1.1 Introduction
Business ethics has become very important part of knowledge of employers in companies with global responsibility. We do not think just about managers or representatives of the company but also about employees in research field. In this field of Work moral quality of the researcher is really necessary. Because, one of presuppositions of Work in a research part of a company is the loyalty of employees to management of the company, stakeholders and shareholders. The last but not the least, every researcher has a huge responsibility to consumer and environment.In one company there was a person who had a huge responsibility. He/she was the leader of a research team. However he/she established two smaller companies in the same research area. He/she worked for his/her employer and for his companies simultaneously. He/she had a regular full-time contract in his job. During the research work he/she collected the data for his/her employer. Meanwhile he/she sent these data also to his/her companies. This employee had a big responsibility and also a strong position in the company. For this reason nobody from his/her team examined, how he/she used the data. Nobody Would ever ask about transferring and saving the data because they trusted him/her. He/she used all his/ her knowledge and data very effectively for his/her companies and finally to enrich just him/herself.
1.1.1 The problem from ethical point of view
The major problem of this case is a relation of loyalty between employee and employer. The second problem is a relation of loyalty between the senior researcher and his/her team. The third problem is using the data commercially to enrich oneself at the expenses of the team and research company.
1.2 Analysis of the case from the perspective of different schools of normative ethics
Cases from the perspective of some normative schools of ethics will be analyzed in this chapter. We will ask which one is the right one for the specific case. Following the main definition of normative ethics school, cases will be analyzed from good and evil point of view, result and justification of the result. WeWould like to explain how and why We find this kind of justification.
1.2.1 Ancient hedonism perspective
Definition of Ancient Hedonism (see chapter 4.1 on the page 31): The maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering are the aims of hedonistic ethics.
The employee from the perspective of ancient hedonism maximized pleasure when he/she collected the data for his/her own company. His/her feeling of responsibility, was just a Worry about the his/her profit. In this case collected data were used to enrich him/herself. He/she used the work of other employees for personal enrichment.
Result
From the perspective of ancient hedonism this employee was right because he/she minimized personal suffering and maximized pleasure. He/her used the collected data for maximization of his/her personal profit. Everything what employee did for his/her personal enrichment is morally good, because his acts resulted into minimization of suffering.
Justification
Good and evil is judged from the perspective of pleasure and suffering. Pleasure is good, suffering is evil. For this reason it is necessary to remember that employee's acts are a justification from the personal position of personal good. And it is not important what is really good for the Whole company.
1.2.2 Utilitarianism perspective
Definition of utilitarianism (see chapter 4.2 on the page 32): The principle it supports is simple: good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible.
It is possible to justify the same situation from totally different ethical positions as we will see. It is really difficult to say without knowing the details, to what extent employee's acts were harmful for the company. If we are not aware of the extent of this damage, how we can judge his deeds? We can do it, because we see that all what this employee did was in relation with other employees, whole company and also the Whole society. From this perspective We can assume two premises. First, that scientific Work is goodness for the company and the whole society. Second, we assume that moral aspect of the research is The Greater Good. From these premises we may think that employees work brings benefit to as many people as possible. Because at first, he/she broadens knowledge by his/her research. Second, he/ her kept the moral and ethical principle of the research and served as a role model for other researchers. Third, the company financed the research program, built the team of employees and also was in charge of research results.If We keep to these premises, We can assume that the employee didn't bring benefit to colleagues who worked with him/her. This employee also didn't bring the product to his/her company, but he brought good for the personal company.
Result
From the perspective of utilitarianism all employees acts were Wrong because, he/she took financial support from the company in which he/she had full/time contract. But, all he/she did was for his/her personal company. For this reason he/she enriched at the expense of his/her employer. He/she abusedthe confidence of the colleagues and the position in the company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective that good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible. Good is useful, evil is useless. The acts of this employee were not useful, so for this reason We cannot consider them to be good. Evil is much better.
1.2.3 Empiristic ethics perspective
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3, page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that they are often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For justification of this specific case we have to know how many employees break internal rules of the company about the collecting data they Work with. This statistic knowledge is necessary for justification whether the employee did good or Wrong action. In the case when we have no statistic data how many employees break the rules, we would like to assume one premise: Majority of employees did not break the company rules.
From this premise we may think that employee work didn't follow actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. If this is true, we may assume that he/she didn't repeat statistically verified actions.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics it is evident that employee broke actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. It means that his/her actions were Wrong.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. Good is what is statistically frequent Way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent Way of behaviour. But the problem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil equals statistically frequent way of behaviour. We need some different point of view.
1.2.4 Perspective of ethics by norms or principles
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4, page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human's life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break internal rules of the company. If we have an ethical maxim, we can simply follow the rules.From the position of this ethics employee has to just follow these rules which are called maxims in ethics. But in the case, when he/she started collecting the data not only for the company, but also in same moment for his/her own company, he/she broke internal rules.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles employee was Wrong. Because he/she did not keep the rules and broke them. In ethical terminology, he/she did not follow ethical maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.5 Casuistic ethicS perspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In the case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim or norm, principle or commandment are both maxims in the conflict questioning. We can find two different maxims:1. Personal prosperity as good,2. Common good as good.How we can judge which good is better or, which is more acceptable. From the position of business ethics, it is really difficult to decide which good is more acceptable. The problem of casuistic ethics is, that this kind of ethics is connected with some idea. For example religious idea, like Roman Catholicsdogmas. When we consider this aspect of casuistic ethics, we can analyze this case.Solution of this case can be found in Ten Commandments. We can read the eighth command: You shall not steal. If we agree that collecting data not only for the company which gives the employee work is stealing, We have a solution. In the conflict of maxims we may borrow some commandments.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics employee made great foul because he/she broke one of commandments.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a conflict between maxims. In the case of the conflict it is necessary to look for some ideas from religion or philosophy or just from the customs of a region, where we live.
1.2.6 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of situation ethics (see chapter 4.6, page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
Every employee is obviously a unique person with unique life experience, especially when this specific employee, he/she has a good contract with the company. In this situation it is not possible to justify this way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear why he/she stole the data for his/her own company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a situation.
1.2.7 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.What are the highest of all criteria though?• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case We can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.8 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8 on page 42): "Act in a way that will turn themaxims of your will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, employee did not keep to the categorical imperative Written by Immanuel Kant. Because he/she by his/her Work completed the act which was not acceptable for all people in the World.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics employees way of behaviour is not acceptable for all reasoning people. In the moment, when reasoning people accept this way of behaviour, they should all accept also fallacy as a regular norm of behaviour.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, where breaking the ethical maxims, norms is something regular. Good is the reasonable good.
1.2.9 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9, page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring. Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result for employee is amaximum profit for him/her self. In the moment when he/her collected data with the team of researchers, employer gave him/her a salary. But also his/her personal company had some profit on the market. It should be that his/her personal company endangered his/her employer existence on the market.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility it is not acceptable employees Way of behaviour.
The major problem of this case is a relation of loyalty between employee and employer. The second problem is a relation of loyalty between the senior researcher and his/her team. The third problem is using the data commercially to enrich oneself at the expenses of the team and research company. 1.2 Analysis of the case from the perspective of different schools of normative ethics
Cases from the perspective of some normative schools of ethics will be analyzed in this chapter. We will ask which one is the right one for the specific case. Following the main definition of normative ethics school, cases will be analyzed from good and evil point of view, result and justification of the result. WeWould like to explain how and why We find this kind of justification. 1.2.1 Ancient hedonism perspective
Definition of Ancient Hedonism (see chapter 4.1 on the page 31): The maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering are the aims of hedonistic ethics.
The employee from the perspective of ancient hedonism maximized pleasure when he/she collected the data for his/her own company. His/her feeling of responsibility, was just a Worry about the his/her profit. In this case collected data were used to enrich him/herself. He/she used the work of other employees for personal enrichment.
Result
From the perspective of ancient hedonism this employee was right because he/she minimized personal suffering and maximized pleasure. He/her used the collected data for maximization of his/her personal profit. Everything what employee did for his/her personal enrichment is morally good, because his acts resulted into minimization of suffering.
Justification
Good and evil is judged from the perspective of pleasure and suffering. Pleasure is good, suffering is evil. For this reason it is necessary to remember that employee's acts are a justification from the personal position of personal good. And it is not important what is really good for the Whole company.
1.2.2 Utilitarianism perspective
Definition of utilitarianism (see chapter 4.2 on the page 32): The principle it supports is simple: good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible.
It is possible to justify the same situation from totally different ethical positions as we will see. It is really difficult to say without knowing the details, to what extent employee's acts were harmful for the company. If we are not aware of the extent of this damage, how we can judge his deeds? We can do it, because we see that all what this employee did was in relation with other employees, whole company and also the Whole society. From this perspective We can assume two premises. First, that scientific Work is goodness for the company and the whole society. Second, we assume that moral aspect of the research is The Greater Good. From these premises we may think that employees work brings benefit to as many people as possible. Because at first, he/she broadens knowledge by his/her research. Second, he/ her kept the moral and ethical principle of the research and served as a role model for other researchers. Third, the company financed the research program, built the team of employees and also was in charge of research results.If We keep to these premises, We can assume that the employee didn't bring benefit to colleagues who worked with him/her. This employee also didn't bring the product to his/her company, but he brought good for the personal company.
Result
From the perspective of utilitarianism all employees acts were Wrong because, he/she took financial support from the company in which he/she had full/time contract. But, all he/she did was for his/her personal company. For this reason he/she enriched at the expense of his/her employer. He/she abusedthe confidence of the colleagues and the position in the company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective that good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible. Good is useful, evil is useless. The acts of this employee were not useful, so for this reason We cannot consider them to be good. Evil is much better.
1.2.3 Empiristic ethics perspective
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3, page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that they are often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For justification of this specific case we have to know how many employees break internal rules of the company about the collecting data they Work with. This statistic knowledge is necessary for justification whether the employee did good or Wrong action. In the case when we have no statistic data how many employees break the rules, we would like to assume one premise: Majority of employees did not break the company rules.
From this premise we may think that employee work didn't follow actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. If this is true, we may assume that he/she didn't repeat statistically verified actions.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics it is evident that employee broke actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. It means that his/her actions were Wrong.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. Good is what is statistically frequent Way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent Way of behaviour. But the problem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil equals statistically frequent way of behaviour. We need some different point of view.
1.2.4 Perspective of ethics by norms or principles
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4, page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human's life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break internal rules of the company. If we have an ethical maxim, we can simply follow the rules.From the position of this ethics employee has to just follow these rules which are called maxims in ethics. But in the case, when he/she started collecting the data not only for the company, but also in same moment for his/her own company, he/she broke internal rules.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles employee was Wrong. Because he/she did not keep the rules and broke them. In ethical terminology, he/she did not follow ethical maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.5 Casuistic ethicS perspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In the case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim or norm, principle or commandment are both maxims in the conflict questioning. We can find two different maxims:1. Personal prosperity as good,2. Common good as good.How we can judge which good is better or, which is more acceptable. From the position of business ethics, it is really difficult to decide which good is more acceptable. The problem of casuistic ethics is, that this kind of ethics is connected with some idea. For example religious idea, like Roman Catholicsdogmas. When we consider this aspect of casuistic ethics, we can analyze this case.Solution of this case can be found in Ten Commandments. We can read the eighth command: You shall not steal. If we agree that collecting data not only for the company which gives the employee work is stealing, We have a solution. In the conflict of maxims we may borrow some commandments.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics employee made great foul because he/she broke one of commandments.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a conflict between maxims. In the case of the conflict it is necessary to look for some ideas from religion or philosophy or just from the customs of a region, where we live.
1.2.6 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of situation ethics (see chapter 4.6, page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
Every employee is obviously a unique person with unique life experience, especially when this specific employee, he/she has a good contract with the company. In this situation it is not possible to justify this way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear why he/she stole the data for his/her own company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a situation.
1.2.7 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.What are the highest of all criteria though?• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case We can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.8 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8 on page 42): "Act in a way that will turn themaxims of your will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, employee did not keep to the categorical imperative Written by Immanuel Kant. Because he/she by his/her Work completed the act which was not acceptable for all people in the World.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics employees way of behaviour is not acceptable for all reasoning people. In the moment, when reasoning people accept this way of behaviour, they should all accept also fallacy as a regular norm of behaviour.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, where breaking the ethical maxims, norms is something regular. Good is the reasonable good.
1.2.9 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9, page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring. Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result for employee is amaximum profit for him/her self. In the moment when he/her collected data with the team of researchers, employer gave him/her a salary. But also his/her personal company had some profit on the market. It should be that his/her personal company endangered his/her employer existence on the market.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility it is not acceptable employees Way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of utilitarianism all employees acts were Wrong because, he/she took financial support from the company in which he/she had full/time contract. But, all he/she did was for his/her personal company. For this reason he/she enriched at the expense of his/her employer. He/she abusedthe confidence of the colleagues and the position in the company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective that good is useful. Usefulness is the main principle, and good is what brings benefit to as many people as possible. Good is useful, evil is useless. The acts of this employee were not useful, so for this reason We cannot consider them to be good. Evil is much better.
1.2.3 Empiristic ethics perspective
Definition of empiristic ethics (see chapter 4.3, page 33): The ethical principle here seems to be based on thoughts and actions that are statistically evaluated as the most frequent. The fact that they are often repeated is statistically regarded as 'good.For justification of this specific case we have to know how many employees break internal rules of the company about the collecting data they Work with. This statistic knowledge is necessary for justification whether the employee did good or Wrong action. In the case when we have no statistic data how many employees break the rules, we would like to assume one premise: Majority of employees did not break the company rules.
From this premise we may think that employee work didn't follow actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. If this is true, we may assume that he/she didn't repeat statistically verified actions.
Result
From the perspective of empiristic ethics it is evident that employee broke actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. It means that his/her actions were Wrong.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. Good is what is statistically frequent Way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent Way of behaviour. But the problem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil equals statistically frequent way of behaviour. We need some different point of view.
1.2.4 Perspective of ethics by norms or principles
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4, page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human's life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break internal rules of the company. If we have an ethical maxim, we can simply follow the rules.From the position of this ethics employee has to just follow these rules which are called maxims in ethics. But in the case, when he/she started collecting the data not only for the company, but also in same moment for his/her own company, he/she broke internal rules.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles employee was Wrong. Because he/she did not keep the rules and broke them. In ethical terminology, he/she did not follow ethical maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.5 Casuistic ethicS perspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In the case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim or norm, principle or commandment are both maxims in the conflict questioning. We can find two different maxims:1. Personal prosperity as good,2. Common good as good.How we can judge which good is better or, which is more acceptable. From the position of business ethics, it is really difficult to decide which good is more acceptable. The problem of casuistic ethics is, that this kind of ethics is connected with some idea. For example religious idea, like Roman Catholicsdogmas. When we consider this aspect of casuistic ethics, we can analyze this case.Solution of this case can be found in Ten Commandments. We can read the eighth command: You shall not steal. If we agree that collecting data not only for the company which gives the employee work is stealing, We have a solution. In the conflict of maxims we may borrow some commandments.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics employee made great foul because he/she broke one of commandments.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a conflict between maxims. In the case of the conflict it is necessary to look for some ideas from religion or philosophy or just from the customs of a region, where we live.
1.2.6 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of situation ethics (see chapter 4.6, page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
Every employee is obviously a unique person with unique life experience, especially when this specific employee, he/she has a good contract with the company. In this situation it is not possible to justify this way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear why he/she stole the data for his/her own company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a situation.
1.2.7 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.What are the highest of all criteria though?• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case We can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.8 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8 on page 42): "Act in a way that will turn themaxims of your will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, employee did not keep to the categorical imperative Written by Immanuel Kant. Because he/she by his/her Work completed the act which was not acceptable for all people in the World.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics employees way of behaviour is not acceptable for all reasoning people. In the moment, when reasoning people accept this way of behaviour, they should all accept also fallacy as a regular norm of behaviour.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, where breaking the ethical maxims, norms is something regular. Good is the reasonable good.
1.2.9 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9, page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring. Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result for employee is amaximum profit for him/her self. In the moment when he/her collected data with the team of researchers, employer gave him/her a salary. But also his/her personal company had some profit on the market. It should be that his/her personal company endangered his/her employer existence on the market.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility it is not acceptable employees Way of behaviour.
From the perspective of empiristic ethics it is evident that employee broke actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. It means that his/her actions were Wrong. Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of actions statistically evaluated as the most frequent. Good is what is statistically frequent Way of behaviour, evil is statistically less frequent Way of behaviour. But the problem of this normative ethics school is that good or evil equals statistically frequent way of behaviour. We need some different point of view.
1.2.4 Perspective of ethics by norms or principles
Definition of ethics by norms or principles (see chapter 4.4, page 36): Ethical maxims shape a human's life in the form of norms.One of the ethical maxims can be: don't break internal rules of the company. If we have an ethical maxim, we can simply follow the rules.From the position of this ethics employee has to just follow these rules which are called maxims in ethics. But in the case, when he/she started collecting the data not only for the company, but also in same moment for his/her own company, he/she broke internal rules.
Result
From the perspective of ethics of norms or principles employee was Wrong. Because he/she did not keep the rules and broke them. In ethical terminology, he/she did not follow ethical maxims.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of personal maxims of people which became norms. Good is following the norms. Evil is breaking the norms.
1.2.5 Casuistic ethicS perspective
Definition of the casuistic ethics (see chapter 4.5, page 37): This means that maxims and particular commandments are considered for each individual case, in cases where conscience contradicts ethical maxims or particular ethical commandments contradict other rules.
In the case when one maxim is confronted with another maxim or norm, principle or commandment are both maxims in the conflict questioning. We can find two different maxims:1. Personal prosperity as good,2. Common good as good.How we can judge which good is better or, which is more acceptable. From the position of business ethics, it is really difficult to decide which good is more acceptable. The problem of casuistic ethics is, that this kind of ethics is connected with some idea. For example religious idea, like Roman Catholicsdogmas. When we consider this aspect of casuistic ethics, we can analyze this case.Solution of this case can be found in Ten Commandments. We can read the eighth command: You shall not steal. If we agree that collecting data not only for the company which gives the employee work is stealing, We have a solution. In the conflict of maxims we may borrow some commandments.
Result
From the perspective of casuistic ethics employee made great foul because he/she broke one of commandments.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a conflict between maxims. In the case of the conflict it is necessary to look for some ideas from religion or philosophy or just from the customs of a region, where we live.
1.2.6 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of situation ethics (see chapter 4.6, page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
Every employee is obviously a unique person with unique life experience, especially when this specific employee, he/she has a good contract with the company. In this situation it is not possible to justify this way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear why he/she stole the data for his/her own company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a situation.
1.2.7 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.What are the highest of all criteria though?• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case We can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.8 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8 on page 42): "Act in a way that will turn themaxims of your will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, employee did not keep to the categorical imperative Written by Immanuel Kant. Because he/she by his/her Work completed the act which was not acceptable for all people in the World.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics employees way of behaviour is not acceptable for all reasoning people. In the moment, when reasoning people accept this way of behaviour, they should all accept also fallacy as a regular norm of behaviour.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, where breaking the ethical maxims, norms is something regular. Good is the reasonable good.
1.2.9 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9, page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring. Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result for employee is amaximum profit for him/her self. In the moment when he/her collected data with the team of researchers, employer gave him/her a salary. But also his/her personal company had some profit on the market. It should be that his/her personal company endangered his/her employer existence on the market.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility it is not acceptable employees Way of behaviour.
From the perspective of casuistic ethics employee made great foul because he/she broke one of commandments.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a conflict between maxims. In the case of the conflict it is necessary to look for some ideas from religion or philosophy or just from the customs of a region, where we live.
1.2.6 Situation ethics perspective
Definition of situation ethics (see chapter 4.6, page 38): Each person's unique experience cannot be transferred to any other person or institution, which for the purposes of business ethics means there are no nameless institutions. Some kind of management is always behind the business, in the form of a director or an owner who chooses to act in a certain situation.
Every employee is obviously a unique person with unique life experience, especially when this specific employee, he/she has a good contract with the company. In this situation it is not possible to justify this way of behaviour.
Result
From the perspective of situation ethics it is not clear why he/she stole the data for his/her own company.
Justification
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a situation.
1.2.7 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.What are the highest of all criteria though?• Inherent law;
• The categorical imperative;
• God.The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case We can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.8 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8 on page 42): "Act in a way that will turn themaxims of your will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, employee did not keep to the categorical imperative Written by Immanuel Kant. Because he/she by his/her Work completed the act which was not acceptable for all people in the World.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics employees way of behaviour is not acceptable for all reasoning people. In the moment, when reasoning people accept this way of behaviour, they should all accept also fallacy as a regular norm of behaviour.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, where breaking the ethical maxims, norms is something regular. Good is the reasonable good.
The good and evil is judged from the perspective of a situation. 1.2.7 Ethics of recogning perspective
Definition of the ethics of recogning (see chapter 4.7 on page 41): The norm of every individual is that their reasoning motive should be in harmony with their conscience. This is in line with responsibility to the ultimate criterion.What are the highest of all criteria though?• Inherent law; • The categorical imperative; • God.The main criteria which are possible to be applied for the specific case are too personal. In this specific case We can just theoretically think which one the fist student choose. For this reason we cannot decide which criterion was chosen.
1.2.8 Deontological ethics perspective
Definition of the deontological ethics (see chapter 4.8 on page 42): "Act in a way that will turn themaxims of your will into generally accepted laws"(Kant 1998).From the perspective of the deontological ethics, employee did not keep to the categorical imperative Written by Immanuel Kant. Because he/she by his/her Work completed the act which was not acceptable for all people in the World.
Result
From the position of deontological ethics employees way of behaviour is not acceptable for all reasoning people. In the moment, when reasoning people accept this way of behaviour, they should all accept also fallacy as a regular norm of behaviour.
Justification
Nobody would like to live in the World, where breaking the ethical maxims, norms is something regular. Good is the reasonable good.
1.2.9 Ethics of responsibility perspective
Definition of the ethics of responsibility (see chapter 4.9, page 44): Provided you assume that responsibility is the maxim of everyone's good conduct (Weber 1958), you have to ask yourself too what such conduct will bring. Criterion of responsibility: We are held liable for our actions and the consequences that result from them.The result for employee is amaximum profit for him/her self. In the moment when he/her collected data with the team of researchers, employer gave him/her a salary. But also his/her personal company had some profit on the market. It should be that his/her personal company endangered his/her employer existence on the market.
Result
From the position of ethics responsibility it is not acceptable employees Way of behaviour.
No comments:
Post a Comment