Attachment preview1. Is it ethical under utilitarianism to use such non-disclosure agreements?

2. Is it ethical under Kant/deontology to use such non-disclosure agreements?

Ethical Analysis. In many states, employers who reach a financial settlement with an employee regarding a claim of sexual harassment in the workplace can require the employee to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The financial settlement means the employee who claims to be a victim of sexual harassment accepts money in exchange for filing a lawsuit. The NDA agreement, part of the settlement agreement, means that the employee, even after leaving the company, cannot reveal the identity of the individual or the company involved in the harassment or any details that would lead to public recognition of the identity of the individual or the company. In many states, this kind of non-disclosure agreement is legal and many companies favor these NDA agreements where employees claim sexual harassment occurred at work. 1. Is it ethical under utilitarianism to use such non-disclosure agreements? 2. Is it ethical under Kant/deontology to use such non-disclosure agreements? Be sure to review and use the ethics notes document on the module for Law and Ethics. You may briefly add your own view as CEO (using any other approach) at the end but you will only receive credit for application of the above two approaches. There is a sample problem analysis on Canvas that offers samples of legal analysis and ethical analysis. Recommended Page limit: One page, single-spaced. Estimated length for concise writers: two paragraphs, 7 sentences per paragraph, still probably over half a page. IF you write more, I will read it (ie 2 pages) but make sure your work is organized, not repetitive and so forth. Nanette Clinch Notes on ethics. There are many ethical approaches that aid in illuminating what is right and wrong. You will be required to understand and apply these: Aristotle/virtue Kant/deontology Utilitarianism (one form of consequentialism) Consequentialism emphasizes outcomes and effectiveness; the end often justifies the means. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. Here is the Utilitarianism formula designed to maximize happiness when all parts of the formula (three)are addressed: 1 Identify some thing or action that has utility (the thing is not necessarily a ‘good’ in itself ‘good’ but could ‘lead’ to goods for society—never for a sole individual). A tree is a good in itself; paper, which destroys trees, is not a good in itself but could lead to goods etc. Light bulbs, movies, food trucks, organic carrots, offering all airplane passengers a blanket and pillow. Benefits offer some kind of happiness (pleasing to the senses (food), inspiring (travel, poetry, dance), mood (humor, excitement), improving skills (education), increasing health or safety. Note that people (employees, customers, etc) can never be a social utility. Making money is not a social utility. If money is made, it is usually made because people want money to pay for social utilities: insurance, washing machines, land.)What might make an individual happy is not a ‘social’ utility: it has to be a ‘social’ utility, not an individual one. Recognize that providing jobs and increasing personal income (Through wages or customer savings or investment) can be relevant to #2 below (maximizing the benefits of the social utility). But they are not relevant for #1. After identifying the social utility, explain why it is socially useful. Explain the social utility. What is the social utility of light bulbs, etc. Utilitarianism never defines happiness: that is up to the individuals in a society. A majority of individuals are not needed to define what is ‘social’. Not everyone likes or approves of fast food or gambling. There might be a ‘niche’ market for Pac Man sneakers or a magazine about hula hoops. 2. In pursuit of the social utility, identify the benefits and how can the benefits be maximized? Maximizing benefits ideally goes beyond maximizing benefits for consumers or investors; ideally, maximizing benefits maximizes happiness in the community, maybe even society. etc . Maximizing benefits maximizes happiness: job creation is a way to maximize happiness by increasing supply; lowering costs (greater efficiency, more customers enjoying the utility) is another way to maximize happiness, , customer service can maximize happiness etc 3. In pursuit of the social utility, what is the probable/foreseeable harm that results from the social utility and how can the harm be minimized? Remember the ‘harm’ is not any harm that the social utility might be designed to lessen or remove but the harm it will or might cause. Example: a weed killer might address the harm of pests but potentially cause other harm to the environment through its chemicals. #3 would only address the harm to the environment. Utilitarianism does not define utility, benefits, harm or happiness. Those definitions will vary depending on the person applying the formula, but true utilitarianism will strive to address the actual harm and this usually will mean spending money (safety instructions, job loss mitigated by job training in a community. All minimization of harm must consider, above all, trying to maximize happiness delivered by the particular social utility. So when using Utilitarianism: make it clear how ‘each’ of the above three steps is being applied. They are distinctive. Kant/deontology (the end cannot justify the means): remember these four criteria: One: use the Categorical Imperative: Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. What should be the ‘universal’ rule that all humans would rationally agree should be followed for the best sort of human life?. Use empathy as well as rational deliberation. Consider the evidence, logical reasoning, not just personal preferences. Two: When presented with a dilemma that requires a choice/decision: To find the universal law or rules, first use empathy: Identify all the different people and interests affected by adoption of a particular rule that will permit/restrict behavior by creating duties. (Rules restrict freedom). So who are the stakeholders? What are their concerns or interests? A universal rule is never general (do what is best for others is too general. Keep a promise is specific). Not all stakeholders want the same things, and all desires might even seem ‘rational’ or ‘logical’. But all (if rational) in the end would agree on the universal rule you identify. Some stakeholders’ views will reveal the universal rule: what all humans would want if they were in a different position. Three: Be guided by reason (not emotions/empathy. But empathy helps reveal what all ‘humans’ desire (logically). Four: Have a pure motive when trying to determine what is right. Universal rules cannot be determined if one’s motive is lodged in self interest (better profits, public perception etc.) Motives must be directed toward finding the universal rules. Note that sometimes there may be more than one universal rule involved. Sometimes, there could even be a conflict, which means determining which universal rule takes priority. Assume that a CEO realizes the cost of living is rising rapidly so that some employees are losing their homes, but the employees don’t have to be paid more because there are lots of potential employees in the job market. So if some employees have to quit and move elsewhere, others can take their place. The company is very successful and could afford raises and bonuses allowing employees to keep their homes. If the employees are paid more, then the investors, who were promised the company would get the ‘highest returns’, might say the contract is broken. One universal rule is keep promises (contracts). However, what are the other universal rules concerning the dignity of human life in terms of housing? What other stakeholders should be considered and consulted and how would those rules conflict with the keep a promise rule? What do you think Kant would do as the company president? Parents come into store seeking a computer for their 9 year old son. They are looking at a $300 model and a flashier $600 model. Salesperson listens to their needs including their interest in finding a reasonable price without unnecessary extras. “We are on a budget like most people,” they say. The salesperson could recommend a computer for $300 but there is another model for $600, and the salesperson will get a better commission. The store also wants salespeople to push the higher priced inventory. The salesperson persuades the parents to buy the more expensive computer, stating that ‘the $600 model is what they need and talks a lot about how great the features are, which the parents do like (appearance). . Under Kant: universal rule. Tell the truth. The salesperson must explain the $300 computer will satisfy their needs. Under Kant: families need community support. The $300 model suits a family on a budget. Encouraging parents to overspend does not follow a universal rule. Aristotle and the virtues. Aristotle: The end never justifies the means; only an effort to develop virtues for the sake of developing one’s best self and the best community can illuminate what is right. The best sort of life is discovered by practicing the virtues and trying to avoid vice. See the list of some virtues below. One’s best self is a self that has integrity and the purpose of integrity, again, is to serve the community. Integrity is the only way to have a ‘coherent’ life that speaks to one’s ‘natural function’—in modern terms, one’s best human self. Integrity is only possible through the effort to practice (habitually) the virtues to better self and community. The emphasis is on the importance of virtue for the sake of developing the best sort of self for the sake of the community. Those with virtue are better able to recognize what is right and wrong as well as how to ‘deliberate’ to achieve what is right. For Aristotle, those without virtue and engaged in vice are deluded and cannot recognize the truth. Vice distracts from the truth and therefore clouds what is the right ‘end’ and right action. A virtuous person also sets an example (role model); as humans, we should seek to inspire one another in the virtues. All the virtues should be practiced. It is never enough to practice courage and temperance. What happens, for instance, to a police officer or firefighter who is anxious to save people but lacks prudence—the virtue that quickens assessment of a situation to maximize the chances that as many as possible can be saved? Examples of virtues (remember that vices stray from the virtuous mean): Pride: this means ‘praiseworthy’ by the community. This does not mean that the community actually praises the actor. Indeed, the community might find a high, ethical action having cumbersome results, not appreciating how much the decision will contribute to the community welfare. In other words, an anonymous donor of money to a charity would have the virtue of pride but an individual who only projects a reputation for being compassionate (without actually caring about others) would not have the virtue of pride. Not caring about actions that are shameful (even boasting about them) would be a vice; thinking only about ‘what people perceive’-reputation—and not whether one is truly seeking to do good is a vice; focus on the self and selfishness would be vices Humility: This means recognizing human limitations, everyone can make mistakes and everyone can also try to improve. Having a sense of humor about oneself is a sign of humility. Comedy is grounded in the concept of humility: we are allowed to laugh when people fall down. We laugh because we recognize that people do fall down but as humans, sometimes this lets up stand up and experience a wiser and better life. The vice would be arrogance, ego, selfishness, ruthlessness, a readiness to condemn, vilify others without prudence or justice. Temperance: self restraint, resisting too much emphasis on external sources of ‘pleasure’, seeking instead true happiness (eudemonia). (The vice would be intemperance or greed or hedonism—too much emphasis on sensual / physical comforts or denial of such pleasures that becomes an obsession and prevent develop of other virtues (friendship, justice, etc). Courage: This virtue only exists if there is some risk to fear (in personal welfare, reputation, economic or social status), and the risk is taken to achieve what is ‘right’. Vices would be fighting whenever one feels ‘hurt’ (no temperance) or cowardice. Friendship: the virtue of friendship tries to help friends develop their best selves (virtue for the sake of the community) and deter them from vice. Justice: provision of what is merited and deserved that offers ‘balance’ and restoration of harmony through mercy and forgiveness as required to restore harmony. Injustice would be the vice, seeking revenge because it makes one feel pleasure, or allowing wrongs to take place and doing nothing to contribute to justice. Prudence: This is not ‘convenience’ or simple ‘reasonableness’. Prudence requires considerable reflection for it illustrates how practical reason must always take care not to apply ‘rules’ (however universal) without also considering the context, including other virtues and the community. Prudence rests on various virtues including recognition of the virtue of knowledge, which should move toward wisdom. Each decision must examine the context and allow virtue to illuminate what is right. Knowledge is critical to prudence. Aristotle was a philosopher and scientist. One does not run from the truth, even if the truth may appear to be to one’s disadvantage. Magnanimity: Generosity (that is never ‘over the top’—which would be a vice—or too restricted—tight fisted, also a vice)