Recent orders
Universal Ethics
Universal Ethics
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Universal Ethics
The debate between ethics universalists and relativists is still going on without a clear resolution. On the side of the universalists, they perceive human beings as being defined by a set of common fundamental characteristics that cross the boundaries of cultures. On the other hand, ethics relativists perceive cultures as providing context for morality and ethical principles. As a result, a practice considered as being unethical in one culture might be excused or even embraced in a different culture due to the context that culture provides for the understanding of ethical principles. However, globalization is defining how we are defining culture. Through facilitators of globalization such as technology, internet, and social media platforms, the concept of culture is changing at a rapid pace due to cultural exchanges and cultural assimilation (Hester & Gray, 2020). As a result, more cultures are overlapping. As the overlapping continues to take place, a global culture might be established in the future, in which it would be necessary to perceive ethical principles from a universal point. Despite the cultural diversities, it is possible to codify universal ethics by basing them on fundamental principles of humanity. It is such as conceptualization of ethics that the idea of globalization must be founded on for it to be successful.
Moral relativists believe that morality should be derived from culture instead of from universal ethics. For example, some consider lying to be acceptable in certain situations and others do not. The moral relativism perspective justifies that people’s moral views are based on their social and cultural backgrounds. Moreover, moral relativism argues that since individuals have different experiences and cultural upbringing, they have different views on what is right or wrong at the same time, making it difficult to set a universal standard of ethical principles (Forsyth, 2019b). On the other hand, universal ethics states that there are absolute standards that can apply across cultures because they are grounded in fundamental characteristics shared by all human beings such as rationality and autonomy. Therefore, the universal perspective helps to show how a fundamental principle such as rationality can be codified to become an applicable universal ethics. The relative application of rationality should only be maintained as long as there are distinct cultural boundaries (Hester & Gray, 2020). When such boundaries finally dissolve as a result of a meta-process such as globalization, universal ethics can be defined beyond the fundamental principles to include precise details of governing and judging actions.
By being open to the idea of universal ethics, it makes it easy to shun activities that are generally considered as being unethical. A great example is how Nazism has received universal criticism. Instead of allowing wrong actions to continue within a particular community or culture simply because relativism allows for the possibility of a difference in ethics and morals, fundamental principles such as sanctity of human life regardless of culture, race, gender, religion, or sex create a template of judging actions that are obviously unethical (Hester & Gray, 2020). It is necessary to create such principles so that it is possible to create universal ethics.
Universal ethics can be defined and applied by utilizing the concept of cultural relativism. The use of cultural relativism to antithesis those who believe that they should adhere to their culture and ignore those who are outside of the particular culture will lead to moral unification. Since a majority of people in the world are culturally unified, being able to create universal ethics based on a concept such as cultural relativism would help people develop a common conscience of morality without conflicts between cultures and values (Schein, 2020). The underlying principle of ethics is that it requires consensus of a people that is unified to agree on what actions should be considered as being right or wrong. Cultural relativism acknowledges the existence of such unification and consensus within the context of a community or a particular culture. The universal ethics perspective extends the unification and consensus to a global context.
Some people might argue that it is impossible to apply a universal set of ethical principles because they are too difficult to find a consensus upon. The universal ethics perspective eliminates the problem of ambiguity by grounding universal ethics in concepts such as rationality and autonomy that are universally shared by all human beings regardless of culture. These fundamental characteristics can be used to codify standards of moral reasoning, which in turn will reduce the probability that a person’s actions are labeled as being wrong or right simply based on their differences in cultural heritages (Forsyth, 2019a). Once a set of valid standards is established, the sources of knowledge can be used as foundations for establishing qualitative and quantitative judgments related to how well an action matches or does not match with these standards.
One of the most important benefits of universal ethics is that it creates a global consensus of morality. The existence and use of universal ethics help to ensure that all people are able to work together in order to make the world a better place, which can be argued as being the ultimate goal of multiculturalism (Beal, 2019). However, it is necessary for there to be a universal concept of ethics in place so that no one would claim that they have their own moral standards and values while ignoring everyone else’s, making universal ethics an essential prerequisite for achieving global citizenship. Furthermore, applying universal ethics toward social change can unify communities by taking away the divisive factor caused by relativism.
The viability of universal ethics can be judged from the success of democracy. Most countries are currently practicing democracy at different levels. There are countries which have governments that function almost as pure democracies. Even those countries which do not formally acknowledge practicing democracy, they have various concepts of democracy such as allowing the citizens various freedoms, rights, and protections. Based on the ubiquity of a concept such as democracy, it shows that the idea of the existence of a universal system of ethics is plausible (Schein, 2020). Such a global adoption of democratic principles has led to the development of universal human rights. Today, there are numerous human rights that protect the various aspects of an individual such as the right to life, fair trials, citizenship and privacy. These are enforced by international bodies such as the United Nations and other governmental agencies where they can be overseen (Hester & Gray, 2020). Most importantly, almost all countries support these universal human rights. Citizens of these countries accept and support these concepts where they think that these rights are beneficial to them and cannot be violated. This can be seen when they protest and cause various demonstrations at the various governmental institutions and agencies which violate their human rights.
The foundation of universal ethics can also be judged from various treaties and law. Countries which have ratified these treaties and laws are bound to comply with them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first universally accepted code of ethics in the world. This declaration is also supported by virtually all countries in the world where it is ratified by them. In addition, there are also global bodies such as the United Nations enforcing these rights and laws for member countries to comply with them (Beal, 2019). There are international laws that deal with issues such as terrorism, climate change, and genocide. These laws are set forth by majority vote from the members of the United Nations which make sure that most countries comply with these laws and rules. Therefore, a large population accepts that globally the concept of universally ethical behavior is a plausible concept.
References
Beal, B. (2019). What are the irreducible basic elements of morality? A critique of the debate over monism and pluralism in moral psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619867106
Forsyth, D. R. (2019a). Ethics in context. In Making Moral Judgments (pp. 143–163). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429352621-8
Forsyth, D. R. (2019b). The Geography of Ethics. In Making Moral Judgments (pp. 123–142). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429352621-7
Hester, N., & Gray, K. (2020). The moral psychology of raceless, genderless strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619885840
Schein, C. (2020). The importance of context in moral judgments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904083
UNIV 1213 Leadership and Teamwork
UNIV 1213: Leadership and Teamwork
NAMES
XXXXXXXXX ID# XXXXXXXX Mechanical Eng.
XXXXXXXXX ID# XXXXXXXX Mechanical Eng.
XXXXXXXXX ID# XXXXXXXX Mechanical Eng.
Assignment 4
Creating a Proposal Using Performance Team or Workgroups
Criteria Assessment Rubric for Group Written Report SCORES
Introduction Contains thesis statement, justifies why assignment is important, a supporting reference, outlines the body topics (R) 3%
DAPEE model Outlines the DAPEE steps that your proposal will cover (R) 2%
The project Describe the problem or project that is the focus of your proposal 2%
Analyzing the project Describe a SWOT analysis with 5 points for each letter. (R) 4%
Planning the solution Workplan diagram showing tasks and deadlines, description of the workplan, types of groups used, and the division of tasks (R) 5%
Executing the plan Describe when the group will meet, reporting structures, and how the group will ensure all tasks are completed on time (R) 2%
Evaluating the results Discuss likely obstacles your group will face, how you will handle social loafing, and how you will maintain group cohesiveness (R) 2%
Conclusion Thesis statement is restated, key points from the report are summarized 3%
Mechanics Punctuation and spelling and capitalization are correct, words are well chosen, writer uses own words, use of headings, topic sentences, first person, full sentences, no bullet points, follows guidelines 4%
References Contains at least 3 relevant references 3%
TOTAL 30%
Comments:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL SCORE (OUT OF 10):________________________________________________________
Introduction
There are number of times where we come to college and find ourselves in a bind where we have forgotten a notebook, pen, or calculator. It is very hard to go back to the house to bring it or much worse to attend the lecture without the required students’ materials. Our group realized this issue and decided to help PMU’s students and the university by establishing university stationeries’ business inside PMU’s campus. The first step toward this goal is to complete the business plan proposal. Campbell (2008) said that the business proposal must make a favorable impression and must explain all aspects of your proposed concept clearly and quickly in order for the business idea to be accepted. Our business proposal will cover the problem solving using DAPEE model, project details, project analysis using SWOT analysis tool, planning the solution, plan execution, and plan evaluation.
The DAPEE Model
Problem solving techniques is one of the most important steps that management or groups have to consider. The basic structure of a problem solving strategy has five components that are referred to by the acronym DAPEE. It means Define, Analyze, Plan, Execute, and Evaluate. Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson & Jundt (2005) mentioned that effective groups are able to define the problem, gather information, evaluate that information, and devise a strategy to accomplish its mission.
The Project
The project that we are planning to propose is a university stationary supply in campus. This is to solve two problems in the same time. The first problem is that faculties have to wait for a long time before they receive their office supplies. The second issue is that the university is far away from nearby suppliers and this business will solve students’ problem and make their necessary materials available in campus. This stationary shop will be directly linked to the university main system through a business-to business shopping interface. This will allow faculties and employees to order their supplies directly from our business and guarantee the delivery will be in the same day.
Analyzing the Project
We are going to use a SWOT analysis model to analyze our business. Tatum (2009) defined SWOT as one of several strategic planning tools that are utilized by businesses and other organizations to ensure that there is a clear objective defined for the project or venture. The process of SWOT involves four areas of thought: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This business is going to be a successful business for the following reasons. The first one is that there are no competitors on campus. The second reason is that this business is desperately needed to accommodate the increasing demand for office supplies. The third reason is the business location will be provided by the university; therefore, we will save the location rent budget. The fourth is the internet services and telephone lines will also be provided by the university which is also another saving from the capital budget. And finally, our business will save time and money for both students and the university.
We anticipate some weaknesses for this business such as limited customers. Because we only depend on a single source customer of our business, therefore, our profit will always be limited. Another weakness is that the location is too far from the city; therefore, we will have to provide transportation for our employees to and from the business location. Also the storage area for our supplies is going to be limited and we will not be able to store big quantities. Finally, the working hours will be limited to the university working schedule.
There are some business opportunities waiting for this business. This is a new idea and it can be implemented in other universities in the eastern province as well. This business can start joint ventures with major suppliers in the province such as Jareer bookstore and Al Maktabah. This business has an opportunity to expand and to outreach to include laptops and computer accessories.
As there opportunities for this business, there are also threats. One of these threats is that PMU may charge renting fees for the business location. Another threat is that PMU had an experience of similar business but it was outsourcing the bookstore which failed and PMU had to cancel the contract.
Planning the Solution
First we divided the tasks into three parts. Each part will be assigned to one primary member and one backup member of the group. According to table 1 (Task Assignment & Deadlines), dealing and negotiating with PMU in regards to our business will be assigned to Jabbar and backup will be Mohammed. All the government affaires and obtaining the correct paperwork will assigned to Naif and the backup is Jabbar. Finance, human resources, and all money matters and will be assigned to Mohammed and the backup is Naif. Once paperwork is completed, Naif and Jabbar will be responsible for dealing with suppliers and signing supply contracts. The plan is to have the business up and running within nine months which is the beginning of Fall Semester 2010. The reason is that the target opening date will be a memorable date which is 10-10-2010. Jabbar and Mohammed will make sure that all PMU faculties and employees are trained and ready to use the new system using a training system before the go life date on August 1st. The plan is to have business operational one month before the opening date to make sure no surprises on the grand opening. The team has set a backup plan just in case the business face challenges. The backup plan will be activated after two years if the business does not give 100% profit. An indicator will be set from the beginning to monitor the source and the value of profits.
Name Task Deadline % Completed Remarks
Jabbar
&
Mohammed Submit business proposal Jan-16-2010 Assign business location Feb-01-2010 Users requirement package Feb-15-2010 IT systems installation May-01-2010 IT final testing & acceptance Jul-01-2010 System Training & workshop Agu-01-2010 Opening preparations Sep-10-2010 Mohammed
&
Naif Finance Jan-30-2010 Set up budget Feb-01-2010 Logo & slogan May-01-2010 Staff uniform Jul-01-2010 Generate revenue indicators Aug-01-2010 Employment Sep-01-2010 Employees transportations Oct-01-2010 Naif
&
Jabbar Government license Feb-13-2010 Identify potential suppliers Mar-01-2010 Submit requirement forecast Apr-10-2010 Signing contracts May-01-2010 Brochures Jun-12-2010 Business supply catalogue Jun-12-2010 Advertisements Aug-07-2010 Opening perpetrations Sep-10-2010 Table 1 (Task Assignment & Deadlines)
Executing the Plan
The group will be led by Saif and will have a nine month plan. Each month the group will meet once for the first five months on the first Saturday of the month to discuss the development and status of every group. For the last four months of the plan, the group will meet twice a month as this stage become more critical. The meeting will be set on every other Saturday of the month in order to measure our readiness for the opening date. The table above has a progression percentage indicator that the group leader will maintain and update after each meeting. Written reports must be presented by every member each time we meet. The team leader will continuously work with group members between meetings to make sure that things are on the right track.
Evaluating the Results
The most likely issue that the group might be facing is that two members are already working which will cause problem with finding the extra time to accomplish their assigned tasks. The team has agreed to socialize every Thursday night and bring families together which will maintain group cohesiveness and increase bond between team members and also their families. Social loafing can be a problem in teams; however, this is not going to be an issue with our team members because of the frequent status update and the percentage completion of each task. Also the team leader will maintain positive communication in regular bases and keep the spirit up.
Conclusion
Surfing lack of supplies can be very frustrating for some people. Universities’ stationeries are often consumed at a very high rate and shortage can cause operational impact. A stationery business inside PMU campus will solve such issue and maintain positive learning atmosphere. The team has used the DAPEE model in order to solve PMU persistent problem with its office supplies. Utilizing an international problem solving tool such as the DAPEE model gave this solution power and strength. The team also utilized another international project analysis tool SWOT which explored a wider view of strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats of our business. This proposal is an excellent opportunity for both PMU and business owners and benefit will be optimum.
References
Campbell, J. (2008). 11 Tips for Writing a Business Proposal. Retrieved January 09, 2010, from http://www.officinado.com/news/latest/11-tips-for-writing-a-business-proposal.html
Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M. & Jundt, D. (2005). Team in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models, Annual Review of psychology, 56, 517-543
Tatum, M. (2009). What is SWOT Analysis. Retrieved January 09, 2010, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-swot-analysis.htm
United States V. Jones
United States V. Jones
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u II. Legal Background PAGEREF _Toc381192731 h 1The Oral Arguments PAGEREF _Toc381192732 h 1The Ruling PAGEREF _Toc381192733 h 2III. The Court’s reasoning PAGEREF _Toc381192734 h 3IV. Analysis PAGEREF _Toc381192735 h 3V. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc381192736 h 4
II. Legal Background
In 2004, Antoine Jones the owner of the nightclub in Columbia was investigated for narcotics violation by the joint Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Metropolitan Police Department. While the two bodies were carrying out the investigation, the Global Positioning System (GPS) device was installed on his Jeep Grand Cherokee to monitor his vehicle for about 28 days without a warrant. Because of that, the court required the parties to address the issue and find out whether it was right to use a warrantless tracking device on the respondent’s vehicle in monitoring the movement on public streets since it violated the Fourth Amendment. Jones however argued that installations of GPS tracker on his car violated his expectations of privacy and the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable search. In August 2010, Jones issue was overheard by the Court of Appeals in the United States overturning Jones’s conviction regarding the FBI action since it violated his privacy. In this case, the court’s decision became the subject of the significant legal debate.
The Oral ArgumentsIn June 2011, the Court of Supreme had two questions to be resolved regarding the parties involved. The first task was to find out whether installing a tracking device on the respondent’s vehicle without a warrant to monitor Jones movements on the public streets violated a Fourth Amendment. The second task was to find whether the Fourth Amendment right was violated by the government by installing a tracking device on Jones vehicle without a valid warrant and his consent. Various investigations were carried out, among those who were involved in the investigation was Michael Dreeben, the Deputy Solicitor General who argued that, movement on the public road has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment hence it was not protected. Dreeben gave an example of the United States and Knotts where the police used a beeper device that tracks cars that were in a shorter distance. The case was distinguished by the chief justice who said that using beepers takes a lot of time, but GPS devices only allows the investigators to sit back in a given station while pushing the button to find where the vehicle is. Many people gave out different arguments regarding the issue of United States v. Jones. According to Justice Scalia, installation of GPS device on Jones was a trespass since the device was installed against the owners’ will exposing the owner to insecurity against unreasonable seizure as well as search. Dreeben on the other hand also agreed that, it was an act of trespassing since the Fourth Amendment was to protect the privacy interests of people, but not to cover the technical trespasses (Jim, 2012).
The RulingIn 2012, the court of supreme held that, by the Government trying to install GPS device on respondents’ vehicle was a search and was under the Fourth Amendment. However, some people wrongly interpreted court holding that the investigation actions were unconstitutional by not obtaining the search warrant to install a tracking device to the suspect’s car. Conversely, the majority argued that GPS device installation was the Fourth Amendment of search and this declined to know whether search required a warrant.
III. The Court’s reasoning
In United States v. Jones, the court reasoning concerning the case was passed in 2012, where the Supreme Court argued out that the installation of the GPS device by the Government on the respondent vehicle to monitor movement was as a result of investigation that constituted a Fourth Amendment. The Government also argued that, it would be reasonable if only the Government had used the device for a search, however it forfeits since to Jones, it was done warrantless without his consent. The Supreme Court also holds that, the use of GPS device that monitors movements is viewed as a search in the Fourth Amendment only if the evidence happened to be used against the person having interest in monitoring a property. Conversely, for a search to be a constitutional one, the search has to be supported with a cause that is probable as well as conducted pursuant to the warrant requirements. The U.S. Supreme court on the other hand failed to address if the warrant was required to monitor the device, the warrant can only be advisable unless the exigency is demonstrated. The court also argued that, it would be wise to consider the people being monitored by the tracking device have privacy even if they fail to have interest in the property or an issue that is subjected to the search.
IV. Analysis
In United States v. Jones, the Court of Supreme seized that, the installation of the GPS device by the Government to track the respondents’ vehicle movements is under the Fourth Amendment of a search. Most people misinterpreted the court holding that the FBI actions were not constitutional by failing to obtain the warrant extended search, instead trespassed by attaching the tracking device to monitor the movement of the suspect on his car. The majority of people on the other hand, held that, the GPS device installation followed the Fourth Amendment Search; however it only failed in showing whether the search had a warrant and was reasonable (Lisa, 2013)
Justice Samuel Alito who authored other four justices also agreed with the decision made by the Supreme Court, but not t the majority opinion. Samuel argued against the trespass reliance under modern circumstance, and therefore, the search in Fourth Amendment failed to apply to the scenario of United States v. Jones. Samuel being among the four justices was the only person who thought that monitoring of an individual’s movement continuously for 28 days could have violated the suspects’ privacy that constituted a search. He further explained that a one month surveillance of the movements of a person is exceptionally demanding requiring more resources.
V. ConclusionDespite the fact that the ruling was based on the Government Supreme Court committing the trespass, it is clear that, the court justices who are the majority found a search that had occurred in a situation that is identical but without trespass. For example, let’s take a case where the government happened to continuously monitor the movement of the car using the installed GPS device; it would have been likely that the Supreme Court would find that as a result of a long term GPS device surveillance which occurred violating an individual expectation of privacy (Jim, 2012). Conversely, the court on the other hand stood firm by holding that the installation of the GPS device was a search under the Fourth Amendment, despite the fact that some of the majority of court declined questioning whether the search required a warrant.
Works cited
Judge, Lisa . “Implications for Other Technologies as Courts Apply Jones to GPS Cases.” The Proffesional Voice of Law Enforcement. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2704&issue_id=72012>.
Harper, Jim. “U.S. v. Jones: Fourth Amendment Law at a Crossroads | Policy Report | Cato Institute.” Cato Institute | Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace. N.p., 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. <http://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2012/us-v-jones-fourth-amendment-law-crossroads>.