Ethical Dilemm Conflict Of Interest

In Ruggiero’s book, Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues, he explains that there are three basic criteria for making ethical decision and aiding in moral actions. A moral action is, “one that demonstrates respect for persons by honoring the relevant obligations and ideals and by producing favorable consequences.” (Ruggiero, 81) The three basic criteria are obligations, the moral ideals and consequences. Ruggiero believes that when making a decision, one should first understand the details. Second, one needs to understand the obligations, the moral ideal and the consequences of his or her action. We will furthermore go into each criterion

The treatment of conflicts of interest and other ethical dilemmas that may arise in investment decisions.

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

Sophisticated consequentialism is a hybrid, as it adopts the ideological tenants of both modalities of consequentialism and allows for the nuance of personal relationships to at times, override the adherence to a presumed action based upon the tenants of consequentialism. The sophisticated consequentialist may accept the reality that saving their one true love, is ideologically less beneficial than saving the three strangers, however the consequentialist would also take into the account of their personal feelings and the perceived total good that they may experience with that person over a lifetime as more beneficial than saving a higher quantity of strangers. At this, the sophisticated consequentialist is adopting the subjective consequentialist view of the intent to save one’s love, and experience more moments with them and bring about a higher amount of happiness than saving those three strangers. In this, I believe that sophisticated consequentialism is giving credence and importance to the personal point of view, as a textbook definition of a consequentialist theory would point to saving the

RecusalThe imperative for recusal varies depending upon the circumstance and profession, either as common sense ethics, codified ethics, or by statute. For example, if the governing board of a government agency is considering hiring a consulting firm for some task, and one firm being considered has, as a partner, a close relative of one of the board's members, then that board member should not vote on which firm is to be selected. In fact, to minimize any conflict, the board member should not participate in any way in the decision, including discussions.

Morality, thus, should not be contingent upon conditions or expectations of reciprocity nor should it exclude personal feelings such as love, as it is particularly this characteristic that prevents one from alienation. Railton believes that subjective consequentialism, which requires one to perform before-action deliberate to yield the best consequence, is what produces alienation causing not only “psychological affliction” on oneself, but also to others (137). So, when moral actions become the means for yet another end, one is not acting for the good as an end in itself. Acknowledging the misconception–utilitarian understanding–of consequentialism, Railton expounds upon “sophisticated consequentialism,” which is objective consequentialism in form, but does not endorse subjective consequentialism, leaving space for other forms of decision-making such as love (153). In essence, sophisticated consequentialism is developing dispositions that, ultimately, lead to good, so that one can “allocate” time efficiently, and at the same time able to justify or judge one’s action based on universal morality

Utilitarianism is the concept that “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In summation, the consequentialist theory states, in reference to Dr. Peetush, that morally “good” actions are those that promote “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” For instance, if a utilitarian were faced with the dilemma of having to kill an innocent for the welfare of 100 other innocents, he would justify this action as morally correct as it, according to Hedonic Calculus, quantitatively produces the most benefit for the largest amount of people. Although utilitarianism is seemingly attractive, it is difficult to digest, as there are several key fallacies that unhinge the theory. This paper will criticize utilitarianism via Louis P. Pojman’s “no-rest” and “justice” objections and the utilitarian’s respective rebuttals, followed by further defense against utilitarianism.

Thus the former is morally culpable for the actions of the latter by virtue of being the cause of the action. Opponents of consequentialism argue that negative responsibility, and the consequentialist doctrine as a whole, is unacceptable because it reduces an agent to merely “a locus of causal intervention in the world.” Instead of being people, agents are no more than origin points of cause and effect, and their integrity is forfeit as a result. Although Williams dedicates a significant portion of his paper to illustrating the problem of integrity, he offers no defense against it. In fact, he acknowledges that life-defining projects and integrity exist, agrees that it is absurd to expect an agent to discard them in order to be moral, and then departs from the problem of integrity without further discussion.

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

The last step in making a moral decision is simply making the decision. How one arranges the issues and arrives at this decision depends on one's particular set of values and cultural perspectives, but regardless the values and cultural perspectives of the decision maker, the rights and duties remain the same for any situation. One must learn to look for and identify the appropriate deontological factors. Once these factors are identified, one may use his/her own values in order to determine which factors are the most important. By applying these unique values, one is able to develop the final decision.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Conflict of interest- any relationship, that is not in the best interest of the organization.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.