The sole responsibility is not completely placed on the veteran, management has a vital role to play as well; however, the veteran is the key factor in introducing and establishing a positive ethical code of conduct. Ethical Relativism Ethical Relativism is defined as the way things are, without suggesting a way things ought to be. Ethical relativism seeks only to the point that Individuals frequently disagree over what is the most ‘moral’ course of action.
In other terms “the descriptive view Is that different groups of people have different moral standards for valuating others or themselves acts as to right and wrong” (Ethical Relativism, 2001). For example, even though different groups of people may have In terms the same basic moral principles, they Just apply these moral principles In a radically different situation. According to the case study Joe who is a correction officer in a juvenile detention center working on a unit that houses Juveniles whom suffer from mental health problems.
While working over the lunch hour supervising the Juveniles, Joe notices a Juvenile named Brian who is believed to have developmental disabilities. Brian was displaying offensive table manners, which was repulsing to other Juveniles. A coworker named Dared rose from the table he was sitting at, grabbed Brian by the collar of his shirt, took him away from the table, took him to the kitchen, returned with a large mixing bowl. Dared informs Brian to scrape what food he had left on this tray into the mixing bowl, takes Brian to the middle of the dining hall.
Dared starts to insult Brain tells him he has disgusting manners, If he wants to eat like a dog, he might as well get down on the floor and eat Like a dog. He also Informed Brian that he as not allowed to get up until he had licked up everything that was in the bowl. The part of the situation that involves ethical relativism is Dared explains to his coworkers that the reason he acted in the manner that he did was to shock him into understanding that the behavior he was conducting was highly offensive. Dared figured that he used “tough love” in the way that he did things; Brian would be less likely to act in this manner again.
The prescriptive view of ethical relativism is that different group of people ought to have different ethical standards for evaluating a tuition as right and wrong. The different beliefs each person has are true in their own respective societies and the different beliefs are not Instances of a basic moral principles (Ethical Relativism). Ontological Ethics Section In viewing this case study from an ontological ethical side, the outcome of the Incident producing a negative result will result In an unethical action.
A positive result from the action produces an ethical action. It is this theory that places the ability to receive positive results from that action determines the classification of hose actions as either unethical or ethical. This theory discourages interfering in the action of the veteran officer because it may affect the potentially positive result sought from the action. According to this theory, the new person took the correct course of action by not interfering in the event at the time it took place.
Deontological Ethics Deontological ethics can be defined as in contemporary moral philosophy that demonology is a types of normative theories, which regards to the choices, which are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. Demonology falls within the domains of oral theories that guides and assess a person’s choices of what they ought to do, what kind of person he or she is, and to guide a person they should be. Deontological ethics according to philosophy, in the ethical theories it places a special emphasis on the relationships between the duties and the morality of human actions (Deontological Ethics, n. . ). Logic and ethics focuses consequently on demonology There is no attempt “in such theories to explicate any specific moral obligations” (Alexander, Moore. 2007). An action “in deontological ethics is considered orally good because of some of the characteristic of the action itself that took place; this is not because the product of the action was good. Deontological ethics holds at least some of the acts are morally obligatory regardless of the consequences for human welfare” (Alexander, Moore. 2007).
Joe is faced with the ethical dilemma; of does he report the actions of his coworker. Joe needs to evaluate the facts of the situation that took place, are the facts relevant, what are Joey’s own ethical and moral about the situation. Although Joe is evaluating the situations, he has to take in to count that he considers that his Job is worthwhile. He believes in professionalism, the code of ethics he had taken, and the rules and regulations. He has a responsibility to make sure that he is responsible for the safety and well-being of the juveniles he is in charge of.
When applying deontological ethics to the situation Joe needs to focus on the act that had taken place, and evaluated, he has two different actions he can take, does he report the issue or does he do nothing about it. The intentions, which are underlying the act, by Joe reporting the situation that had taken lace, the underlying motive of the situation is protecting Brian from any further injury from coworkers, and also protecting other Juveniles from receiving the same type of treatment. By reporting the situation this can also deter Dared and other coworkers from conducting this type of action.
If Joe does not do anything about the situation, he is supporting this type of behavior and is demonstrating loyalty to fellow officers. A duty for all officers within the Juvenile detention center is to protect all juveniles from any kind of mistreatment. They have a duty to support each officer as Eng as he or she is following all the rules and regulations. When making the discussion based upon the deontological ethics one must decide based on the duty and obligations in a rational manner. The consequences are irrelevant; the rules for this type of behavior ought to supersede any other considerations.
When dealing with deontological a person’s moral obligation are often seen as categorical, which lays down the law that must be followed regardless of a person’s individual wants and desires. To analyze different situations it is import to have a knowledgeable and understanding of the event to determine a logical consequence. In Case Study 9. 1 Rough Justice in a Juvenile Institution it is important to examine the existing theory of ethical egoism and determine how it supports or condemns the case study.
When dealing with theories of egoism, an examination of Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism are vital. When thinking about an egoist, they are normally, “self-centered, inconsiderate, unfeeling, and a pursuer of the good things in life, whatever may be the cost to others. Egoists think only of themselves, and if they think about others at al, it is merely as a means to their own ends” (Banks, 2007, p. 337). Egoists typically look for different ways they can benefit from life without the thought from others.
Ethical Egoism entails individuals seeking out only his or hers best interests for self- promotion. The details of ethical egoism also consist of, “extreme self-centered conception, would seem to lose sight of the importance of others, positing a self that can only give instrumental value to others” (Thomas, 1993, Para. 1) and also, “Ethical egoism claims that promoting one’s own greatest good is always to act in accordance tit reason and morality; that is, everyone ought to pursue his or her own self- interest exclusively’ (Banks, 2007, p. 38). The accomplishment of this is through self- promotion and by using others for self-benefit. With an unfortunate occurrence in case study 9. 1 with Joe witnessing unacceptable behavior from Brian and Dared, set many questionable ethical decisions for each character. Joe witnessed inappropriate behavior with Brian at the dinner table, and the reaction of Dared to Brian. As a reaction to the inappropriate behavior of Brian at the dinner table Dared dumped Briar’s food into a bowl and had Brian eat from it on the ground like a dog.