1. What do you understand by moral obligations?

In my humble opinion, moral is the general principle of right conduct while moral
obligations bring the definition of duty or responsibility someone feels oblige to perform because
of personal beliefs, values and ethical considerations. It involves the commitment of doing what
is right and upholds a sense of integrity, dignity and accountability for his or her action and
decision. All men have the ideas of what is right and what is wrong and how it is express.
Moral stages represent different interpersonal and moral concerns. According to
Kohlbergs definition of the moral stages in the context of justice-reasoning, first stage represents
the person evaluation of moral obligation by obedience to rules and fear of sanctions of
authorities in the case of violation of rules. Citizens have a moral and legal obligation to abide by
laws. The ethical duties are fundamental to healthy social relations. For example, prohibition of
drunk driving, robbery and fraud. If one has a well developed conscience, feelings of guilt and
shame can lead to remorse. Conscience refers to the part of the human psyche that induces
conformity or disconformities of the heart and life when we violate the law and feelings of
pleasure when our actions, thoughts and word are in conformity to our value beliefs.
At the second stage, interests of the self as well as pragmatic but self-oriented concerns
for others are dominant concerns. The moral obligation is based on agreement. Even if an
agreement does not abide legally, the sense of duty and obligation force us to do the things we
promise or counted for. For example, in this case of Innocent or Guilty, the manager or leader
has a sense of moral obligations to follow the demand of his or her employees that counting on
him, or allow Jones to come back to work because the commitment and responsibilities of the
position we accept as a employee to the company. It is the dilemma between personal ethics and
duty commitment.
Last but not least, on stage three conventional moral reasoning empathy and care for
others become moral concern. It can be mandate by religious doctrine or through rational
philosophical reasoning. There is research conducted that moral reasoning decreases in the
course of development when individual becomes increasingly aware of interpersonal concerns
and makes decision based on priority. Asian and Western cultures also shape our moral norms
and moral concerns especially related to our definition of values.

2. In this case, who are the various stakeholders to whom you have moral obligations?
Managers at all levels are accountable to a high standard of ethical behavior. They play
an important role in making key decisions in day to day operations that will affect the company
as a whole. It is important for the manager to understand and practice a right conduct to meet the
companys expectation and set an example for subordinates and people below him. They come at
a variety of levels with a variety of limitations on their authority and responsibility.
In this particular case of Innocent or Guilty by Joanne B. Ciulla, from the perspective
of manager, I have a moral obligations towards various stakeholders who has interest in the
company. However, with restricted authority and responsibility, it is hard to be fair and just. First
of all is the investor of the organization. They concern about the return of investment and the
income of the company. Whatever decision that I make should not hinder this goals. Secondly is
the owner or the board of directors. The profitability, longevity, growth and social goals may be
affected by my decision in firing Fred Jones or not. In this case, during Jones trial he asked for
unpaid leave of absence and the company grants his request. Company provides the fluidity
according to his innocent claimed situation and appreciates his skills.
Next is the customer. Customer loyalty lies on the value, product quality, customer care
and the ethical business practice. If I misjudge and make a wrong decision, we will lose a
customer and interest. In this case, most conflicted decision to make is based on my moral
obligation to the employees. I have high moral obligations to them in providing a job security,
environmental protection, respect and truthful communication in ensuring the business operation
going smoothly. By providing these elements, it can increase the management function
effectively, efficiently and productively.
The greatest value of a company is in its image and brand. The ability to fulfill the needs
and wants of the society, customers, employees and the owners helps in increasing the
profitability, recognition, company image and prevent damage to the company. If I am exhausted
with the considerations of stakeholders, I will make a decision based on my personal ethics. In
reality, moral obligations and concerns include but go beyond those who are stakeholders in a
narrow sense. One does not need stakeholder consideration to some basic notion of fairness and
just a wage to dhow such practice is ethically wrong.

3. Would your ethical obligations in this case be different if people were afraid to work with
Jones because he had AIDS? Why?
From my perspective, I believe my ethical obligations would be no different if Jones had
AIDS instead of being accused of murder. Strictly, my ethical obligations lie with the company
and not with Jones. Regardless of the reason, Jones triggers the fear and sense of danger to the
other employees. It is better to avoid than facing the consequences later. However, the final act is
depends on the company. If the company finds no reason for terminating him, I have no choice
but follow the order. If I have my choice, the least I can do to be fair for both parties is
transferring him to another department. However, it will still cause chaos in another place.
As a human, we naturally strive to grow and achieve full potential. As a manager, I
should realize that fair and sensitive treatment of employees is a critical factor for preventing
labor problems and employment claims. I sincerely believe that allowing Jones if he has AIDS to
continue working would discourage customers and employees and jeopardize the health of them.
Once the rumor goes out, the company image might be affected and our lost our establish
customers. Additionally, suppose I know about his health status and allow him to continue
working while enclose the truth, is it an ethical obligations to keep the information from the
others? I am afraid if the unfortunate event lead to another employee contracted with AIDS and
claiming he or she get it in the workplace from Jones, management will face a serious accusation
and problem for violated the duty to inform.
In business, I have legitimate reasons to be concerns about the impacts of allowing Jones
to come back to work. At the end, I stay on my ground to refuse accepting Jones if he had AIDS
to come back to work for the reasons stated above.

4. How would a Kantian decide on this case?

Under the Kantian theory, he believes every action has a maxim. An act is morally
acceptable if its maxim is universalizable. Maxim refers to the principle of action you give
yourself when you are about to do something. According to Kant, the morality of our action has
nothing to do with the result. It deals with our intentions and reasons for action opposite of
consequentialism. Kants theory is an example of deontological moral theory that the rightness or
wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.
Under this case, I believed Kant will continued hiring Jones regardless the consequences
of the action. Kant believes that morality is not based on hypothetical imperatives but rather on
categorical imperative that denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed
in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. Jones is deemed as a valuable asset to the
company with his exceptional performance skills. Not only that, Jones also has been declared as
innocent by the court so the company do not have any strong reason to refuse him coming back
to work. Under the company policy, the absence of valid and legal reason to fire someone should
also be applied to Jones. By firing Jones to satisfy the other employees, we cannot justify the
action by showing it will produce good consequences.
Furthermore, for under the Kant business ethics, the social responsibilities is to increase
its profits as long as it stays within the rules of the game and conforms to the basic rules of
society embodied in law and ethical custom. Under second maxim principle, every human being
should be treated as an end and every human being is entitled to equal treatment. In this case, the
employees might feel it is an immoral act to continue hiring Jones, however for Kant, this may
not necessarily unethical because Jones was free from the accusations.
Last but not least, the refusal and protest from the other workers do not affect the Kant
decision because someone who follows duty-based ethics should do the right thing; even the
action produces more harm than doing the wrong thing. In this case, it would be wrong to fire
Jones in order to avoid the anger of the other employees. Duty-based ethics focus on giving
equal respect to all human beings even when those are at odds with the interest of a larger group.
He considers what action is right and proceeds from there. In conclusion, a person is doing
something good if they are doing a morally right action.

5. Would you be ethical if you always do your duty as described by Kant? Why? / Why not?
In my opinion, Kantian philosophy faces some serious critiques in its own. In some
situation we will appear ethical by fulfilling our duty, however most of the time our ethical
values will contradict the Kantianism. First of all, Kant treated duties as absolute that lead to
unresolved conflict between two perfect duties and between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty.
For example, never tell a lie. However, what if telling the lie to protect your friends? According
to Kant and the categorical imperatives it is your duty to tell the true.
Next, is the good will always good without qualification? In the case of Jones, my duty to
the company creates misery to the others. It does not matter if my employees affected by this
decision as long as I supposed to have a good will. By following the policy, my employees have
to feel insecure and a sense of danger while working. As a human being, it is natural to have a
survival instinct and strive for the good of ourselves. I refuse to call this as ethical obligation by
following Kants theory.
In addition, reason does not discover our moral rules. Morality discounts like
compassion, sympathy, sentiments and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action.
Kant encourages a cold and calculative approach to ethics by dismissing our feelings. For
instance in this case, as a manager we should not treat our employees emotions as irrelevant.
They have a strong reason to feel not comfortable in accepting back the employee that has been
accused of brutal murder. It is not possible for us to set aside our concerns and desires as Kant
suggest us to be purely rational autonomous beings. For example, supposedly our employee has
to take leaves for a month because her daughter is deadly sick, and according to Kant, you as
manager should perform your duty to the fullest and take action. However, what is wrong by
showing a compassion and pity? Moreover, by completely ignoring the consequences of an
action, it is purposefully blind to a fact about action which, although perhaps not
strictly determining moral worth, does seem to be relevant in certain times.
Lastly, Kants duty-based theory does not deal with conflicting situations. From his view,
well-intentioned person with good motives would be morally blameless even if the consequences
of action are bad. For example, I help a homeless person by stealing from the market. At least,
my motive was good according to Kant.

6. Does it matter if you as a leader in the department, fired Jones not because it is the right
thing to do but because it will make you look good to your workers who refuse to work with
him?
As a leader in data processing department, it does matter to me if I fired Jones not
because it is the right thing to do but because it will make me look good to my workers who
refuse to work with him. Some might argued why the intent of our action does really matters if
our action has the impact of good for the people around us. However, when it comes to personal
ethics, your behavior, will and intention defines you. It is the reflection of your personal brand
that people may not realize but you. As a leader, the ability to ethically influence others is a
major factor of effective leadership. William Hitt in his book lists three requirements for ethical
leader which are achieve an understanding of ethics; serve as a role model in making ethical
decisions; and develop and implement a plan of action for promoting ethical conduct on the part
of his or her staff. If I am only doing it for the good image of my employee and not
acknowledging the reason behind it, I cannot see myself as a good leader that serves good
example to my people. I am afraid I will keep blind by the personal interest if the similar event
that needs consideration of ethical issue occurring in the future.
In conclusion, it pick as my conscience as a human being if I take the decision to fire
Jones just for the sake of my image. If you make honest and ethical behavior a key value, your
team will follow suit.
7. In your opinion, can a moral system function without taking account of consequences?
Under the consequentiality theories, it stated that if a consequence of the action is good,
then the act is good. The right act is defines by the one that produces more good than evil. The
two major consequentialist ethical theories are ethical egoism and the utilitarianism. For ethical
egoism, people should behave in ways to benefit themselves. For the utilitarianism, we must take
account interest of all concerns and we should act in ways that produce better consequences that
promote human well-being including the happiness, health, dignity, integrity and other good
qualities. No act is ever absolutely right or wrong in all cases in every situation; it will always
depend on the consequences.

In my opinion, an idea of moral system without consideration of consequences might not

even be coherent. An action is to accomplish a purpose. In some sense the consequences of our
action is hard to ignore especially when the outcome affect the numbers of people. In a situation
of choosing between two actions, the one that produces the most desirable outcome that lead to
happiness should be pick. Not only that, ideal moral system would function solely on peoples
desire to do right. However, in reality it is not always like this and consequences for actions are
used as a motivating factor to do well and avoid bad. For example, we are telling the white lies to
our parents to spare them from worrying about us. It might be immoral act to lie to your family,
however, we as a child feel responsible for their happiness and health.
In conclusion, from my perspective in some situation it is morally right to take the
consequences consideration; however we should not let it be our ultimate principles in defining
moral system.