Theoretical approach Essay
The use of a theoretical approach to explain a phenomenon in the society is not uncommon. For this term paper the writer is required to use five theories to answer five moral questions given. One the theory is distributive justice. This theory has to do with justice in the allocation of goods in the society. It aims at reducing inequalities that occur unintentionally and it is guided by several factors. The amount of goods to be distributed, how they will be used and how they will be divided which in essence means it deals with ensuring the outcomes and the consequences of the allocation of goods in society are just.
The other theory that will be applied in this term paper is the moral rights theory which entails the rights held by developers of copyrighted materials, the right to publish a book with a pseudonym among other rights. These rights are not anchored solely on law or people’s customs or beliefs they are just natural rights. The virtue of ethics is an approach that focuses on a moral agent’s character but not so much on the rules or the consequences. An action is thereby right or wrong due to what a character does not because of the consequences of their actions.
Using this theory an individual will be able to discern whether the definition of what is considered ‘green’ should be standardized. The other theories that will be used to look at the Moral Issue Questions in depth are the utilitarianism and the ethics of care theories. Utilitarian approach advocates for the action that brings the most pleasure to the people. The outcome of an action therefore becomes very important since the results are measured by looking at the levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the general public.
The ethics of care theory on the other hand is an approach that looks at action being either right or wrong. This theory advocates for the interests of the people who are vulnerable to warrant special consideration and these people should be protected form harm. These five approaches will be used to look at the moral issues that the scenarios presented pose and the best answer to the MIQ based on those theories. Distributive Justice MIQ. Who should regulate corporate compensation? Defining excessive pay Investment advisors have been known to overcharge their clients for the services rendered.
In this case Oakmark family of mutual funds are alleging that the manager of funds from Harris Associates charged the family double the amounts charged for the same services extended to other clients thereby violating their fiduciary duty (Barnes & Mufson 2009). The family wants the court to determine if they have a legal claim and how much Harris associates should pay as compensation. The case creates many dilemmas and has myriad consequencies not just on the U. S. Supreme court but also on the political arena as well.
The mutual funds field being as competitive as it is the Harris Associates feel mutual funds investors are free to scout the market and get the best advisor for their needs. Also, the fact that they managed to grow the Oaks Family account as extensive as they did means they have done their job. Despite the Harris Associate defending their actions, the Founder of Vanguard Group and a very influential figure in the mutual funds industry feels that what Harris Associates did was a direct violation of the fiduciary duty and the courts should enforce this duty on investment advisors (Barnes & Mufson 2009).
According to distributive justice theory the courts should regulate the corporate compensation. Leaving the decision to the investment advisors will propagate the injustices even further. Harris Associates were not just in charging the Oak Family double the amount charged other companies for the same or even lesser services rendered. Therefore the court should ensure that the Oak’s get justice and are fully compensated. This is because as the mutual funds industry grows most investment advisors are aligning their loyalties to suit themselves and the government should step in and protect the rights of the investors.
Moral Rights MIQ. Should the government penalize Bank of America for accepting bail out money only to pay it back ahead of schedule in order to attract CEO with lucrative pay and benefits? The Federal Government gives corporations bailouts with several conditions which are basically to do with the control and effective running of the a bailout beneficiary. The Bank of America after benefiting from the government bailout is finding it challenging running its operations with the interference of the government.
Therefore it has decided to repay the taxpayer aid extended by the government during the financial crisis before the payment periods is over to free itself of any direct government interference. Being free of government debt the company will then be in a position to attract a Chief Executive Officer after the current chief retires since as things stand now most are shying away from working in the corporation due to the present government interference (Appelbaum 2009).
According to Appelbaum (2009) the government will not accept the repayment until the Bank can ascertain it is in sound economic health and has stabilized. The bailout was due to a poor expansion decision made by the then Chief Executive. The much needed bailout came but left the bank under the mercy of the government. This government involvement has really affected the search for a new Chief since it has increased the scrutiny of the banks activities and now all the decisions the bank officials make have to be analyzed by the federal government.
The government’s intentions bailing out the bank were noble as it was safeguarding one of the countries big economic players and it had to make sure that the bank did not sink to the quagmire again in future. By virtue of the bailout the government therefore owns the corporation since it saved it from a total collapse. According to Moral rights theory the government has to scrutinize all the decisions made in the past and in the present as it has a right by virtue of the money loaned. The government is not penalizing the bank for accepting the bailout money it is just ensuring the situation never happens again.
A corporations chief should be versatile enough to work under all conditions and therefore by shying away from a lucrative position because ones activities will be scrutinized by a rightful owner according to the moral rights theorists is not right. The government as a developer has a natural right over the bank and all its undertakings. Therefore the government is justified according to this theory to penalize the bank. Utilitarianism MIQ. Should future space programs be privatized? Private Enterprise’s Ticket to Fly Into Space
According Achenbach (2009) there is the possibility that a time is coming whereby going to the moon or to outer space will be as easy as flying to another destination is today. This is because the notion of privatizing spaceflight is looking more and lucrative each day. The American government is finding it challenging factoring in all the activities of NASA in the budget. A committee was formed by President Obama led by a retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine to evaluate and advise the president on the best course of action to take about NASA.
This is because the government is feeling the strain and even according to the Committee there is not enough money for NASA’s 2020 planned trip to the moon. The budget for future spaceflights has been reduced. The committee recommended changes in strategies employed by NASA and proposed NASA looks into or explores other cheaper exploration opportunities. The biggest dilemma has to do with the Ares 1 rocket whose maintenance cost has been very high and the committee has proposed a cancellation should be considered.
This creates other complications like individuals loosing their livelihoods and some other security implications. The only way to deal with scraping off the Ares 1 is considering commercial spaceflight (Achenbach 2009). This means charging those that want to experience a trip to space. This way doors would be open to include private players in the industry. Some people are of the opinion that canceling the trip to the moon in 2020 will derail the plans to go Mars and the government should instead look into other recommendations (Achenbach 2009).
The utilitarianism approach advocates for the decision that fosters the most pleasurable result for the majority. There are many alternatives to be looked at in this situation with NASA and all the alternatives have their pros and cons. Through the utilitarianism approach the spaceflight should be privatized. This will open up doors to all those interested companies to invest in this industry. This will encourage creativity and give a chance to the interested members of public a chance to visit space.
Privatizing the spaceflights will ease the financial burden on the government which presently finances all NASA’s activities. This money could be put to other urgent needs. The private players will be happy as they can now make money independent of the government by flying astronauts to space commercially. Virtue ethics MIQ. Should there be strict guidelines and definitions on what is considered “green” meats and fish used in restaurants Most people are becoming very health and environmentally conscious and will only consume those products that are perceived to be inline with their ideals.
In order to keep up with this trend entrepreneurs are also sourcing for raw materials from producers who use environmentally friendly methods to grow or rear their produce. This health and environmental platform is what Founding Farmers Restaurant anchored its business on. On its menu it had advertised for ‘green cuisines’ as its specialty (Black 2009). On close scrutiny as the business continued to thrive the restaurant started to deviate from its mission statement and selling products produced in environmentally degrading situations but claiming on the menu it was committed serving ‘green’ food.
With growth it became very difficult to source for produce from small family farms and still turn a profit. This is because these farmers sell their products at higher prices than large scale producers as they do not benefit from economies of scale. Also, their supplies are not reliable and sometimes their produce is affected by the seasonal production. The management of Founding Farmers defended their decision to source for its produce form large scale producers by maintaining that in other areas the restaurant was fully ‘green’ (Black 2009).
The lack of clear definition on what qualifies as ‘green’ or in other words sustainable foods leaves a lot of grey areas in which some of these entrepreneurs can get away with not offering the customer exactly what they need. Some restaurants like Equinox have managed to run their business by fully supporting family farms which is expensive on their part but they are committed to the course. Founding Fathers on the other hand try as much as possible and the effort is appreciated by many but they have overtime misled customers with their menu about the authenticity of their products.
This is because they do not get all their meat from family farms neither are their vegetables from the family farms but they vouch for the quality by alluding that the end justifies the means (Black 2009). According to the virtue ethics theory regardless of the outcomes being good they unfortunately have no basis in establishing whether an action was right or wrong. Therefore what the Founding Farmers are doing remains morally wrong whether the food served in the restaurant is healthy or not.
The actions of the managers of the business source for the produce from farms whose practices are in question but the restaurant sells its products buy claiming it got its produce from small scale family farms. Even if their servings are healthy they are not entirely ‘green’. Therefore there should be strict guidelines and definitions on what is considered ‘green’ meats and fish served in restaurants as Founding Farmers has been misleading the public. Ethics of care MIQ. Should the government allow for NBC and Comcast merge? A new kind of company, a new challenge for feds
Access to information is very important therefore a situation where this access to information can be controlled by a single company poses a security risk to the country and to the public (Kang 2009). The discussions of a possible merger between Comcast and NBC has definitely caught people’s attention since Comcast is among the largest companies dealing with the provision of internet services whereas NBC is one of the largest television network. This means merging the internet with television thus the information that people have access to online and through the cable is the same.
Presently there is information that is accessible through the television only and not available online. For instance in a situation whereby the internet providers feel that the information is too controversial and would affect them negatively thus they do not post it online but the same is revealed through cable. If the two are merged the general public would have access to the same information and this reduces the idea of watchdogs. Therefore as the two would be one it means looking out for each other thus movies produced by NBC would be available online as well without being.
In essence the situation poses a very high security risk to the people and there is the possibility of serious exploitation of the general public (Kang 2009). The ethics of care approach advocates for the rights of vulnerable groups to be looked out for as they have no way doing it themselves. The government should not therefore allow NBC and Comcast to merge since this would mean limiting the information the people have on important issues. Reference List Achenbach, J. , (2009). Panel May Urge Strapped NASA To Outsource Commercial Flights. Washington Post; Sep, 5th 2009.
Appelbaum, B. , (2009). Bank of America to repay U. S. : Firm will be first to reimburse taxpayers completely for bailout. Washington Post; Dec, 3rd 2009. Barnes, R. & Mufson, S. , (2009). Defining excessive pay: Investor case may hint at high court approach to compensation. Washington Post; Nov, 1st 2009. Black, J. , (2009). ‘Green’ cuisine not always as ordered: Founding Farmers still strives for goal of ‘sustainable’ food. Washington Post; Dec 7th, 2009. Kang, C. , (2009). A new kind of company, a new challenge for feds. Washington Post; 27th, 2009.