-
QUESTION 12
Title:
paper for week 5 PHI208
Paper Details
paper for week 5 PHI208
Final Paper
Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper, and re-read them often during and after the writing process to make sure that you are fulfilling all of the instructions. Please also utilize the assignment guidance and the outlined model provided.
Overview
In the Week One Assignment, you formulated a concrete ethical question, took a position on that topic, and identified a reason supporting and a reason opposing that position. In the Week Three Assignment, you discussed either deontological or utilitarian theory, applied that theory to the question, and raised a relevant objection.
By engaging with the course material, you now have had a chance to refine your thinking and broaden your understanding of the problem by approaching it from the perspective of multiple ethical theories.
In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you
Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.
Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.
Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.
Instructions
Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:
Introduction
Your first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope.
Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout on thesis statements provided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.
Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
This section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.
In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined.
For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.
Objection and Response
After explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.
Conclusion
Provide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.
Resource Requirement
You must use at least four scholarly resources. Two of the resources must be drawn from the list of acceptable primary resources on each of the two theories you discuss. For example, if you discuss deontology and virtue ethics, you would need at least one resource under the “Deontology” list and at least one resource under the “Virtue Ethics” list. The other two may be from either the Required or Recommended Resources, or scholarly resources found in the Ashford University Library.
The textbook may be cited, but it does not count toward the resource requirement. If you cite the textbook, you will still need to cite at least four more sources that fulfill the requirements stated above.
If you need help with finding additional resources, or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.
For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.
For information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center.
The Final Paper:
Must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding title and reference pages), and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include a title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement and statement of procedure.
Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought.
Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis.
Must make meaningful reference to at least two of the ethical theories studied in the course.
Must use at least four scholarly resources that fulfill the stated requirements.
Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Must include a separate reference page, formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
| Subject | Law and governance | Pages | 9 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Deontological Ethical System on Sexual Harassment
Do sexual harassment laws need to be strengthened? Sexual harassment defines unsuitable sex associated behaviors which are expressed either through derogatory statements in the form of visual presentation or sexual illustrations. It is an act that needs to be carefully handled, especially in cases when considered highly heinous (Minson, 2016). In work places, it can result from demand for sexual favors in exchange for a particular service based on a person’s gender. Managers commit such acts to their subordinates or among different employees holding superior positions at workplaces. In recent years, sexual harassment at workplace has become a major issue for most workers and many companies. The cause of this problem in most workstations globally is because men, who have been the perpetrators of this act hold most positions of power over women. According to Riley (2013), power holds the ability to coerce. Additionally, in most beliefs, there is a sturdy body of tradition in support of sexist beliefs and practices; including belief in the inferiority of women in economic spheres and the practice of sexual exploitation. When weighing what makes sexual harassment morally wrong, people must consider numerous ethical theories. One of such theories is deontology. Deontology, derived from the Greek meaning is an efficient manner to determine the uprightness of an individual subject. To know if an act is wrong or right, people must decide what rule to keep. The law “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” is a basic fundamental in commercial ethics, which can just apply to sexual harassment. In that regard, sexual laws should be strengthened not only to protect women but also men at the workplace to ensure a comfortable working environment where every individual’s right is protected, although some people argue that current laws are sufficient and only require people to obey them.
Despite prevalent publicity about the jeopardies of sexual harassment, several surveys validate that some businesses in the United States have not addressed the issue. Furthermore, current news reports show that sexual harassment has stretched to the uppermost levels of managements. Although trades know it happens, they seem hesitant of how to handle it. In the end, the menace of employer obligation for sexual harassment endures appearing at work (Gokce, 2017). The failure to implement aggressive and proactive laws on this issue, however, can end not only in expensive court battles, but also with a loss of worker morale, reduced productivity, and destruction of a company's image. Sexual harassment infringes the harm norm if punitive threats are involved, which then makes such offers forcible and therefore a violation of the principle of liberty. However, in the tolerant tradition, if a female employee freely decides to progress her career by having sex with the boss, without any tit-for-tat threats, then it is difficult to claim that the suggestion is either coercive to her or harmful. This is why some opponents of tightening sexual laws support other forms of sexual harassment with the help of happiness principle theory. Consequently, individual sexual offers made by bosses may not infringe the right of employees and therefore would not primarily institute to harassment.
The laws should be tightened since the current decrees favor women and put a lot of pressure on men, hence do not prevent sexual harassment as required. According to Hugaas (2010), in the current society, most women can escape sexual harassment when such actions are mainly directed to men. In contrary, people cannot escape when they try to harass women sexually. Notably, if a woman clutches a man's butt, the woman is referred to as “being flirty"; however, when a man does the same, he is a pervert. Such positions hold a double standard and should not be tolerated since they infringe the actions of some people. The biased laws have made men victims of sexual harassment even if they do little things that are perceived to be normal in the contemporary society. It has, therefore, made women take advantage of men and can sue them to court without a substantial action that warrants arrest. Due to weak laws governing this menace, it has led to the poor emotional well-being of the victims. According to Baynes (2013), sexual harassment can endanger the victim's mental and emotional health. It has always lead to the loss of self-esteem and even compromises personal relationships. Also, workplace sexual harassment can cause substantial anxiety and stress not only to the victim but also to the harasser if the law gets hold of him/her. The effects of weak laws governing the sexual harassment issue have given people a leeway to do harmful things to others which include offering sexual activities in favor of a good rank in the company. This is unfair treatment where individuals who cannot provide sex for a rank are either demoted or suspended while incompetent people work in a high level of the company structure just because they offered their body to the bosses.
When weighing what makes sexual harassment morally wrong, people must consider numerous ethical theories. One of such theories is deontology. Deontology principle was first advocated by Immanuel Kant who gave a proposal stating that anyone who is morally upright upholds his or her duties regardless of the consequences associated with it. This just means that every individual is directly inclined to his or her duties. It further upholds all means as opposed to the ends as being of vital use. It defines that most mature individuals can maturely reason and also act regarding fundamental principles on Application of Virtue Ethics on Sexual Harassment for aiding in duty fulfillment which also guides people’s character and behaviors. It outlines that sexual harassment is very wrong and all employees must be treated with respect and dignity. It explains sexual harassment as an organization based issue which originates from a status of inequalities and differences in power regime within work places (Dierksmeier, 2013). All these factors increase the probability of sexual harassment occurring. It further acknowledges the fact that differences in power within all work places have direct effects on external sexual consistency. The gendered nature of all organizations is also considered key to determining the occurrence of sexual behaviors through a definition of women in proportion to men in a certain workgroup. However, the main weakness of this theory is its lack to give attention to individual differences alongside variability in actor positions, daily activities, behaviors, expectations and other stereotypes towards sexual harassment.
W.D Ross, the author of “The Right and the Good,” asserts that there are seven right making structures of ethical action. The duty of nonmaleficence is the notion of avoiding harming others. It states that if you cannot assist another person, leave them in their current situation rather than causing more harm to them (Prieto, Chacón, & Marín, 2012). This ethical idea applies to sexual harassment. This is because it does not only hurt the individual being harassed but the business as well. According to deontology principle, a moral person does his or her duty irrespective of the consequences. Deontology maintains “the means as opposed to the ends to be of greatest importance.” He claimed that mature people could reason and it is significant to act on principle and from fulfilling a duty, which controls people’s behaviors. The deontological theory settles that sexual harassment is wrong, not universalized and does not to treat victims with respect and dignity.
However, the opponents of this argument assert that there are sufficient laws on sexual harassment hence it is important for all people to respect such regulations. Riley (2013) states that the problem that occurs is the stigma that is applied to individuals who claim sexual harassment, or in the retaliation they may receive from their colleagues. According to (), strengthening would create a plethora of glitches, particularly for the male sex. Ideally, some women already abuse the idea of sexual harassment to get their way or inflict revenge. As such, it would be unwise idea to empower such kind of people further.
The objecting arguments are based on the pursuit of happiness theory. Contrary to deontology, the Greatest Happiness Principle is the notion that all people should act in a manner that brings the greatest happiness for them. In most sexual harassment cases, a common motive is because it was funny, or because it made the harasser feel nice when sexually touching a colleague (Riley, 2013). In either purpose, it is the result of happiness that instigated the harassment act. Although it produces the greatest happiness for the harasser, it contradicts the first theory of deontology. Greatest Happiness Principle and Deontology contradict each other and are employed to view both sides of an ethical problem.
In conclusion, sexual harassment is a vice that damages company’s reputation as well dignity of individuals who become its victims. While the opponents argue that the law are sufficient and people should only obey the already in place regulations, it is important for all governments, stakeholders, and corporates to tighten the rules in to ensure a comfortable working environment where every individual right is protected. This will guarantee that people get promoted fairly without any sexual favor. This argument has been supported by the deontological theory which states that sexual harassment is very wrong and all employees must be treated with respect and dignity. It explains sexual harassment as an organization based issue which originates from a status of inequalities and differences in power regime within work places. While a group of people does not support such laws basing the arguments of the pursuit of happiness theory which claim that we all should act in a way that produces the greatest happiness for everyone, laws should be strengthened to eliminate sexual harassment cases.