Does anyone know anything about Ehics?? :S

[RootBoi]

Hi, guys.. I usually wouldn't ask, but ethics is really not my field and I got a paper I gotta write for my final semester of my bachelor in ETHICS. Just so you know I'm doing a business degree, this is just one of these required subject that are part of the course..

Aaaanyways long story shot, If Aanybody knows Aanything about Aany of these topics (leaving my options still open

) and can give me any hints on what I should research for it, I would greaaaaatly appreciate it. I know it looks lazy, but that's not it.. i just literally don't even know where to begin googleling or starting this paper. I don't really know what is important to the topic in most of these questions, since they are a bit broad.
So here are the questions from which i gotta choose one:
1. Conservationists say we need to reduce our use of natural resources radically if we are to avoid destroying the planet. Others say that we cannot deny developing countries the same access to resources as is enjoyed by developed countries. These two positions seem to be mutually exclusive. Which side of this ethical debate would you support and why? Use ethical theories to inform your answer.



2. “management requires of mangers that they both oppress others (the ‘workers’ whom they ‘manage’) and are themselves oppressed”

(Harding 2003:1)



Oppression is not ethical because it denies human beings some of their basic rights. Using examples and ethical theory, defend or dispute Harding’s claim in the above quote.



3. How might ethical frameworks such as feminist, care and postmodern ethics which are not based on rational, objective rules and principles offer a more appropriate way to resolve individual workplace ethical dilemmas? Use examples to illustrate your answer.



4. To what extent should we accept a western multinational corporation offering lower standards of pay and working conditions in less developed countries? Does the adage “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” apply in this context?



I am leaning towards number 2 or 4, but have no idea how to make it sound like i am talking ethics and not business :S....


The paper is only 2000 words, so I gots to be selective with what i want talk about. THANX BEFORE HAND!!!!!! U have no idea how blank these questions left me.. and i usually am not somebody to be lost for words

I

 

[Zexis]

Were it me I'd opt for number 2. I don't know much about "ethical theories" but I'd find it easy to support the quote. Like in a democracy, it is important for the manager to hold a degree of sway and power over those under him to keep them in line. Equally important, however, is the unified ability of the workers to revolt and defy management when management has evolved into a tyrannical being. There's a necessary power struggle that keeps everyone in line. The "oppression" is justified because it forms a sort of Yin and Yang relationship and is an acceptable way of keeping peace and order on both sides of a work environment.

That's my $.02, anyways.

 

[Arcella]

I'd probably select option one because there are so many topics within it (as you said these questions are very broad) that could be brought up for your discussion and research.

Look at oil, coal, water, food, metals, rare earth (Link to Article on Rare Earth), etc. and their usages in developing versus developed countries. I mean, if you really want to get historical about the notion of privileged versus non-privileged countries, take a look into "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. The theory is essentially that the reason why Europe is in such a better position developmentally over other countries are because of the greater access to more and better natural resources. There is also a documentary made on the book/theory.

In terms of relating all of this to ethical theories, pick a side of the argument you agree with and then apply normative ethics to it and analyze the discussion through that focus of morality and use Welfarism (well being of developing countries over the established demeanor of developed countires), Deontology (is it their right or duty to be allowed to use the same resources?), Egoism (are developed countries too interested in their development and now the environment to even grant the right of using harmful/limited resources to developing countries?), or Utilitarianism (who will be affected greater by the choice you've made-the developing country or the people rationing the resources/supporters of conversation).

Hope I helped!

Let us know how this all turns out, okay?!

 

[Star Bright]

I'm not sure I can answer any of these, but I question the mutual exclusivity of #2.
Anyways, moving this out of forum games. *shifty eyes*

EDIT: And by number 2, I totally mean number 1.

 

[RootBoi]

thanx everybody! Really helped getting my thought process rolling... I decided to go for number 1, since I can talk alot about global warming and i can use consqeuentialism as well deontological theories would handle the issue differently and what a manager, following one of these or a combination of both, would do.
again thanx!!