Jeffrey Jabson

PREVAL

Definition: ethics, moral standards, etiquette, law, values

Ethics - moral philosophy or moral science; that branch of philosophy that studies the principles of right or wrong in human conduct.

• a treatise on this science.
• the moral principles which determine the rightness or wrongness of particular acts or activities.
• From Latin, ethicus. Greek, ethikos – customary. From ethos, customary behavior, morals.

Moral Standards – the degree, quality or level distinguished from right or wrong, principles of conduct.

Etiquette – the rules of behavior standard in polite society.

• the rules governing professional conduct.
• Court ceremonial or conventions of official life.

Law – a custom or practice recognized as binding by the community, esp. as a result of having been so decreed by the governing authority.

• the whole body of such customs or practices, the law of the land.
• Obedience to such customs or practices, to maintain law and order.
• Such customs or practices considered as a branch of knowledge.

Values – a principle, quality, etc. that arouses such desires.

Ref. The New International Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language ( deluxe encyclopedic edition )

EGOISM

• In ethics egoism entails that the individual self is either the motivating moral force and is, or should, be the end of moral action.

• Egoism divides into both a positive and normative ethic. The positive ethic views egoism as a factual description of human affairs, that is people are motivated by their own interests and desires. The normative ethic is that they should be so motivated.

Positivist egoism: Psychological Egoism

The positivist egoist, whose theory is called psychological egoism, offers an explanation of human affairs, in effect a description of human nature, which he or she believes to be wholly self-centered and self-motivated. In its strong form the theory asserts that people always act in their own interests, even though they may disguise their motivation with references to helping others or doing their duty.

Normative Egoism: Rational Egoism

The second variant of egoism is normative in that it stipulates the agent ought to promote the self above other values. This theory does not attempt to describe human nature, but asserts how people ought to behave. It comes in two general forms: rational egoism and ethical egoism.

Rational egoism claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason. In the strong version not only is it rational to pursue one's own interests, it is also irrational not to pursue them. In the weak version, it is rational to pursue one's own interests but there may be occasions when not pursuing them is not necessarily irrational.

Normative Egoism: Ethical Egoism

Ethical egoism is the theory that the promotion of one's own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version it is held that it is always moral to promote one's own good and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it claims that whilst it is always moral to promote one's good, it is not necessarily never moral not to do so-that is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.

Conditional Egoism

A final type of egoism is ethically conditional egoism, that is, egoism is morally acceptable or right if it leads to morally acceptable ends. For example, self-interested behavior can be accepted and applauded if it leads to the betterment of society as a whole; the ultimate test rests not on acting self-interestedly but on whether society is improved as a result.

10 Moral Issues in the movie, "John Q"

1. The issue of the child’s right to be subjected to an operation. They (parents) want to obviously save their child but are having serious doubts. Moral rights is concerned, right is defined as; an entitlement to act or have others acts in a certain way.
2. John had to threaten a man with a gun and held him hostage just for his son be operated on and get well. Kant’s ethics or the Kantian theories are involved here, where one does not have to know anything about the likely results of an action in order to know that it is immoral. One may think that what he is doing is right even though it is actually not. Based on the Kantian theory, nothing is good in itself except a good will, so therefore, what John is doing (taking hostage and control of the hospital) and how felt for everyone there still is considered good and correct even though his actions are not right.
3. When John’s intelligence and decision-making were questioned by the police, his ego was bruised. In a way, John may be considered as an impersonal egoist (claim that everyone should follow his/her best long-term interest) for he wanted others or even everyone to follow his stand.
4. John is asking too many things for his son without taking into consideration the others in the hospital. Again the Kantian theory is focused in here, with John not considering the likely results of his actions giving more emphasis and an obvious bias to his son rather that the others in the hospital which, technically speaking are the ones that must be really taken care of.
5. When the girl chose to beat up her boyfriend instead of shooting John when the two were in a brawl or fistfight, she did not think of other’s (the hostages) welfare but of herself only. The girl failed to deliver the "principle of utility" (an action is right insofar as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number) or even the prima facie obligation of duties of beneficence (to make the condition of others better).
6. When John’s wife chose not to file a case against him, simply insisting that the fight they are fighting is worth it even though they punched the wrong punch. Again Kant’s ethics is focused here, where both John and in this case, his wife, acted only out of feeling and maybe self-interest, and therefore their actions have no true moral worth.
7. When the bald police director and a 4-star general were arguing on a tactical move to penetrate the hospital, Frank (the police director) chose to wait it out while the general wants to act immediately and drastically, not taking into consideration the hostages. Once more, it shows Kant’s theory of not knowing the likely results of one’s action.
8. When John is threatening to kill himself, insisting that he can be a donor to save his son and taking into consideration the doctor’s analysis/conclusion. Here, John may be acting out of feeling and even maybe desperation, and his act may be considered good and even heroic, but lucky for him, things turned around.
9. The scene in where a sniper penetrates into the area where John is and ready to go for the kill. Others wonder, is the sniper’s act wrong, to kill at the expense of others? Duty or conscience. The simple answer is, it is his duty to do that…otherwise he is wrong if he didn’t. And during these instances, it is his leader who is held responsible for the act and he is only there to perform his duty or the given task. If John was shot and killed by the sniper, he may be justified by the fact that he was only doing his duty, but one prima facie perspective or obligation tells of duties not to injure others…., more worse to kill.

PERSONNEL POLICIES and PROCEDURES

Hiring

• to obtain the services of ( someone ) for an agreed wage.
• to provide ( something ) or the services of ( someone ) temporarily for an agreed payment.

Screening

• to subject ( candidates ) to exhaustive tests in order to be satisfied as to reliability, capability, etc..

Tests

• a standard by which qualities are tried.
• a set of problems, questions etc. by which a person’s knowledge, abilities, aptitudes or character are assessed.

Interviews

• a formal meeting between an applicant ( e.g. for a job ) and the person who is to examine his qualifications.

Promotions

• advancement to higher rank or status, to work for promotion.

• Seniority - system granting preference in security, promotions, authority, and rewards to employees in accordance with their length of service.
• Inbreeding - is the practice of promoting exclusively from within the company or firm.
• Nepotism - favoritism shown in the advancement of relatives, esp. by appointing them to offices for reasons other than personal worth.

Discipline and Discharge

• Just Cause - states that the reasons for discipline and discharge deal directly with job performance.
• Due Process - the fairness of the procedures an organization uses to impose sanctions on employees.
• Firing - to dismiss, discharge ( an employee ) due to reasons such as theft, gross insubordination, release of proprietary information, etc.
• Lay-off - temporary, prolonged or final separation as a result of lack of work or business.
• Position Elimination – it designates the permanent elimination of a job as a result of workforce reduction, plant closing, or departmental consolidation.

Wages

• Payment for services rendered, especially the pay for workers by hour, day, week, or month.

Examples:

Hiring – I worked at a fast-food store before and the following are based on my experience.

Screening – these are fulfilled when the all the bio-data ( or resumes ) of the applicants are passed. The manager looks for qualified applicants like those having previous work experience, a person’s height, how a person looks or the appearance, and other qualifications which the manager needs.

Tests – written tests are given to measures one’s intelligence, there are a few mathematical problems, and those who can answer these, they may be assigned to the counter. There are also situational questions like……what will you do if a customer shouts at you ? choices : a) punch him b) smile at him c) call the manager or security d) none of the above…….a large percentage of the questions are related to the work one may face and the other questions are maybe to measure one’s IQ.

Interviews – this is when the manager talks to you. This can either happen before the tests or after, it really varies. This stage is crucial because it gives a first and lasting impression of yourself to the manager.

Promotions

Seniority – this is when the most senior or oldest in a company is given due consideration for a certain position. Factors include knowledge about the company or firm, its rules, guidelines, and aims. In some cases, like in a fast-food store where I used to work, the more senior the crew member is (meaning the longer he has been with the company), the higher is the salary in which he will receive. And the more senior a crew person is, the more likely he will become a crew leader (someone who looks after the new crew members and gives reminders to them). Also as stated in the lecture copies, seniority in itself does not necessarily indicate competence or loyalty, but in some instances may be a real indicator of job qualifications.

Inbreeding – fast-food stores practice this kind of promotion. Like for example, the position of Store Manager, Scheduling Manager and Crew Training Manager can have a pool of trainees that in the future will replace them, and these are the Customer Relations Employees which are trained exclusively to become future managers or remain as so or to quit their jobs – it’s their choice. Similarly, ordinary crew members can also become Customer Relations Officers if they are qualified.

Nepotism – this practice is unfair at times, for the main reason of being promoted is having family relations. The big " family " companies practice this…like for example Mr. Lopez is the CEO of a company, the President of his company is his son, and the replacement of his son is his daughter. The issue of competence is usually undecided, but most of the time and surprisingly they become competent enough.

Discipline and discharge – in general, those who go beyond the limits of company rules and regulations are removed from the company. These are stated in certain handbooks or manuals given to the employees. An employee gets fired when he does acts which are harmful to their company like leaking of vital information and secrets, both parties may likely end up in court. While termination happens when an employee is always late for work, or performs below par. Layoff refers to a cut in workforce in a certain position, while position elimination is the total removal of the position. Example, SM had a layoff for the position of saleslady, removing 200 of the 350 employees for that position, leaving only 150. While the following year, because of uncontrolled events, they removed the position of saleslady, giving the remaining 150 employees of that position their final pay and release papers.

ABUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION

• is the use of one’s official position for personal gain
• violates one’s obligations to the firm or organization

This can be considered generally as morally wrong. But we must consider to at least classify those who abuse their official positions, but the bottom line is: it is wrong !

The first classification for those who abuse their "powers" is:

• those who abusive all the time, or as if it is normal for them

These persons have very little or no values whatsoever. Some of these make this their way of life, and these persons must never be forgiven. The second classification is:

• those who abuse their powers only in very important and vital matters, but not always

These are the ones who abuse their powers like for example in certain emergencies or during hard times, but not all the time, because their conscience bothers them. They may be forgiven based on their intent, but it depends on the situation.

The only experience I have in having and abusing powers is when I became a class officer ( secretary ) during secondary school. I would use my position to go out of the classroom at any time I want, then I would go to the canteen and eat or stroll around the campus, but not too long because it might be too obvious.

INSIDER TRADING

• refers to the use of significant facts that have not yet been made public and are likely to affect stock prices.

This sums up as cheating and stealing all rolled in one, and obviously is very wrong.

An example of this is the BW stocks manipulation not too long ago, where it’s like your 1 peso will become 500 pesos in an instant ( by cheating ). Imagine then if you have 1,000,000 pesos multiplied by 500….unimaginable !

PROPRIETARY DATA

• ( companies ) guarding information that can affect their competitive standing
• when novel information is patented or copyrighted, it is legally protected but not secret, others may have access to the information but are forbidden to use it ( w/o permission ) for the life of the patent or copyright.
• when a company patents a process it has a monopoly on that process
• trade secrets is defined as any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information which is used in one’s business and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.

In the negative aspect, it sums up to greed and wickedness, but in fairness these days brings the ideology of the weak dies and the strong survives, but still is morally wrong.

The positive thing here is to protect from certain individuals who are unscrupulous or irresponsible which may lead to accidents or untoward incidents.

BRIBES AND KICKBACKS

• a bribe is a secret gift ( usually of money ) offered to a person in a position of trust, e.g. a public servant, to persuade him to turn his power to the advantage of the person offering the gift
• kickbacks are a practice that involves a percentage payment to a person able to influence or control a source income

These things are also wrong, and remember that there are those who accept ( bribes ) and there are the ones to give ( bribes ), and therefore it is a two-way battle. But in our country today, we must accept the fact that this will never disappear. So the best thing is to start from ourselves – we must never give bribes and when a time comes that we are being asked to give a bribe ( extortion ) like say corrupt policemen and government agencies, we must never give. Better off than give a bribe.

Kickbacks meanwhile are also hard to resist, but we must remember that money is the root of all evil, so we must not put too much importance in money, use it in only basic stuff and in too much extravagance.

THE FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

This was passed in 1977 mainly from certain practices that sum up to bribery. This is good, but the laws of man are very, very easy to cheat and elude, especially if you have the money. The important thing here is a pure heart and conscience, so when we become leaders, always set good examples and firm principles…all things start in ourselves.

WHISTLE BLOWING

• refers to an employee act of informing the public about the illegal or immoral behavior of an employer or organization

A whistle blower….

• is one who informs authorities of malfeasance in government or business

• is an employee or officer of any institution, profit or nonprofit, private or public, who believes either that he/she has been ordered to perform some act or he/she has obtained knowledge that the institution is engaged in activities which (a) are believed to cause unnecessary harm to third parties, (b) are in violation of human rights, or (c) run counter to the defined purpose of the institution and who informs the public of this fact.

• is one who blows a whistle

There are some conditions that must be met so that an act of whistle blowing be morally justified, and these are proposed by a certain Professor Bowie;

1. It is done from the appropriate moral motive—namely, as provided in the definition of whistle blowing.
2. The whistle blower, except in special circumstances, has exhausted all internal channels for dissent before going public.
3. The whistle blower has compelling evidence that the inappropriate actions have been ordered or have occurred.
4. The whistle blower has acted after careful analysis of the danger: How serious is moral violation? How immediate is the problem? Can the whistle blower point to specific misconduct?
5. The whistle blowing has some chance of success.

Before I give my analysis and reactions on the above statements, the following are the conditions by a certain Mr. Jabson in order for an act of whistle blowing be morally justified.

1. When there is no hidden or vested interest.
2. When it is done for love or concern for others.

Professor Bowie’s conditions are more on the action, or are inclined in that way. But in actuality, it really depends on the person ( like what one thinks, how one feels, etc. ). But when it comes to Mr. Jabson’s conditions, it all sums up to one’s intent…good intentions, to be precise and specific, but in fairness to Professor Bowie, one of his condition must also be met like having compelling evidence, coupled with a good intent ( no vested interest and concern for others ) equals justice.

Having said, therefore I would only agree to Professor Bowie’s third condition simply because of the term "evidence". In our laws, a person’s testimony may be counted as evidence but coupled with evidence other than the testimony, results in a strong case, so evidence is a key part in whistle blowing. 7Condition number 5 is somewhat related assuming that evidence is involved, but there are some cases that it may not be so. And also it seems more on doing it because it may succeed and not because there is a moral issue that must be fought for.

My experiences about whistle blowing is when I worked at a fastfood restaurant, where there are certain employees ( not me ) which are coined or termed as "choo-choos" wherein they report certain deeds of other employees to the manager. My co-workers say that they do that because they are "sumisipsip" to the manager, and maybe others want to have a promotion or be relegated to easier tasks.

Other examples of whistle blowers are those that are happening in our country today, in the very dirty and evil world of politics/government. There are some people who whistle blow because they have vested interests and are very greedy. Take an example of a certain "former governor" who whistle blowed the evil deeds of a certain "former actor" simply because a project was given or awarded to the former governor’s arch rival in politics…..and it was his brother at that. How greedy can that governor get? If it was not given to his arch rival, then he would have not whistle blown his former friend who was a former actor….an obvious sign of vested interest, greed and an evil heart. The former actor by the way is languishing in a hospital.

My conditions simply points to purity of intention. Remember that whatever is good is good for us. Never in my conditions must one become a false witness, which is a very bad sin and it eats up our conscience. And in the end it will be God who will judge and not the companies, or the courts. But in general I agree in whistle blowing as long as it meets my conditions, (1) when there is no hidden or vested interest, (2) when it is done for love or concern for others and of course (3) damning evidence.

BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

Case Scenario:

Honey Grace and Cherry Pie were the only two clerks handling payments from customers in the office of Atlantic Plumbing Supply Company. At the time of employment, both woman had been instructed by the owner that they would be handling money and that strict honesty would be required of them. They reported to the owner of the business. Honey Grace had been employed for 18 months and Cherry Pie for 14 months. Both were community college graduates, about 23 years old, and unmarried.

By manipulating the accounts in a rather ingenious way that would not normally be detected, Honey Grace was staling from the account payments as they were received. During her third month of employment, Cherry Pie learned of Honey Grace’s thefts, but she decided not to tell management, rationalizing that Honey Grace’s personal conduct was none of her business. Cherry Pie did not benefit from Honey Grace’s thefts, and the two women were not close friends. Their duties allowed them to work independently of each other, each handling a different alphabetical portion of the accounts.

By the time the owner learned of Honey Grace’s thefts through the recent installation of hidden surveillance cameras, she had stolen approximately P200,000.00. During the investigation of the thefts, the owner learned that Cherry Pie had known about them for several months, because it was evident that the thefts could have not occurred for an extended period without Cherry Pie’s knowledge. Subsequently, the owner fired both employees.

1. Give 4 issues raised by these events. Discuss these issues.

• Honey Grace’s manipulation of accounts, and stealing

Her deeds clearly indicate that she has totally neglected her obligations to the firm. Every aspect of it she has none; she has no loyalty to the company, she abused her position, she has vested and greedy interests, and in a way she can earn a job position at the Philippine Stock Exchange for her deeds that is very much like insider trading.

• Cherry Pie’s failure to blow the whistle, and stating that it’s none of her business

Stealing is a crime, and stealing lots of money is definitely a crime. So Cherry Pie is therefore obliged to tell to her superiors the things that she had discovered. Or she could have whistle blown to the authorities like the NBI, and they could have coordinated with the owner of the firm and may have devised a plan to catch Honey Grace in the act, and may spare Cherry Pie to testify against Honey Grace if she is afraid.

• Cherry Pie didn’t tell the owner about it, she could have at least talked to Honey Grace.

Cherry Pie initially claimed that it’s none of her business to mess up with Honey Grace’s action, and I believe such an act is also an act of selfishness. Cherry Pie may have cared for herself only too much, we must have care for others also, may it be the ones we know and we love, and even those that we don’t know and we don’t love.

She would have at least reminded Honey Grace that she is stealing and that has serious consequences, who knows if Honey Grace would have a change of heart.

• I think Cherry Pie also being fired is an issue

It may sound weird that Cherry Pie was also fired with the fact that she did not steal a single cent, but it’s because of her being blind and mute in the things that happened. It may be unfair for her to get fired, she may have at most been suspended and reminded by the owner that she must tell those kinds of things at once and besides, Honey Grace has been busted already. And the owner should also be specific when he termed "strict honesty" to the girls. One may imply that the girls be honest to themselves or they—individually, must not steal, for their main duty is handling money. Maybe Cherry Pie thought that Honey Grace would be caught anyway, so better not imitate or do the same.

2. What disciplinary action, either preventive or corrective, do you recommend for each of the two women? Why?

As I have said in the 4^th issue of the 1^st question, Cherry Pie must only be suspended and at the same time be reminded to tell those things at once and let it serve as reminder for her, and remember the saying: that experience is the hardest but yet the most effective teacher—it gives the test first before the lesson. So let her experience make her a better and well-rounded employee. And as for Honey Grace, firing her is the best option for her, but I would also file criminal charges and let her enjoy a couple of months, maybe a few years behind bars. And by the way, if that act were done in a government firm, like for example – Philippine National Plumbing Supply Company, that would result in a case of economic plunder and has a sentence of death penalty. So I would also recommend putting Honey Grace inside the lethal injection chamber, and see if she will do that again if she had another life.

3. Is Cherry Pie’s failure to blow the whistle an issue? Discuss your answer.

Yes, Cherry Pie’s failure to blow the whistle on Honey Grace’s actions is a perfect example of a sin of omission, or when one does nothing when the person is ought to do something. On the positive side, she didn’t steal for herself and she didn’t imitate Honey Grace, but Cherry Pie had at least 2 options, (1) to talk to the owner or (2) talk to Honey Grace, but she didn’t do anything.

4. If you were Cherry Pie, how would you react to the owner as well as to Honey Grace?

If I were Cherry Pie, I would act based on my principles and contest or question the owner’s decision to fire me and insist that I didn’t steal a single centavo and maybe tell the owner that I’m a bit scared to blow the whistle (simply to justify my non-action on blowing the whistle). As for Honey Grace, maybe I would tell her that love for money is the source of all troubles, and tell her also that she blew it big time.

BACK