The Six Moral Standards In Protecting The Interest Of The Community: Analysis Of Queens Company’s Production Of Consumer Electronics And Cancer Research

Utilitarianism and Queens Company’s Promotion of General Welfare

The policymakers of an organization have a duty to take actions that protect the interest of the community (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2014). This can be easier if these business organizations are given the freedom to conduct activities that increase their income (Freeman, 2015). In this case, analysis, I will be using the six moral standards to support the increase of the consumers’ electronics and perusing the research into the cancer threats independently for Queen’s company.

The validity of ethical standards is determined from the line of making decisions which can take back or amended by certain authorities (Murphy and Callaghan, 2011). No need for close monitoring for any organization that applies these moral standards.

The first moral standard to be applied in this case is the utilitarianism. Utilitarianism requires business organizations like Queens to promote the general welfare of other individuals (Fassin, 2012). The utilitarianism is one of the doctrines worth of the actions used in determining the fate of the extreme to which a business organization maximizes its happiness and pleasures of other people. The concept suggests that the competitive business organization are the right in maximizing the happiness and facilitate protection of the rights of the individuals and same time encourage the competition (Jamali, 2008). Many market researchers have proposed that the public policymakers or the government should implement policies that protect the well-being of individuals. This is because companies like Queen has developed its own and qualified researchers who will be able to identify the link between their devices and the censer then they can take various measures (Harrison and Wicks, 2013).

The principle of care is the next moral standard and can be applied to allow the Queens organization to increase its products and research on the dangers of cancer to individuals independently (Miller, Mcadam and Mcadam, 2014). It focuses on improving the rights of other individuals and not individual self like other traditional ethical theories. Any organization that uses this principle will focus on the people other than profits, quality and undertakes the ventures with a lot of care. Restricting the operations that apply this virtue might cause them to withdraw their benefits from the communities around them in order to maximize their income (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010). Queen organization has spent a considerable amount of dollars in raising the standards of the community. For example, the company has highly contributed to developing the infrastructure and urban planning of the Rhabingtom. The company has also offered funds to the city that has been used in forming the international roadway used in transiting systems. This support has made the Rhabingtom one of the most significant technological and manufacturing towns in Canada today. In the past few years, some technology companies in Canada have relocated to Rhabingtom to tap from the headquarters of Queens. Lastly, the Company has also established advanced hospitals, schools, and research institutions and due to this Queens should be given the freedom to increase the electrons to meet all these demands.

Principle of Care and Queens Company’s Community Contributions

The third principle is the virtue of ethics which has been designed in guiding the decisions or actions (Stieb, 2009). Virtue of ethics is based on the choices from the individuals and in this case is centered in the hearts of individuals. The principle focuses on following certain excellent morals which can be transformed into flourishing human happiness. Its fundamental aspect is concentrated on the significances of accepting certain characters which by perfecting them a company becomes explicitly ethical (Bevan and Werhane, 2011). The critical emphasis is put on the active society which is used as a ground of nurturing these virtues of ethics. Thus, this principle proposes that the moral of any individual or business organization does not rely on the guidelines or rules in exercising their moral judgment. That means the Queen’s company must not be monitored by the government in making its decision in increasing its consumer electronics. The company has clearly shown it royalty in the fact that it has privately begun its interest on researching about the production of MB-DP, a chemical used in treating the screens on the queen’s touchscreens. This is a self-decision and has signed an agreement not to release the information about the organization that is producing the chemical to avoid any confusion. The successful emulation and identification of such moral roles are critical in disseminating the morality.

The fourth moral standard is the principle of justice which require an organization or an individual to operate in a manner that treats individuals fairly and equitably. The law governing employment equity in an organization was passed in the year 1984, and the same was repeated in the year 1996. The law does not restrict the operation of the organization but provides the guidelines on various decisions should be made to safeguard the rights of the consumers. For instance, the section 15 charter of the constitution in Canada recognizes that equity needs the disadvantage conditions within an organization to be addressed.The government of Canada has granted the Queen’s company an autonomy and the independent in issues dealing with the IT (Information Technology) with the aim that it will benefit everybody and make Canada the leading state regarding technology. Although, most individuals who have highly benefited from this technology are the children in other part of the world. The primary advantage of the principles of justice is that it allows everyone to share the resources equally. On the other hand, it might become a challenge if perceived as a must for every individual to have an equal share.

Virtue of Ethics and Queens Company’s Private Decision Making

The fifth moral standard is the moral rights. The rights of the workers are the moral rights which can be justified by consideration of the good morals (Cosans, 2009). Moral rights allow the employees to enjoy the rights of protection from certain risks at the workplace. Based on this moral standard, Queen should be given an opportunity to continue producing more electronics, and they do their research independently. This is because in one of the occasions they have shown interest in safeguarding their workers and the community by hiring the environmental researchers to identify the traces of MB-DP which could result in health threat. The chemical and the cancer agent has never been detected, and due to this, it will continue flooding the market with more electronics. The Queen company, however, must make sure the workplace is safe and should train the workers when dealing with possible hazards through supplying equipment that protects them.

The last moral standard or principle of ethics in this case analysis is the Kantianism or deontology. Kantianism acknowledges goodwill as the only thing that can be called good with no qualifications in the world (Au and Kauffman, 2008). Thus, bringing back the case in which Queen should be responsible for the unemployment cases which might result due to the high level of their technology as the result of increasing the consumer electronics. This is because their technology is expanding at a high rate across all sectors and in different parts of the world. For instance, philanthropic initiatives have focused on assisting the education sector through then education. The organization has also provided some sub-Saharan African communities with access to computers and the internet. This will result in the reduction of many employees since many tasks that were manual can be done by technology or electronic devices like computers.

My position in this case analysis has been supporting the Queen company in the production of consumer electronics and research on the threats of cancer independently. This position agrees with Milton Friedman since he proposes that the safety standard for the commodities are not necessary as long as the market will always correct itself (Nelson and Schwartz, 2008). In a competitive market environment, producers will always focus on the quality of their products to increase more customers to counter the hypercompetitive business world. That means, there is no need of government to regulate their operations since it’s a responsibility of the business organization to produce safe products at a specific price (Shleifer, 2009). For example, the Queen organization has started to recognize that they must disclose some of the issues and create awareness to their customers. These issues are like replacing the cellphone calls with the text messages and researching on the glioma which is their primary concern unveil the truth information concerning cancer and electromagnetic radiations. The acknowledgment of the safety was initiated to safeguard their trust with their customers and put off their market competitors. However, some researchers argue that specific products suspected to be unsafe should never be released in the market.

Principle of Justice and Queens Company’s Autonomy in IT Industry

Some individuals do not understand or belief on regulations and legal laws in doing what is wrong or right while others think that business must concentrate on the legal compliances for it to be ethical (Bagley, 2015). This is because the ethics and the laws are very different techniques in such that, on the one hand, going against the law might not always be considered immoral (Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray, 2003). In some cases, breaking the rules could be defensible like the case where the Queen organization is not ready to disclose the information of the company that produces MB-DP or then effect of the chemical to it employees to safeguard the trust of their customers. Thus, the law could be immoral as well as the case of United States patriot act on slavery as an institution. The next thing to consider when the government oversight the operation of the Queens is the self-determination. Countries that enforce some policies might lender private sectors fundamental vectors of the economic development undermines their democracy and self-determination. The reason being, the individuals who make these policies are mostly unelected bureaucrats like the economists, corporate officials and the bankers mainly motivated by their self-interests and not the interest of the community.

 However, concerning the first minimum, the pursuit of the profits is constrained by the role of ethics not to harm. The individuals or business organization should cause no damage but their prima facie part is preventing danger and doing the right thing is supererogatory. The CSR sustainability model does not agree with the idea of having the tension between making the profits and social responsibilities. Social responsibility should form the guideline as they act as the strategic vision of the business organization. The CSR sustainability model, in this case, does not allow government regulations and public criticism for the investors. It’s right in addressing the social challenges which can be an excellent opportunity for finances and in providing the competitive benefits. Thus, no need of restricting Queen organization from conducting the research independently because the central role of their managers is to balance the competing ethical issues. By adjusting the ethical concerns or other interests, the company will be able to offer good values for all its stakeholders.

Conclusion

The Canadian government should not oversight the operations of the Queen’s company. Concerning how they manage their services, I support they continue increasing the productions to meet the demands of their clients and other charity projects. However, the government should encourage the development of other technology companies so as that the company producers will always focus on improving the quality of their products. 

References

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S. (2003) ‘A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development’, Journal of Business Venturing. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4.

Au, Y. A. and Kauffman, R. J. (2008) ‘The economics of mobile payments: Understanding stakeholder issues for an emerging financial technology application’, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2006.12.004.

Bagley, C. E. (2015) ‘Business Law’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.86005-5.

Bevan, D. and Werhane, P. (2011) ‘Stakeholder theory’, in Business Ethics and Continental Philosophy. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139013338.004.

Carroll and Buchholtz (2014) Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, Igarss 2014. doi: 10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.

Cosans, C. (2009) ‘Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics?’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9927-5.

Fassin, Y. (2012) ‘Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1381-8.

Freeman, R. E. (2015) Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139192675.

Greenwood, M. and van Buren, H. J. (2010) ‘Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation-stakeholder relationship’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0414-4.

Harrison, J. S. and Wicks, A. C. (2013) ‘Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance’, Business Ethics Quarterly. doi: 10.5840/beq20132314.

Jamali, D. (2008) ‘A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4.

Miller, K., Mcadam, M. and Mcadam, R. (2014) ‘The changing university business model: A stakeholder perspective’, R and D Management. doi: 10.1111/radm.12064.

Murphy, J. W. and Callaghan, K. A. (2011) Introduction, Toward a Post-Market Society.

Nelson, E. and Schwartz, A. J. (2008) ‘The impact of Milton Friedman on modern monetary economics: Setting the record straight on Paul Krugman’s “Who was Milton Friedman?”’, Journal of Monetary Economics. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2008.01.001.

Shleifer, A. (2009) ‘The Age of Milton Friedman’, Journal of Economic Literature. doi: 10.1257/jel.47.1.123.

Stieb, J. A. (2009) ‘Assessing Freeman’s stakeholder theory’, Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9928-4.