Because the conduct was motivated by profit and greed at the expense of others, it also violated virtue ethics (Hursthouse, 1999). The harder question concerns the ethical conduct of the financial executives who knowingly conceived, facilitated, and executed extremely risky investment practices (Nocera, 2009), because technically, some of the most destructive courses of action throughout the financial investment industries were perfectly legal (Bhide, 2009)
Direct Parallels to Contemporary Events in Domestic Economic Issues: In many respects, the current economic predicament in the United States is the result of very similar situations over the course of several decades in general and in the last few years in particular. To a certain extent, illegality and outright fraud were involved, such as in the widespread knowing and deliberate misrepresentation of financial information like credit worthiness and income of mortgage loan applicants for the express purpose of satisfying lending criteria designed to exclude applicants with insufficient financial qualifications for home mortgage loans (Bradley, 2008; Lowenstein, 2007)
To a certain extent, illegality and outright fraud were involved, such as in the widespread knowing and deliberate misrepresentation of financial information like credit worthiness and income of mortgage loan applicants for the express purpose of satisfying lending criteria designed to exclude applicants with insufficient financial qualifications for home mortgage loans (Bradley, 2008; Lowenstein, 2007). Just as in the scenario in the hypothetical scenario, virtually every ethical analysis and every line of legal reasoning would have required anyone working within the mortgage and loan industry to report apparent instances of material misrepresentations (Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli, 2007)
General principles of utilitarianism would require that you report your belief for the benefit of stockholders, investors, and the general public; rule utilitarianism would require you to comply with the law (Rosenstand, 2008). In that Respect, the fact that your position, by law, also includes specific fiduciary responsibilities (Halbert & Ingulli, 2007) also makes this situation much easier than similar circumstances where you are merely a passive observer
Virtue ethics would also require that you reported what you believed provided only that your motivation were genuinely for the sake of justice. Virtue ethics would not be satisfied, for example, where your express purpose for reporting the situation were to undermine a despised boss or for selfish reasons like positive publicity, irrespective of whether or not reporting your beliefs also achieved a valid purpose if, and to whatever extent, that benefit is merely coincidental rather than part of your motivation (Hursthouse, 1999)
In many cases, mortgage applicants were complicit in the fraud, in which case their conduct was also ethically unjustifiable. However, it also appears that a substantial number of so-called subprime mortgage recipients were genuinely duped into variable-rate mortgages by mortgage brokers who deceived them, or at the very least, failed to disclose information in such a way that their clients understood the risks and long-term responsibilities (Lowenstein, 2007)
Rather, your duty exists anytime you believe there is a genuine probability in that regard. Furthermore, you likely have an affirmative duty to investigate any reasonable suspicions you have because both schools of utilitarian ethics and virtue ethics would prohibit the arbitrary (or convenient) dismissal of reasonable grounds for suspicion once they arose (Mihaly, 2007)
Because the conduct was motivated by profit and greed at the expense of others, it also violated virtue ethics (Hursthouse, 1999). The harder question concerns the ethical conduct of the financial executives who knowingly conceived, facilitated, and executed extremely risky investment practices (Nocera, 2009), because technically, some of the most destructive courses of action throughout the financial investment industries were perfectly legal (Bhide, 2009)
The illegal fraudulent manipulation of corporate balance sheets to misrepresent financial information and to conceal the truth from industry regulators violates multiple lines of ethical thought. General principles of utilitarianism would require that you report your belief for the benefit of stockholders, investors, and the general public; rule utilitarianism would require you to comply with the law (Rosenstand, 2008)
However, recent revelations indicate that there may be more insidious forces at work. According to the February 10, 2010 article by Elaine Cullen from the Current Political Scene blog entitled, "Toyota ethics problems indication of larger Japanese government ethics problems," the "disturbing lack of response of NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) officials to complaints about Toyota safety defects" may be rooted in a 'revolving door' policy between the NHTSA and Toyota (Cullen 2010)
Ethical Issues in Business and Government Regulation What do you think of this proposal and what ethical theory would support your position? In principle, the proposal makes sense for several reasons, primarily through the application of Rawlsian and Kantian moral concepts and definitions. More specifically, the proposal to increase taxes on gasoline is readily defensible under a broader application of the Utilitarian principle of the greatest happiness to include the greatest public benefit in conjunction with the objective perspective provided by the "original position" and "veil of ignorance" introduced by Rawls (Shaw & Barry, 2007)
A recent study by the American Management Association concluded that two-thirds of businesses in the country monitor their employee email on a regular basis. Surveillance technology has developed software allowing the electronic monitoring of email and the software sales for such products is expected to increase (Kelly, 2001)
In fact, the organization can make much revenue in these areas because of the fact that they will have high traffic for people to come in and purchase their products. What they should have considered is doing a survey for people to fill out in order to find out whether or not to keep it at that particular location or to move to another in which to gain as much revenue as possible (Early, 2002)
It is not something that can just be overlooked, due to the probable negative outcomes for both the employees and the organization. New whistle blowing cases further reveal the prospective issues encountered by organizations which do not sufficiently deal with the issue (Barnett, 1992)
Instead, it means that companies realize workers' valid right to convey their worries with organizational undertakings which they believe breach the policies or the generally agreed to moral codes (Barnett, 1992). Policies of whistle blowing encourage transparency by making unethical conduct visible (Bornfelt, Arvidson, Axelsson & Ahlstrand, 2014)
It also calls upon virtues, particularly courage, since advocating for principles can turn out to be a punishing encounter. Although laws are meant to guard the whistleblowers from reprisal, individuals who feel threatened by the exposures can snub the whistleblower, marginalize or even force them out of public office (Fost, 2001)
Whistleblowers are frequently depicted as unfaithful or selfish bounty hunters even though their social value is huge. Nonetheless, whistleblowers often place themselves in a lot of danger, and their state is rendered more dangerous by the failures of the legal system (Hoffman & McNulty, 2011)
It can be argued that it is actually bizarre for the human nature to exhibit loyalty to a bureaucratic association since it is made up of lots of people. If convinced that the information is authentic and that it is general good for most of the populace, whistleblowers should not be reluctant of passing on such data and be satisfied that they are assisting to the establishment of a more secure working surroundings for their coworkers (Matthewson, 2012)
With regards to the external units, for instance the media or governmental agencies, whistleblowing has been a dangerous undertaking, not only for the individual, but also for the organization. The unsure thoughts towards whistle blowers guarantees that even in the presence of legal security, they might encounter reprisal in crafty ways: being rejected by their fellow workers, getting close supervision, or just feeling isolated (Ravishankar, n