Reflective Exercise (Part 2)

Order Description

Reflective Exercise (Part 2)
Due Date: Sunday, Week 12
Weight: 15%
Review your first Reflective Journal discussion. Address the following questions:
1. How do you now view and evaluate the approach you took to resolving the moral scenario when you first confronted it?
2. How would you approach this scenario if you confronted it for the first time now? Has your approach to deliberating about moral challenges like this one changed?
??

This is my first Reflective Journal discussion that you have review:

PHIX242 Practical Ethics
Reflective Journal Part 1

Introduction
Every day, individuals are faced with situations that are conflicting when making a choice resulting to a moral dilemma. Pojman (2009) defines a moral dilemma as a conflict which manifests itself in making a choice between two or more actions with a moral implication. Using philosophical approach in dealing with the ethical issues is advantageous since it avoids the authoritarian basis of law. Further, it lacks the irrationality and subjectivity associated with cultural and personal moral views (Morais, 2011).
Recall
During the holiday period, I volunteered to work in a local organization that serves the orphans and less privileged in the society. The organization’s primary mission was to provide basic needs such as food and clothing to local persons who could not afford to sustain themselves. The top executives could apply for government grants and funds from donors to enable them to run the daily operations smoothly. Further, the firm was sponsored by prominent businessmen hence it had funding to support the local community. However, the organization was mandated to account for all the funds received to ensure the money was used for the intended purpose.
The chief accountant was a close friend and one day it came to my attention that the Company had two sets of accounting records. One set of financial records were used when the donors visited to ensure they presented an excellent picture of the organization. However, the real records were used by top managers only as they embezzled and misappropriated funds meant for orphans and the needy. After confronting the chief accountant, he made it clear that it was impossible to stop the managers as it would lead to termination of his employment.

Reflect
Finding the solution to the situation was hard and tricky as it required choosing between the needs of the poor and the job of my dear friend. However, using the deontological and teleological ethics, it was possible to come up with a viable solution. Darwall (2008) highlights that a deontological approach is a duty-based ethics that address the motives behind a particular action. It focuses on whether the action is done in good faith rather than the consequences. Reamer (2013) highlights that the teleological approach concentrates on the consequences of a certain action and whether it results in a greater good. Due to the delicacy of the matter, it was important to identify a different approach to ensure it was successful. Additionally, top officials involved were powerful and, thus, it necessitated undertaking the matter with caution.
First, it was important to convince the chief accountant of the need to report the top managers to relevant authorities for their immoral actions. The accountant was not ready to lose his job since it was the only source of income. In his work, Morais (2013) notes that integrity and honesty are important values that one should maintain in dealing with moral tricky situation. Convincing the chief accountant to uphold such values was tricky. However, using the teleological approach, it was easy to make him understand that the greater good of the community was more important than keeping his job. Our visit to the internal affairs was successful since we had relevant documents to prove the embezzlement of funds by the top managers of the organization.
The authorities contacted relevant sponsors and donors to stop sending funds until all the corrupt officials were replaced. Furtherance, our identity was never disclosed; hence we retained our positions without fear of being sacked by unscrupulous managers. One month later, new officials were appointed to lead the organization in a transparent way and help in fulfilling its mission. Our approach to the situation was successful since all the executives involved in fund embezzlement were laid off.
Evaluate
Applying the deontological and teleological approaches was helpful in making the decision concerning the misappropriation of funds. The strategies aided in focusing on the greater good of the society and how the poor would benefit by solving the situation in an ethical manner (Pojman, 2009). The applicability of both deontology and teleology ethics is possible in future due to the different moral situations that individuals face requiring them to make ethically driven decisions (Reamer, 2013). Further, the need to maintain an ethical society will require both approaches in making relevant choices. The approach did not have many drawbacks except for the accountant fear of losing his job.
Following the right procedure of reporting the top managers to the appropriate officials was advantageous since our identities were concealed. The approach is recommendable to anyone facing a tricky moral situation and is interested in solving it ethically. The deontology focus on one’s moral duty to all living things and the golden rule to treat others the way one would like to be treated hence enhancing ethical behavior (Darwall, 2008). Furthermore, focusing on the consequences of situations motivates a person to act ethically and achieve the greatest happiness.
Conclusively, moral scenarios can present themselves differently in individual’s life. Using philosophical approach in dealing with the ethical dilemma is advantageous since it avoids the authoritarian basis of law. Applying the deontology and teleology approaches aided in solving the moral scenario involving corrupt officials. The methods helped in focusing on the greater good of the society and how the poor would benefit by addressing the situation in an ethical manner. The applicability of both deontology and teleology ethics is possible in future due to the different moral situations that individuals face requiring them to make ethically driven decisions. Additionally, the need to maintain a decent society will require both approaches in making appropriate choices.

References
Darwall, S. L. (2008). Philosophical ethics. Boulder, Colo. [u.a.: Westview Press.
Pojman, L. P., & Tramel, P. (2009). Moral philosophy: A reader. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
Reamer, F. G. (2013). Social work values and ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Morais, . C. G. J. (2011). Ethical issues and social dilemmas in knowledge management: Organizational innovation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Suggested further reading for essays
PHL242 Practical Ethics Suggestions for Supplementary Reading
NOTE: There are many, MANY collections of practical and applied ethics readings in the Library (and bookstores), including the Blackwell Companion to Applied Ethics, to name just one example. Most of these will have sections on the topics set for the essays, plus extensive reading lists at the end of each section.
You will find a number of such anthologies available electronically through the library: Try the Cambridge and Blackwell databases

Other suggestions are below. Note that you are not expected to read all of these! Many of these are books which we can’t put into e-reserve, but which are included here in case you have access to them. Don’t worry if you don’t – Most journal articles are available electronically through the library. If there’s anything you’d particularly like to read it may be possible to get a Chapter up into e-reserve. Contact the convenor.
Poverty
James Fishkin, The Limits of Obligation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).
Garrett Hardin, ‘Lifeboat Ethics: The Csae against Helping the Poor’, Psychology Today, Vol 8 (1974).
Hugh LaFollette and Larry May, ‘Suffer the Little Children” in World Hunger and Morality. W. Aiken and H LaFollette (eds), Prentice Hall, 1996).
Peter Singer, ‘Rich and Poor’ in Peter Singer, Practical Ethics (2nd Edition (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Peter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalisation (New Haven, CT, Yal University Press, 2002).
Jennifer Trusted, ‘The Problem of Absolute Poverty’ in The Environment in Question: Ethics and Global Issues, David E Cooper (ed) (New York: Routledge, 1992).
Justice and Refugees
Phillip Cole and Doris Schroeder, ‘Justice beyond Borders’, Res Publica, 10, 107- 113, 2004.
Michael Dummett, On Immigration and Refugees, (Routledge, 2001). Michael Dummett, ‘Immigration’, Res Publica, 10, 115-122, 2004.
Matthew Gibney, Ethics and Politics of Asylum: liberal democracy and the response to refugees, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
W. Maley et al. Refugees and the Myth of the Borderless World (ANU, 2002).?Robert Manne, ‘Sending them Home, Refugees and the New Politics of Indifference’, Quarterly Essay, Issue 13, 2004.
Charles Taylor, ‘Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?)’, in Alan C. Cairns et al (eds) Citizenship, Diversity and Pluralism (McGill Queen’s University Press, 1999). Non-human animals

Heta Häyry and Matti Häyry “Who’s Like Us” in The Great Ape Project, P. Cavalieri and P. Singer (eds) 173-182, Fourth Estate, 1993.
A. Guerrini “Cruelty and Kindness” in Experimenting with humans and animals: from Galen to animal rights (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 70-92.
Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (Berkely: University of California Press, 1983.
Paul W. Taylor “Is It Logically Conceivable for Animals and/or Plants to Have Moral Rights” in Respect for Nature, Paul W. Taylor, 245-255, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Mary Anne Warren, ‘Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position’, Between the Species 2, No 4 (Fall 1987), pp. 433-441.
The Environment
DesJardins, J.R. Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000).
Dale Jamieson, A Companion to Environmental Philosophy (2001)?Andrew Light and Avner De Shalit, Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003)
Holmes Rolston III, ‘Humans Valuing the Natural Environment’, in Environmental Ethics: Duties to an d Values in the Natural World (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988. Reprinted in Barbara Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Fourth Edition, Thomson, Wadsworth: Australia).
Holmes Rolston III, “Challenges in Environmental Ethics’ in M. Zimmerman (ed), Environmental Philosophy,3rd edition (New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 2001). Reprinted in Lawrence M. Hinman, Contemporary Moral Issues, Pearson, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2006).
Just War
Jean B Elstain, Just War Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1994.
Douglas P. Lackey, ‘Pacifism’ from Lackey, The Ethics of War and Peace, Prentice Hall, 1989. Reprinted in James E White, Contemporary Moral Problems (Thomson, Wadsworth: Australia (2006)
Richard B Miller, Interpretations of conflict: Ethics, Pacifism and the Just-War Tradition (Chicago, Univeirsty of Chicago Press, 1991).?William V. O’Brien, ‘The Conduct of Just and Limited War’ in O’Brien, The Conduct of Just and Limited War (Praeger, 1981). Reprinted in James E White, Contemporary Moral Problems (Thomson, Wadsworth: Australia (2006)
Torture:
Alan M. Dershowitz, ‘Is there a tortuous road to justice?’ Reprinted in Lawrence M. Hinman, Contemporary Moral Issues Pearson, Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2006).
David Sussman: ‘What’s Wrong with Torture?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 33, no. 1 2005 pp. 1-33.
Working Party of the British Medical Association “Medical Involvement in Torture” in Medicine Betrayed: the participation of doctors in human rights abuses, London: Zed Books, 1992, pp 33-63.
Capital Punishment (& punishment in general)
Hugo Adam Bedau: ‘A World Without Punishment’ in Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues Fourth Edition 2004 Belmont: Wadsworth pp 314-323.
Hugo Adam Bedau, Death Is Different: Studies in the Morality, Law and Politics of Capital Punishment. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1987.
Jeremy Bentham: ‘A Utilitarian Theory of Punishment’ in Social and Political Philosophy: Contemporary Readings, G. Sher and Brody, (eds) 1999. Orlando: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, pp. 844-852.
Dolinko, David. “Some Thoughts About Retributivism.” Ethics 101, no. 3 (1991): 537-59.
Stephen Nathanson: ‘An Eye for an Eye’ in Social Ethics – Morality and Social Policy 6th edition, T Mappes and J. Zembaty (eds) 2002. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Pojman, LP and Reiman, J, The Death Penalty: For and Against. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.
Helen Prejean: ‘Dead Man Walking’ in Analysing Moral Issues 2002 J. Boss (ed) Boston: McGraw-Hill pp. 298-306.
Ernest Van den Haag, ‘The Ultimate Punishment: A defense’ Harvard Law Review, 99 (1986). Reprinted in Barbara Mackinnon, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Fourth Edition, Thomson, Wadsworth: Australia).