Ethical Egoism

An ethical dilemma refers to a moral situation where one has to choose between two options that are undesirable in equal measure. Conflict of personal or organizational values, failure of particular character is some of the multiple sources of dilemmas. A business dilemma can occur when a decision in the organization has to be made, and the decision will have either a direct or indirect impact on the stakeholders and or the business’s competitiveness or it’s profitably (Resnik, 2015). Such situations will call for an informed decision by the organization that needs to act out of discretion to make a popular choice.

In this case an ethical dilemma experienced during my regular reads online relates to the fair portrayal of our abilities in the course of employment. In this context, ethical norms and the related ramifications should be considered to retain functional communication and also maintain the interpersonal relationships within workmates, executives and the subordinates (Werhane, 2014). The dilemma of fair representation of actual abilities in the line of employment is critical since employers go for well-qualified brains with the immanence of professionally growing.

Concurrently we have to play up our best professional qualities and strengths and inversely understating our frailties. According to Bolman & Deal (2017), such incidences call for the display of our best class to convince the employer that we fit the needed position perfectly. Contrary to the image created above, the dots between what one can represent and what the employee have is the dilemma as it can negatively impact on one’s position in the company (Pollock, 2014). If an agent overestimates his/her abilities and lands the job, the employee will not be able to perform functions and tasks their employer anticipates because of their below-par professional skills which were initially exaggerated.

 On the other hand, the apparent waits of not getting employed if the employee had lowered his/her abilities or representing the strengths fairly. The employers are required to reach an agreement whether an applicant fits the position based on the representation brought forward by the applicant. In such situation, it is advisable always to take a useful tactic based on the fair description of the applicant’s strengths while looking at the abilities and full potential revelation.  In a nutshell, of importance is the employee being conscious and the acknowledgement of his/her weaknesses together with the potential to grow professionally.

Employee disclosure of their professional skills and strengths is what matters most. Job applicants need to manifest in them the success and goal getting orientation in them. A recommendation related to this is the fact that a good percentage of employees settle for the imminent employees with potential to grow and expand both skill-wise and professionalism since getting already backed workforce is far much expensive and uneconomical for the business (Davies & Gutsche, 2016).

Moral Relativism

Secondly, ethical egoism is seen as a morally legitimate and licit theory and that those who borrow into ethical egoism are allowed to do so. Egoism is an exclusive and selfish concern with satisfying an individual’s desires besides placing one’s interests above everyone else’s. Psychologists argue that being selfish is natural and that ethical egoism is allowable (Frederiksen, 2015). Adam Smith in his ‘invisible hand’ goes on to support ethical egoism saying that every individual serves his private interest.

 Business ethics are grounded on the tenet that profit maximization is the ultimate goal and St Francis whose recommendation was distributing one’s wealth both pursued their interests; St Francis was satisfying his moral, religious consciousness and Rockefeller amassing himself material wealth and the benefits resulting from it like favors (Eagle & Dahl, 2015). The basics here are justified in today’s business and societal norms. However, philosophers oppose the ethical egoism citing narcissism where every man ought to look out for himself alone. A more in-depth examination of ethical egoism reveals otherwise; ethical egoism doesn’t ignore moral dimensions of human behavior.

The agents in the ethical egoism can pursue their interests with a sense of moral outlook because the primary principles of human conduct cannot be separated. The Aristotelian understanding of logic is the prime merit of ethical egoism which suggests motivation from self-love for those seeking their interest reasonably. Applying the ethical egoism scenario to the dilemma of prospective employee representation example reveals so much relationship and justification about self-love found in ethical egoism. Since every employee wants to be the best, they will try to be innovative, more professional and try to incline to give more at their workplaces ethically.

The other theory that almost intertwines with ethical egoism is the moral relativism .Moral relativism states that all moral points of view are equally valid; a person’s morals whether right or wrong are the same to any other person’s no matter the extent that might be thought of by the society. There exist a number of philosophical arguments contravening moral relativism. Moral relativism is made up of two types: cultural and individual relativism. Cultural relativism states that good and evil, right and wrong are relative to the way of life of a group of people (culture). On the other hand individual relativism says that rights and wrong, good and evil are relative to the inclination of an individual. Both individual and cultural relativism back the claim that there is no such thing as “universal moral truths” or the truths that apply to all the world societies and cultures.

Conclusion

There are three moral truths that are generally accepted across the globe (Rachels 2012): we should not lie, we should not kill and that we should care for children. We are not supposed to lie even if we deem it to be the smallest of lies.

One of the benefits of moral relativism is that it can create and promote lenience to different moral standards. Considering ethnocentrism, a contradiction of moral relativism wills us a better understanding of moral relativism. Ethnocentrism refers to the beliefs that one’s own way of doing things is flawless and that any other approach naturally inferior. Colonialists attempt to wipe out cultures and beliefs of those they colonized especially in Africa are a perfect example of ethnocentrism. The fact that there exists no correct moral scale and that no system is better than the other as supported by moral relativism, we are left with the only option of appreciating all perspectives on a situation equally.

A person’s understanding of the world around them is judged on their experiences while interacting with various aspects associated with the environs (Hume 2012). Hume argues that having two people in an environment won’t make them have same experiences because every person sees the same event differently resulting to clashing emotional reaction. Hume then concludes that we base our judgments on emotion rather than logic.

Linking this theory with the ethical dilemma aforementioned we see that all prospective employees will emotionally try to represent unfair abilities to be hired overlooking the logical consequences that their inabilities will have in the business.

In conclusion, going beneath the surface, it’s clear that there are problems when it comes to dealing with the ethical dilemmas that we inevitably come across in our everyday life. The dilemmas need to be dealt with professionally by considering divine command, ethical egoism, stakeholder and shareholder and the tights moral relativism theories where applicable. Ethical dilemmas lead to challenges in the organization and thus need to be avoided at every effort.

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

Davies, I. A., & Gutsche, S. (2016). Consumer motivations for mainstream “ethical” consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1326-1347.

Eagle, L., & Dahl, S. (Eds.). (2015). Marketing Ethics & Society. Sage.

Hume’s Philosophy Summary. (2012, April 22). Retrieved from https://www.the-philosophy.com/hume-philosophy

Frederiksen, C. S. (2015). Ethical Egoism; Ethical Theories; Utilitarianism. Dictionary of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Pollock, J. M. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Nelson Education.

Resnik, D. B. (2015, December). What is ethics in research & why is it important. In ideas.

Werhane, P. H. (2014). Moral imagination. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.