Compare and contrast Kantian Deontology with Libertarianism (2 points). Evaluate these two theories, assessing both the strengths and weaknesses of each theory (2 points). State which theory you prefer, and why (1 point).
Compare and Contrast Kantian Deontology with Libertarianism
Kant’s theory about moral issues attracted many scholars. However, some of them agree while others disagree with his deontological approach concerning ethical issues in the society. Deontology refers to the act of adhering to moral duties, which oblige the community to perform certain ethical and morally correct tasks. Deontology, on the other hand, means that people do the right thing when exercising their duties in relation to the set moral rules adopted or established in the society. If a person accepts the moral rules and duties, his behavior automatically turns into a righteous image, but disobedience to these principles will result in immoral behavior, such as constant lies about something. On the other hand, Libertarianism refers to the acts of existing government allowing its citizens to make their individual decisions without any influence from other parties or government bodies. Individually, libertarianism means that any person has the ability to make internal decisions. Such freedom of actions may motivate them in making fruitful and binding decisions. When comparing Kantian Deontology with Libertarianism, both political philosophies have some similarities and differences in terms of freedom of making a specific decision. Some of the strengths of deontology include:
- Deontology is based on motivation which is more valued, however, it has unforeseen consequences.
- The theory suggests that set humanitarian principles are equal for everyone not depending on their sex.
- The theory extensively reorganizes the moral absolute value of set rules and regulations, which do not change over a long period of time.
- It acts as guideline for individual and social decision making.
Weaknesses of the Theory
- Lack of clear details procedure in order to address how to solve moral duties and conflicts concerning the established rules.
- The theory includes 100% of consequentialist morals.
- No limit is established concerning acceptance and rejection of certain universal moral rules.
- Individuals have a right to control their own actions without affecting the other part.
- People are motivated since they can participate in key decision making in the society.
Limitations of the Theory
- Misuse of individual rights in terms of making personal decision because everyone has his own option which he/thinks is right.
- No team work in terms of agreement on specific set goals.
Compare and contrast Aristotle with Utilitarianism (2 points). Evaluate these two theories, assessing both the strengths and weaknesses of each theory (2 points). State which theory you prefer, and why (1 point).
Aristotle’s theory states that human being has virtual responsibility for being happy and doing the right thing in the right place. This set of virtual principles includes fulfillment of correct task with high level of attention. This type of theory explains that a man should use his capacity of thinking to ensure that he does the right thing. He has to think in a rational way for the sake of making a specific decision, which he must carefully evaluate to ensure excellent outcomes are realized. Man was not created only to live, but to be involved in significant activities. It ensures that everything takes place in accordance with social norms. In conclusion, Aristotle’s theory emphasizes on doing the right thing due to universal rules established. This will only happen if one is guided by moral principles. On the other hand, Utilitarianism states that the society achieves happiness in terms of outcomes of some actions. When the community feels happy about certain action taken, then the action carried out is morally right. But when the society ends in painful consequences due to certain deed, then the action taken is morally wrong. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of the two theories include;
The Strengths of Aristotle’s Theory
- It encourages the internalization before executing any moral action.
- It provides moral rules and regulation support so that the man can take correct moral action.
Weakness of Aristotle’s Theory
It fails to explain in details the virtual responsibilities, which are morally acceptable.
Strengths of Utilitarianism
- It provides greatest benefits to the whole community, but not to a particular individual.
- It provides us with clear structured principle of doing what is good to the society.
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
- It does not take the needs of the minority into consideration.
- It has been proved to be unrealistic because it encourages individuals to act on behalf of others.
Do multinational companies have a social responsibility to ensure that their suppliers do not operate under “sweatshop” conditions?
Multinational companies have key responsibility to ensure that the business follows the business laws, performs ethical practice, and abides by international set norms to ensure smooth practice of business activities. Social responsibility ensures that international companies are accountable for all stakeholders in terms of fair trade, environmental protection, rightful payments of creditors, such as suppliers, and adherence to all set rules and regulations in business enterprise. Multinational companies have social responsibility in terms of creating conducive environment between the companies and suppliers. Suppliers play a vital role in ensuring that the multinational companies are provided with the necessary support, either directly or indirectly. Suppliers are one of the stakeholders in multinational business enterprise whose interest should be addressed first before the companies engage it in other activities. Some of the social responsibilities of multinational companies include:
- Fair and smooth transaction between the companies and suppliers;
- Compliance with suppliers’ norms that were established by international business organizations;
- Environmental protection in which the suppliers operate their activities;
- Creating a strong relationship between the companies and the suppliers;
- Following the policies and transaction models agreed by the two parties.
If the international companies follow the above set social responsibilities to their core partner suppliers, then there will be smooth relationship between the multinational companies and suppliers as one of the stakeholders.
Should corporations be permitted to engage in “unlimited independent political expenditures”? Why or why not?
Unlimited independent political expenditure refers to that kind of expenditure where corporations or companies engage in political afflation by paying for communication bills of certain political event with the aim of being supported by the new government in power. The company allocates huge amount of its resources to certain political party by advertising the company’s messages on radios, television and huge billboards in various towns. Several political leaders have control of some companies, hence, forcing its management to support them not to diminish the operation of the company in future.
In my opinion, it is wrong for corporation to engage itself in such unethical business practice because it destroys a good image of the company. My point of view is that huge amount of money is used for political activities, which would have been applied for other important projects. These finances can contribute to creating more company branches, engaging in social responsibility projects like environment conservation, and paying school fees for needy students. In many cases, most highly ranked corporations have been closed down due to unlimited independent political expenditure. If the political candidate, who supports the corporation, fails in political competition, the company may fail to get required support in its day-to-day activities. In conclusion, companies need to be independent in order to perform its operations without help of any politicians.