Ethical Decision Making PaperEthical Decision Making PaperEthical Decision Making PaperWhat are ethics and how do they affect decision-making? According to the Santa Clara University, “[…] [E]thics refers to well based standards of right and wrong […].” Ethics are not the same as religion, but “Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior” (Santa Clara University). What about the law? There can be a law in place, but that does not necessarily mean that the law is ethical. An example could be that San Francisco makes it illegal for people to sleep in the parks at night. What about the homeless people that camped out at the parks and now has nowhere else to go? People sleep in the parks during the day, nighttime is not any different except that there are fewer people.
In December, the Santa Clara University School of Law in Berkeley, California, announced it will investigate “discrimination and harassment by the City of Santa Cruz, for its policies on city employees and for its policies regarding use, occupancy, promotion and other uses of open space as being the same,” via its website:
Today, the Department of Law and Public Policy (DPLP) announced an investigation into instances of discrimination that have been reported in San Francisco over the past year. One such instance, cited by the Santa Clara University School of Law in Berkeley, resulted in the cancellation of ten of its employees because it “wryly believed that open spaces were not safe,” and caused “serious social and economic distress and frustration to employees.” Because the DPLP and San Francisco Department of Building and Construction (SDBPC) investigated the complaint and its findings, the SBSH will evaluate the claim and evaluate “the adequacy” to be taken into account by San Francisco, under the provisions of the San Francisco Municipal Act. (SBSH, http://vk-vst.net/about/article/sensorservices-discrimination/). In the case of San Francisco, the DPLP “has concluded that the San Francisco Department of Building Safety Policy does not prohibit open spaces from being designated and designated open for recreational use or for any other purpose as permitted by a city ordinance.”
The Santa Clara University School of Law is not alone in investigating workplace discrimination, but San Francisco Law has the right to investigate and find “discrimination not only within the public and private sectors, but within the state [and] within city and state government.” The article also outlines the problems raised by people with pre-existing conditions who are allowed at home and in public spaces, or who lack health insurance because they are covered by public or private insurance.
What about housing situations and social conditions? Are there specific rights that individuals like to be able to organize when they are working and out there? For instance, for a young person in Silicon Valley and they are worried about their mental health, may be required to use private spaces where family or friends gather. They also may be allowed to use public places for social functions as they have “reasonable due process” due to a mental health condition.
How can it be done? What legal process will they go through to get their grievances heard? San Francisco should look at all aspects of the issue, including:
what civil rights, civil and criminal remedies are available for each individual who is denied a housing placement or other public accommodations
what if some of the tenants, who may be homeless, suffer from pre-existing mental conditions that they may not be afforded those services
who have been discriminated against by discrimination in the employment sphere
Where might they come in contact with one another as they go about their day-to-day life?
what types of accommodations are available for people being denied housing in their homes, without regard to their mental health
What if one of them decides it is safe for them to be locked up while out at work or for a long period of time?
whether public housing could be held out for the purpose
In December, the Santa Clara University School of Law in Berkeley, California, announced it will investigate “discrimination and harassment by the City of Santa Cruz, for its policies on city employees and for its policies regarding use, occupancy, promotion and other uses of open space as being the same,” via its website:
Today, the Department of Law and Public Policy (DPLP) announced an investigation into instances of discrimination that have been reported in San Francisco over the past year. One such instance, cited by the Santa Clara University School of Law in Berkeley, resulted in the cancellation of ten of its employees because it “wryly believed that open spaces were not safe,” and caused “serious social and economic distress and frustration to employees.” Because the DPLP and San Francisco Department of Building and Construction (SDBPC) investigated the complaint and its findings, the SBSH will evaluate the claim and evaluate “the adequacy” to be taken into account by San Francisco, under the provisions of the San Francisco Municipal Act. (SBSH, http://vk-vst.net/about/article/sensorservices-discrimination/). In the case of San Francisco, the DPLP “has concluded that the San Francisco Department of Building Safety Policy does not prohibit open spaces from being designated and designated open for recreational use or for any other purpose as permitted by a city ordinance.”
The Santa Clara University School of Law is not alone in investigating workplace discrimination, but San Francisco Law has the right to investigate and find “discrimination not only within the public and private sectors, but within the state [and] within city and state government.” The article also outlines the problems raised by people with pre-existing conditions who are allowed at home and in public spaces, or who lack health insurance because they are covered by public or private insurance.
What about housing situations and social conditions? Are there specific rights that individuals like to be able to organize when they are working and out there? For instance, for a young person in Silicon Valley and they are worried about their mental health, may be required to use private spaces where family or friends gather. They also may be allowed to use public places for social functions as they have “reasonable due process” due to a mental health condition.
How can it be done? What legal process will they go through to get their grievances heard? San Francisco should look at all aspects of the issue, including:
what civil rights, civil and criminal remedies are available for each individual who is denied a housing placement or other public accommodations
what if some of the tenants, who may be homeless, suffer from pre-existing mental conditions that they may not be afforded those services
who have been discriminated against by discrimination in the employment sphere
Where might they come in contact with one another as they go about their day-to-day life?
what types of accommodations are available for people being denied housing in their homes, without regard to their mental health
What if one of them decides it is safe for them to be locked up while out at work or for a long period of time?
whether public housing could be held out for the purpose
As a society, there are already certain moral standards that are followed when making decisions. For the Christian population, there are the Ten Commandments; a code of ethics that is followed by its believers that has many guidelines and implications. Other examples of these codes of ethic are the Boy Scouts Law, or a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. An ethical decision is affected by these pre-existing codes and laws and as they are accepted by society. These guidelines can mold a decision and can be the basis for the ground rules of a decision making process.
The ground rules for a decision could also be different. In Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, they indicate that, “[…] individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome”. In recognizing that there is a moral dilemma, there also has to be a solution, but that solution can have many outcomes. There are many advantages and disadvantages for these decisions. All of the alternatives and moral perspectives need to be considered thoroughly. There are difficult questions that are asked when making an ethical decision, such as:
How do these decisions affect everyone?How do these decisions affect the individual?Which decision will have the least amount negative implications?What are the repercussions of this decision?Of course, the best question is, “What should the decision be”? This is a loaded question as the best decision may not be possible due to unforeseen circumstances. That is a tough question to answer. The ethical implications of a decision can have many facets and long-term repercussions. A decision made today, can affect someone later. An example could be a mother who decides to put her newborn up for adoption; at the time, it may have been the best thing for the child. In the end, it can cause suffering from a grieving mother, a child that will always wonder who their real mother is, and feeling of abandonment. They can also be raised by abusive foster parents or continue living in an orphanage. Who really knows what will happen?
How can a decision