of each of us to recognize in others the personal qualities such as emotions, aspiration, values, and consciousness, that we immediately experience ourselves. Whereas Kurt Baier holds that one is taking the moral point of view if one is not being egoistic, one is doing things on principle, one is willing to universalize one principles, and in doing so one considers the good of everyone alike. (Gensler, Spurgin & Swindal , 2004). Yet, Hume thought that the moral point of view was that of sympathy. (Gensler, Spurgin & Swindal , 2004),

When we take the moral point of view, we seek to adjudicate disputes rationally, we assume that other persons are neither more nor less important than ourselves, and we assume that our own claims will be considered alongside those of others in an impartial manner. These three components of the moral point of view are respectively concerned with rationality in the sense that it involves the application of reason rather than feeling or mere inclination, universalizability in the sense that the principles or propositions ascertained therefrom apply to all persons and to all relevantly similar circumstances, and impartiality in the sense that principles or propositions ascertained therefrom apply to persons irrespective of arbitrary considerations (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008).

Thus in a collective sense, the moral point of view may be understood as the point of view of every person and could be defined as approaching a problem from the perspective of its being morally right or wrong, or morally excellent. The Moral Point of View has two key features: a commitment or willingness to seek out and act on reasons in that the best action is the one supported by the best reasons and a commitment to impartiality, of regarding the interests of everyone as equally worthy of consideration.

A commitment to these two key features is justified by the fact that we are rational and communal beings; acting this way, therefore, best fits with who and what we are.

The application of the moral point of view within business is one that is needed. According to Beauchamp, Bowie, and Arnold, (2008), a business organization that is solely guided by economic considerations is an amoral or unethical organization. An organization that operates under the pretense that what and how they do business does not impact or affect others is destined for a short and rocky history. An organization must understand they not only impact or interact with suppliers, employees, other business, but also those not directly involved with their operations, but those second or third removed, with association through the suppliers, through the employees, and through other business and the community. When a business is amoral or unethical, they present themselves as less of a competitor and will find their profit margin shrink, as they do their customer base.


Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D. G. (2008). Ethical Theory and Business

(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gensler, H. J., Spurgin, E. W. and Swindal, J. (2004). Ethics: contemporary readings /.

New York: Routledge

Partridge, E., Ph.D (2010). Environmental Ethics and Public Policy [Website]. The

Online Gadfly, Retrieved December 4, 2010, from

Question 2

Provide an exposition of the stockholder view of the corporation as defended by Milton Friedman.� What would Friedman likely say about the NYSEG Corporate responsibility program?� Provide an exposition of the stakeholder view of the corporation as defended by R. Edward Freeman.� What would Freeman likely say about the NYSEG Corporate responsibility program?� With whom do you agree more?


The traditional or classical Stockholder View, the one presented by Milton Friedman, is that the corporation seeks to maximize profits in the interest of increasing the wealth of its owners, the shareholders (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008) in the simplest of terms ?to make money.? Managers are morally and legally obligated to serve as agents of the stockholders, and advance their interests regardless of how those decisions might affect the other stakeholders. The only group that has a moral claim on the corporation is the people who own shares of the stock.

Regarding Friedman?s view on NYSEG Corporate Responsibility Program, Friedman would tow the hard line. Based on his theory, he would say it was good business to cut off services to those that are unable to pay, since it did not violate a law or regulation, and it was within the organizations right to do so.

Sitting at the other end of the spectrum is the Stakeholder View, essentially a balanced accountability approach, presented by R. Edward Freeman. The corporation is obligated to seek balance in striving to serve justly the particular demands of each of its stakeholder groups (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008). The key is finding the correct balance of returns provided and contributions expected for each stakeholder group, including owners, management, employees, customers, suppliers, government, the community, and society as a whole. This involves trade-offs, while profit generation is one goal, this has to be balanced against other goals and sometimes profit may be sacrificed in order to help out other stakeholders. Managers are morally and legally obligated to serve as agents of all stakeholder groups, and try to advance all of these interests collectively, without favoring any one group. Many groups have a moral claim on the corporation that derives from the corporation potential to harm or benefit them these groups would includes the owners, corporate managers, local community, customers, employees and suppliers

Regarding Freeman?s view on NYSEG Corporate Responsibility Program, Freeman would support the program. Based on his theory, the customers are a stakeholder group that is worthy of consideration. Striving for the balance of profit, and support of those customers requiring assistance. With Freeman?s view, I find myself in total agreement, his view provides for a stable and balanced approach. In that developing a strong relationship with the customers, provides to a degree the possibility of profit gain to the shareholder, as well as providing a marketing prospect for new customers.


Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D. G. (2008). Ethical Theory and Business

(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Question 3

What are the main features of Kantian ethics? What are the main features of utilitarian ethics?� Which view do you find most persuasive? Why?


Kantian ethics

In Kantian ethics the main guiding principle is known as the "categorical imperative" also called Formula of Universal Law, or Formula of the Kingdom of Ends; what everyone, everywhere, ought to do. A key feature of the categorical imperative is its universal nature in framing goodness, but there may be exceptions, and only if they can be universalized (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008).

Although Kantian ethics contain several main principles, the primary concept is the idea that certain principles are intrinsically moral, and that a moral person or society must observe these categorical imperatives in all situations.

Moral rules should be based on the premise of reason and rational agents, not on human nature or conscience (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008). Intentions, motives, will of the person and actions-in-themselves are morally relevant and more important than consequences. When considering an action an individual must ask whether they can imagine their intentions for an action as a general rule for everyone. If a person does something out of a sense of duty to moral law, to make an informed, uncoerced decision, free of external authority, then his actions have moral value.

Treating people with ?dignity? and respect is a moral consideration. Respect for the person, people are intrinsically valuable and should not be used or treated as a means to an end. People should be respected as ends in and of themselves.

Utilitarian Theory

According to Beauchamp, Bowie, and Arnold, (2008), John Stuart Mill argues that unconvincing and incompatible theories can be coherently unified by a single standard of beneficence that allows us to decide objectively what is right and wrong, developing Utilitarianism. The principle of utility, or the ?greatest happiness? principle, dictates that the given action or practice is right when compared with any alternative action or practice if it leads to the greatest possible balance of beneficial consequences or to the least possible balance of bad consequences. Mill also holds that the concepts of duty, obligation, and right are subordinated to, and determined by, that which maximizes benefits and minimizes harmful outcomes (Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008).

Utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion.

In evaluating the goodness of an action, utilitarianists look for the effect or consequence that the action may have, and whether or not the greatest happiness by all will be achieved. Utilitarianists do not necessarily view an action as having any intrinsic worth in and of itself. They do not require we know every possible consequence of an action, but that we take into account what can reasonably be anticipated to result from the action.

Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in.

To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account.

Which is more persuasive, Kantian or Utilitarian?

Kant's theory of imperatives, though quite rational, seems to be a utopian concept that cannot be fully realized in a complex society. Whereas Utilitarian calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions; this in itself would be a tremendous undertaking. Kantian ethics focuses more on the actual action or motive and the morality of that action as opposed to utilitarianism, which focuses more on the morality of the consequence and, not of the action or motive. Kantian ethics state the treatment of everyone should be as an end in themselves and never exploit them as means, as opposed to utilitarianism, which states the treatment of people should be as means to improve everyone?s situation.

Looking at Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies, the two appear as polar opposites. But in the end, they both seek a morally right and virtuous life. Each brings a different aspect to a given situation. The two theories are not all encompassing for every situation; it is in this that both are persuasive for a given event.