If self-interested action contributes to the general welfare, then presumably one can be ideological simply by yielding to one’s inclination to act out of self-interest, although this popular view is difficult to defend empirically. Recent refinements of Hobbesian social contract arguments take a revisionist approach, suggesting that it may be in one’s self-interest to negotiate agreements that are fair in some sense, and to adopt a disposition to comply with them. The agreements themselves may resemble a Raiffa-Kalai-Smorodinsky (RKS) bargaining solution. If rational expectations are not assumed to be self-interested, they may nonetheless be ideological simply by virtue of their formal properties. The logical implications of rational expectations have been extensively explored in rational expectations theory, with some interesting conclusions.
Harrison claims that these people are, “following Utilitarianism instead, which follows consequentialism”. It is the contrast to the Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism has its starting point with the result. They consider something as morally good if a good result comes out of it, but if there is a bad consequence, then they consider it morally wrong. This places more development in the ends than it does the means.
In “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism," James Rachels criticizes the basis of Cultural Relativism in the form of modus tollens, to deny by denying, arguments to prove that Cultural Relativism is improbable. This paper will argue that Rachels provided sufficient evidence during his criticism of Cultural Relativism. His argument is successful because he provides three logical consequences that would follow if Cultural Relativism were true, he explains the establishment of the existence of an objective standard, and he criticizes the Cultural Differences Argument. James Rachels says that if Cultural Relativism was plausible, our culture could no longer say that the customs of other cultures are morally inferior to our own, right and wrong actions
The concept of CS... ... middle of paper ... ...e indicators for example -Act: we standardize one act to improve it. This cycle represented by a wheel, is the notion of progress. VIII. External recognition (for AUDIT) The external recognition is important for the credibility of the company. If it has a CSR approach (in our direction), follow the laws is not enough to proclaim loud and clear that we make of the CSR because the CSR is a voluntary approach and what the laws must be followed, even however small it is, it is important whether it is noticed by a recognized auditor.
Although some weaknesses may be harmless, those that relate to specific customer needs should be minimized if at all possible. In addition, a focus on a firm's strengths in advertising is promotion is important to increase awareness in areas that a firm excels in. This method not only evokes a positive response within the minds of the consumer, but pushes the weaknesses further from the decision making process (Marketing Strategy, 1998). Weaknesses should also be considered from an internal and external viewpoint. It is important that listing of a firm's weaknesses is truthful so that they may be overcome as quickly as possible.
It has to be mentioned that the federal IT Governance model is still being considered a kind of innovation (Grembergen, 2004). Due to the number of particular reasons, it is considered to be better to contemplated than implemented (Grembergen, 2004). It is considered that local business units managers struggle to “surrender control over certain business-specific IT domains”, and to “develop business-to-business and business-to-IT partnerships” (Grembergen, 2004, 47). The federal IT Governance model is good because it “enables IT-based strategic differentiation of business” (Hakikur, 2007, 259). However, there is an opinion that federal IT Governance model “is more of a theoretical construction, than a direct practical solution” (Hakikur, 2007, 259).
Truly, had the company followed any ethical approach, it may have staved off its preordained destiny. A culture that rewards breaking rules is destine for failure. Though an ethical program may appear to be the solution; however, a moral culture is truly the key to winning the battle of ethics. Moreover, others have suggested that ethical programs may stifle creativity and thus prevent the free exercise of one’s values and moral judgment (Stansbury & Barry, 2007, p. 239). While a program by itself will never be successfully, leadership from the top is instrumental to victory; managers must be known for possessing core values such as honesty and integrity (Nel, Nel, & du Plessis, 2011, p. 59).
Being a goal oriented individual, I assumed that this management tool could be successfully applied almost seamlessly. This assumption has been proven wrong as I did not take into account the settings and behaviors of the individuals applying the system. A system such as MBO can become easily corrupted. That said, if an organization works past user limitations, MBO is an excellent and worthwhile venture.
Two objections to utilitarianism will be examined, as well as Louis Pojman’s responses to those objections in Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. It will be shown that Pojman presents an adequate defense of utilitarianism, and that utilitarianism succeeds as a worthwhile moral theory. Act-Utilitarianism is the thesis that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman 110). One conspicuous problem with the thesis is that it suggests that correct moral actions will often clash with our intuitions about basic moral norms. For example, Pojman refers to Richard Brandt’s criticism in which he points out that the act-utilitarian seems to be committed to helping the needy above one’s own family, repaying debts only if there is no better use for the money, and ending the lives of those who are a drain on others (Pojman 110).
Mintzberg has frequently been praised for providing an overview of what management should not be, but his argument could be said to be lacking in detail regarding how to actually be a good manager (Witzel, 2003, p.223). In order to provide a better description a clearer understanding of what management is it would have been more useful for him to outline a profile on what a good manager consists of as opposed to what a good manager should avoid. However, it could be argued that these two principles are not actually separate; instead they are interdependent. This thus makes it near impossible to differentiate between the two (Witzel, 2003, p.223.) Perhaps to understand what a good manager should be, we have to first understand what they are not.