Ethical Communication and Citizenship - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the Ethical Communication and Citizenship. Answer: Ethics are the moral values and principles through which the behaviour or the conduct of an individual towards an activity is governed. It is a moral philosophy which covers the systematizing, recommending and even defending the right and wrong conduct (Corrigan and Farrell 2010). They help in decision making and the aim of such decision making is towards the right choice selection. This right choice requires identification and prioritization of responsibilities to the person themselves, their profession and even the wider community. In the following parts, this very concept has been highlighted in context of James Hardie scandal and the activities undertaken by it. As stated in the introductory segment, the decision making under ethics require the emphasis to be placed on the person themself, the profession they belong to and the community in general. This is because these are deemed as the stakeholders who are impact or have the capacity of being impacted as a result of the conduct undertaken by the person. This requires a care to be taken in making decisions in such a manner which neither put a negative impact on themselves, nor on the different stakeholders (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2016). The same is particularly important in not putting a negative impact, if the positive impact cannot be attained on the different stakeholder groups, which is the key requirement as per the leading ethical theories. A leading ethical theory which assists in ethical decision making is that of utilitarianism. As per this theory, such decisions are deemed as ethical where the utility is maximized (Bykvist 2010). In other words, where the happiness is maxi mized from undertaking a particular action, such an action is deemed ethical. Thus, the consequence of an action can decide if an action is right or wrong (Mill 2017). Deontological theory can also be used for the purpose of undertaking ethical decision making and had been given by Immanuel Kant. This theory is provides that the morality of an action is the deciding factor on an ethical being moral or immoral (Naaman-Zauderer 2010). It refers to the obligation or rule based on ethics and focuses on the actions instead of end results (Mizzoni 2009). The third key ethical theory is virtue ethics in which the focus is placed on mind and character (Hursthouse and Pettigrove 2016). This theory presents that an action would be right where the same is undertaken by a virtuous person, on the basis of virtues of honesty, integrity, justice and fairness. Thus, instead of rules, duties or consequences, the moral character decides the act to be ethical or not (Winter 2011). The ethical theories and their interplay with the real world can be better explained with the example of Jamie Hardie, in context of ethical decision making. James Hardie scandal involved the economic exploitation of resources of the society, resulted in serious negative impact on the community. In Australia, James Hardie had evolved as the largest building manufacturer of asbestos based products when it was well known to cause major fatal diseases. James Hardie is deemed as a highly unethical blunder across the glove due to the continued mining and manufacturing products by the company when they knew the dangers of asbestos. The situation was further worsened when the company decided to ignore the claims of the asbestos victims and made an attempt to avoid their liability and responsibility on the issue by undertaking different corporate restructuring actions. The production of asbestos was an unethical decision as the same was undertaken for attaining commercial profits whilst the health and lives of the wider community was jeopardized. Even when the company realized the dangers back in 1964, they did not take any action to stop or even curtail the ill effects of this menace (Plessis, Hargovan, and Bagaric 2010). This decision was not only unethical for the society at large, but also towards the company itself. This can be established through the application of different ethical theories discussed early on. Where utilitarianism is applied to the present perspective, the actions of James Hardie were unethical as they did not focus on maximizing the happiness, as the society was put at a danger of different diseases associated to asbestos, just for earning profits. This ultimately led to the end of James Hardie and the number of its key members, including directors of the company, being held liable. The utility was neither maximized towards the profession, nor towards the company itself, let along the society. So, the consequences of their actions made the company unethical. Where deontological theory is applied in context of James Hardie Company, the actions of the company are to be analysed. James Hardie continued with the production of asbestos for a long period of time, even when it knew th e ill effects of the same. This continuation would be deemed as unethical as the actions of the company were motivated by greed. The company even made attempts at avoiding their liability by indulging in corporate restructuring which again is a proof of the company being unethical. As this corporate restructuring is something which ultimately got the company under the lens of ASIC, the actions of the company were unethical even for them. Also, the focus of the company was not towards earning profits for the stakeholders, but to benefit a few persons, which again was an unethical thing. Lastly, when the theory of virtue ethics is applied, the actions of the company were neither honest, nor fair and were far away from virtues of justice or integrity, making the actions of the company unethical. To conclude, the case of James Hardie continues to be an example of unethical behaviour not just in Australia but world-wide. No matter which ethical theory is applied, the actions of the company cannot be deemed as ethical. Also, such unethical decision making not only harmed the society in terms of asbestos victims but also the company as the key people running the company and indulging in such unethical acts were held liable under the law. References Bykvist, K 2010, Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed, Bloomsbury Academic, London. Corrigan, RH Farrell, ME 2010, Ethics: A University Guide, Progressive Frontiers press, Gloucester. Ferrell, OC, Fraedrich, J Ferrell, L 2016, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making Cases, 11th edn, Cengage Learning, Boston, MA. Hursthouse, R Pettigrove, G 2016, Virtue Ethics, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. retrieved 01 December 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#FormVirtEthi Mill, JS 2017, Utilitarianism, Coventry House Publishing, Dublin, OH. Mizzoni, J 2009, Ethics: The Basics, John Wiley Sons, West Sussex. Naaman-Zauderer, N 2010, Descartes' Deontological Turn: Reason, Will, and Virtue in the Later Writings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Plessis, JJD, Hargovan, A Bagaric, M 2010, Principles of Contemporary Corporate Governance, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Winter, M 2011, Rethinking Virtue Ethics, Springer, New York.