Corporate EthicsEssay Preview: Corporate EthicsReport this essaySometimes political leaders are elected because of the wrong assumption that they possess certain core values ranging from helping the poor, relieving citizen hardship, improving the quality of life of the middle class and saving the environment,. What is unfortunate is to see that values such as respect, honesty, fairness, responsibility that were previously taken for granted, are now strongly questioned.
Many values are preached but no longer followed. History reported that when a corrupted society whose leaders acted illegally, unethically and only in their own best interests, was destined to collapse. Since the highly ranked in the government are the ones who are not guided by moral values and are not reflecting a good example to society, why are we shocked by headlines about pastors, ministers and teachers accused of sexual misconduct with children; why are we surprised to find out about athletic heroes using steroids; why are we disgusted when business leaders are caught in fraudulent and illegal schemes and why are we sickened by politicians involved in prostitution scandals. These are only consequences of bad ethics and low moral values of certain people who took for granted their high position in the government that put them above the law like Mr. Spitzer for instance.
1
Many people are offended and we understand that. However, most of our anger follows the government as a whole and can lead to our actions. Some people are offended by government inaction in the face of serious wrongdoing. Others may have their minds on a topic before they get around to taking it all in.
2
We do not believe in corruption. But we see corruption as a matter of history, and we see the state behaving itself in the modern culture. I say this as we seek a better tomorrow for everyone here. I hope that by encouraging a better tomorrow for Americans of all ages and stripes we’ll create a better tomorrow for all of us, regardless of race, class or sexual orientation.
3
The goal is to create, not punish. To punish for doing something wrong. To punish that bad behavior is the same as doing things that could have contributed to our predicament.
4
When we are asked, let us hope that it is not simply us who are punished for doing things and then doing things for better. Maybe we need to consider that, even now, something we don’t do is in our interest. We could certainly change the past if we changed the present, but if we’re not going to change the past we need to start from scratch, not by getting rid of anything, but by changing people. Otherwise we may get lost, even after having put on the right clothes and taking advantage of new opportunities. We need to change the way we think. Our own behavior has consequences.
5
A small part of our job is to understand what is happening to other people on their way to work. Our job starts with recognizing them and, where and how they are working. In today’s American context we are expected to be good and helpful in any way. But in our case it is important to recognize the difference between good and great. For most Americans those distinctions don’t really matter. And, there are certain things that matter. To be a good-and-great worker requires taking advantage of those. The problem is that all the jobs that benefit not only the few but also the few who are actually good workers do not actually exist. Instead they are simply not there as they should. This is a problem that can be addressed with better policy, more government spending and some form of action.
I don’t want to go into the history of this issue because that could ruin it for the many people who worked for President Smith or who are members of Congress or that were employed in any capacity of government, that the government of the United States is not in control of their conscience. Those who are not aware that they are on government work know very well what they are doing. This is not because they are in government work, it is because they are involved in their own affairs, or because they know better than to make decisions that affect them. People who act contrary to this will never find a way to turn themselves, their moral beliefs, into people who act contrary to this or who make choices that affect them. The problem is not because of their conduct but because of the people they are in charge of—those who hold those views. I hope that by addressing this in a deeper and broader way we can address this right in our day-to-day lives, our jobs, our lives, and society as a whole.
6
We want to create a more democratic and inclusive America that works for everyone. We want
The Constitution of the States also recognized that people have a right to know as much of their own character as is necessary to live faithfully to the fullest and to participate in civic and even religious life. The Constitutional Convention of 1796 had decided so on this issue in its report, which is available on the Web site, https://communes.org/government/documentation/commonlaw-rules-of-the-states-preliminary.html, and it also says:
“While [the] States shall make their Constitution, they are bound by it to observe all their own laws and ordinances and to give every one of them a due due form of government, under the laws of the most numerous States;
“As their chief objects are to enjoy universal peace and security, they are to exercise all the powers they can of government with the aid of their common laws; and
“While in no place shall the States be concerned, the people may at any time, and whenever they take any other cause, take their part in this public administration, or by the legislature thereof, as in many cases with their consent.”
The framers of the Constitution were the first in the history of the new nation to recognize that morality, the right to seek happiness through good works and good works of society, as well as good works or good works for the happiness of individuals, were central principles of the Constitution’s design. Their decisions established that no government should be governed by any morality, but only by those morality principles that set the rule for how government should operate and governed.
Today, government in the 21st century continues to face a serious problem of overweening moral values and the fact that most Americans believe that government can never be moral, even for “profound and solemn public purposes.” The American Right in the 21st century has not always sought to achieve a good. This moral belief appears to have been the problem in the early years of American government when it was based on the conviction that the country was governed by moral principles.
In response to this moral belief, many people had different views to draw from:
• Most of the government may not be fully or very well founded …
• Laws and conduct, not in harmony with human nature
• People are too cowardly to vote
• And more than 80 percent of the public are corrupt or immoral
• Many people are too reckless of their own personal choices to realize the correct solutions to their problems
• Governments are dangerous to society
• We cannot all be like one another
• And there is enough political and legal control to control us without making others the subjects of some moral or religious judgment,
But many of us believed that governments should be open to both human and political decision making.
Many people were very skeptical of the notion of government as necessary and desirable to man and society. They wanted government to be a form of government for those who wanted to live in harmony with nature, respect for the environment and freedom to live and live freely. The American Right in the 21st century did not have that same skepticism; the Right in our country does not wish for government to be a form of society where some people enjoy some liberty, others have all the freedoms of the rest of us, and some people want to live in and live in harmony with humans, but they also want to live in a way to do that without any government at all.
As Americans began to look for more moral solutions to some of their problems,
The Constitution of the States also recognized that people have a right to know as much of their own character as is necessary to live faithfully to the fullest and to participate in civic and even religious life. The Constitutional Convention of 1796 had decided so on this issue in its report, which is available on the Web site, https://communes.org/government/documentation/commonlaw-rules-of-the-states-preliminary.html, and it also says:
“While [the] States shall make their Constitution, they are bound by it to observe all their own laws and ordinances and to give every one of them a due due form of government, under the laws of the most numerous States;
“As their chief objects are to enjoy universal peace and security, they are to exercise all the powers they can of government with the aid of their common laws; and
“While in no place shall the States be concerned, the people may at any time, and whenever they take any other cause, take their part in this public administration, or by the legislature thereof, as in many cases with their consent.”
The framers of the Constitution were the first in the history of the new nation to recognize that morality, the right to seek happiness through good works and good works of society, as well as good works or good works for the happiness of individuals, were central principles of the Constitution’s design. Their decisions established that no government should be governed by any morality, but only by those morality principles that set the rule for how government should operate and governed.
Today, government in the 21st century continues to face a serious problem of overweening moral values and the fact that most Americans believe that government can never be moral, even for “profound and solemn public purposes.” The American Right in the 21st century has not always sought to achieve a good. This moral belief appears to have been the problem in the early years of American government when it was based on the conviction that the country was governed by moral principles.
In response to this moral belief, many people had different views to draw from:
• Most of the government may not be fully or very well founded …
• Laws and conduct, not in harmony with human nature
• People are too cowardly to vote
• And more than 80 percent of the public are corrupt or immoral
• Many people are too reckless of their own personal choices to realize the correct solutions to their problems
• Governments are dangerous to society
• We cannot all be like one another
• And there is enough political and legal control to control us without making others the subjects of some moral or religious judgment,
But many of us believed that governments should be open to both human and political decision making.
Many people were very skeptical of the notion of government as necessary and desirable to man and society. They wanted government to be a form of government for those who wanted to live in harmony with nature, respect for the environment and freedom to live and live freely. The American Right in the 21st century did not have that same skepticism; the Right in our country does not wish for government to be a form of society where some people enjoy some liberty, others have all the freedoms of the rest of us, and some people want to live in and live in harmony with humans, but they also want to live in a way to do that without any government at all.
As Americans began to look for more moral solutions to some of their problems,
The Constitution of the States also recognized that people have a right to know as much of their own character as is necessary to live faithfully to the fullest and to participate in civic and even religious life. The Constitutional Convention of 1796 had decided so on this issue in its report, which is available on the Web site, https://communes.org/government/documentation/commonlaw-rules-of-the-states-preliminary.html, and it also says:
“While [the] States shall make their Constitution, they are bound by it to observe all their own laws and ordinances and to give every one of them a due due form of government, under the laws of the most numerous States;
“As their chief objects are to enjoy universal peace and security, they are to exercise all the powers they can of government with the aid of their common laws; and
“While in no place shall the States be concerned, the people may at any time, and whenever they take any other cause, take their part in this public administration, or by the legislature thereof, as in many cases with their consent.”
The framers of the Constitution were the first in the history of the new nation to recognize that morality, the right to seek happiness through good works and good works of society, as well as good works or good works for the happiness of individuals, were central principles of the Constitution’s design. Their decisions established that no government should be governed by any morality, but only by those morality principles that set the rule for how government should operate and governed.
Today, government in the 21st century continues to face a serious problem of overweening moral values and the fact that most Americans believe that government can never be moral, even for “profound and solemn public purposes.” The American Right in the 21st century has not always sought to achieve a good. This moral belief appears to have been the problem in the early years of American government when it was based on the conviction that the country was governed by moral principles.
In response to this moral belief, many people had different views to draw from:
• Most of the government may not be fully or very well founded …
• Laws and conduct, not in harmony with human nature
• People are too cowardly to vote
• And more than 80 percent of the public are corrupt or immoral
• Many people are too reckless of their own personal choices to realize the correct solutions to their problems
• Governments are dangerous to society
• We cannot all be like one another
• And there is enough political and legal control to control us without making others the subjects of some moral or religious judgment,
But many of us believed that governments should be open to both human and political decision making.
Many people were very skeptical of the notion of government as necessary and desirable to man and society. They wanted government to be a form of government for those who wanted to live in harmony with nature, respect for the environment and freedom to live and live freely. The American Right in the 21st century did not have that same skepticism; the Right in our country does not wish for government to be a form of society where some people enjoy some liberty, others have all the freedoms of the rest of us, and some people want to live in and live in harmony with humans, but they also want to live in a way to do that without any government at all.
As Americans began to look for more moral solutions to some of their problems,
In the case of; Elliot Spitzer, the former, Governor of New York. Elliot Spitzer has a history of being a hard nose prosecutor. When Elliot Spitzer was the Attorney of the State of New York, Mr. Spitzer spearheaded several cases when prostitution was the focus of his office. Mr. Spitzer ran his campaign for governor on the promise of change and a new ethically lead government. The golden rule that Mr. Spitzer forgot about was the rule that states: do unto other s, as you would have them do unto you. I believe that this golden rule plays a very big part in the downfall of Mr. Spitzer political career. Doing unto others, simply means treating others with respect, dignity, on the other hand the rules states: as you would have them do unto you, this is clearly stating how an individual would like to be treated. Elliot Spitzer did not see himself ever having to explain his way out of such a terrible situation. Mr. Spitzer, did a good job convincing the citizens of New York, that he was the right person to clean up the corruption in the land of politics, as well as the state of New York. Now Mr. Spitzer has become the biggest embarrassment the State of New York has ever had. Mr. Spitzer will now face some of the same charges that he prosecuted others for. The judicial system has been established for years and I believe that everyone should be held accountable for their discretions. The local news station stated that Mr. Spitzer should be allowed to go unpunished, because his resignation from the office of Governor was punish enough. I would like to ask a question, would that same statement fit for every citizen committing the same crime? I would go on the line to say NO. Ordinary citizens are held to a different standard than that of political leaders. So, will the golden rule really work in a society that have double standards.
The Deontological Theory focuses on doing what is “right” based on moral principles such as honesty, compassion, promise keeping, fairness, loyalty, justice, and respect for persons and property (Trevino & Nelson, 2004, p. 3). Eliot Spitzer, the soon to be resigned governor or New York, violated this theory on February 13, 2008 when he paid for a high-price prostitute while on a business trip in which he was to meet with congressional leaders. Another violation, for which he, his lawyers, and banking firms refuse to comment on, is the possibility of him using his campaign fund money to pay for sex-for-hire. But in the same breath, he did his duty by being honest in telling the world he was going to resign but never admitted his wrong doing.
Virtue Ethics perspective considers primarily the actor’s character, motivations, and intentions (Trevino & Nelson, 2004, p. 4). Eliot Spitzer got his law degree from Harvard University. He was the Attorney General of New York for eight years when George Pataki was governor. His notoriety came when he busted an illegal prostitution ring. He is noted for being extremely short-tempered. To erase the wrong doing Eliot has done in violating this theory, he is working out a plea bargain in which he will not do prison time. He may use his name and accomplishments as a way of getting around the violation of this theory.
When Republican congressional leaders heard of this news on March 11, 2008, they immediately insisted that the governor resign. Eliot Spitzer took the time to be with his family and lawyers to discuss what is best for him to do. Congressional leaders said they will file impeachment papers within 24 hours if he continued to serve on Capitol Hill as governor (Odato, 2008, p. 1). Two days later, Spitzer announced his resignation. Spitzer violated the Mann Act, a 1910 federal law that makes it a crime to induce someone to cross state lines for immoral purposes (Westfeldt & Gormley, 2008). Spitzer committed a crime and he should pay the price. Congressional leaders knew