Sustainable Environment For The Future
Help writing 8-10 page Critical analysis on the following in APA Format using Boatright, J. and Smith, J.D. (2017). Ethics and the Conduct of Business. (8th ed.). Pearson. ISBN: 978-0134167657 as the primary reference. Book not furnished
Do current generatons ( including current businesses) owe a duty to future generations to produce products and conduct business in an environmentally sustainable manner so that future generations are assured of inheriting a livable planet( one on which reasonable persons would want to live); even if it means that current generations must sacrifice many preferences in current lifestyles? Why or why not?
First define environmental sustainability (hint: the U.N. has a good definition). Also, the term “future generations” includes all of the yet to be borne, not those that are younger than you but are breathing.
Use the following for your analysis:
1. Kohlberg’s Moral Development Model;
2. The Kew Garden Principles; or Dr. Laura’s Three Prerequisites for Assigning Moral Credit or Culpability;
3. At least two appropriate Ethical Theories
4. Moral Imagination;
5. Moral Courage;
6. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Model;
7. A CSR Model; Needs to be a current CSR model not just the definition
8. The relevant Law or Legal Theory;
9. Any other applicable course concepts from previous or current assigned reading or research
10. Sample paper is just that a sample it doesn’t pertain to this topic for analysis
11 additional help
RIGHTS THEORIES
MORAL RIGHTS
Moral rights as opposed to legal rights are not dependant on a political system for their legitimacy. This is the category of rights that all human air–breathers, as opposed to non-human air-breathers— should be afforded to them by virtue of their having intrinsic value and not only instrumental value. These rights, or entitlements, are supported by various ethical theories when for instance the Universalism thesis under Utilitarianism requires that all persons’ (women’s and men’s) interests be considered in the calculations of Hedonistic options available. Kantianism insists that all Universalizable maxims be respectful of the rights of all persons to be treated with dignity and respect–which includes freedom of choice. Virtue ethics, more modernly, does not distinguish basic “good ” character traits of excellence such as integrity, good judgment, role identity–not as a woman or a man in any given role but, the ability to fulfill the duties of that role within a community by a member of either sex—, holism–the ability to habitually practice the other virtues in an integrative manner while recognizing the importance of other persons to the community and vise versa. The various Justice theories do not relegate justice based on sex, just on relevant differences based on ability, endeavor, contribution, etc.
LEGAL RIGHTS
Legal rights are those set of rights that require recognition and enforceability by a given political system e.g. the U.S. and each state government. For instance, U.S. citizens cannot expect to have their civil rights recognized, except under limited circumstances e.g. by treaties, when traveling to or residing in other countries. Legal rights are usually territorially bound. One must be able to cite a legally recognized right to enforce that right against others in a court of law. So, as you compose your analysis, be sure to name the specific law upon which the legal right under analysis depends. Also, you want to consider that if we declassify sex as a protected class would it also rescind other legal protections designed primarily for women such as protections regarding pregnancy and equal pay, etc.?
Are women entitled to be given priority over men just by virtue of their sex, or must they be “otherwise qualified”? What does that mean? What is a BFOQ defense to sexual discrimination?
If, we declassified sex as a protected class would women still be able to demand that they be given equal employment opportunities or would they be forced to depend upon the goodwill of their male counterparts in the government and business communities
JUSTICE THEORIES
Rawls’ theory of justice has two main principles and two minor principles, that condition the second main principle. Like all of the other theories and legal concepts, these come as a set and must be all examined for compliance. Lacking one of the elements, results in either a mitigating factor or an excusing factor, independent of affirmative defenses such as a BFOQ defense in employment law.
Would any rational self-interested person wish to live in a society that does not legally protect its members against sexual discrimination, if he might be a victim of that lack of legal protection, even if that lack of protection was offset by a greater good for the rest of society? Would rescinding these legal protections make the least advantaged –for argument’s sake, women–better off than they would be with the protections in place? Would this guaranty women an equal opportunity to compete for access to all offices and positions in society? Does this theory advocate absolute equality or equality of opportunity, and what one makes of that equal opportunity is up to each individual, which might result in natural inequalities due to skills, effort or luck, but would still be fair?
ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
Aristotle posited that persons should be treated alike (equal) unless there is a relevant difference, in which case it is just to treat them differently in proportion to that relevant difference. So, would this support the BFOQ legal defense in employment law? Is this theory unsupportive of legal protections for women? Do the current legal protections allow for differences in treatment, even on the basis of sex, if there is a relevant difference in education, skills, experience or ability, so long as anyone is treated differently only in proportion to the relevant difference in the aforementioned differences (qualifications)?
NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF JUSTICE
Nozick’s theory also has a set of elements that must all be discussed in your analysis, as one builds upon, and informs the others.
I list them here differently than the authors of your text because they might make more sense in this way.
There must first be a just–free of force or fraud–acquisition of the property right. This does not mean just land or physical personal property but, includes entitlements, such as equal opportunities to fulfill any of Maslow’s levels of needs. If you gained your employment through your superior efforts, experience or even good luck, as long as you did not use force of wrongfully attained unequal power or fraud – -misrepresentation of facts about genetic abilities–then the acquisition is just.
Second, if the first element is met then any subsequent transfer of that acquisition is just, even if it results in an inequality within society.
This third element is especially useful in this case analysis because it obligates one to rectify the situation where the two elements above were not met. What were the legal protections for members of protected classes intended to accomplish?
RIGHTS THEORIES
MORAL RIGHTS
Moral rights as opposed to legal rights are not dependant on a political system for their legitimacy. This is the category of rights that all human air-breathers, as opposed to non-human air-breathers— should be afforded to them by virtue of their having intrinsic value and not only instrumental value. These rights, or entitlements, are supported by various ethical theories when for instance the Universalism thesis under Utilitarianism requires that all persons’ (women’s and men’s) interests be considered in the calculations of Hedonistic options available. Kantianism insists that all Universiziable maxims be respectful of the rights of all persons to be treated with dignity and respect-which includes freedom of choice. Virtue ethics, more modernly, does not distinguish basic “good ” character traits of excellence such as integrity, good judgment, role identity-not as a woman or a man in any given role but, the ability to fulfill the duties of that role within a community by a member of either sex—, holism-the ability to habitually practice the other virtues in an integrative manner while recognizing the importance of other persons to the community and vise versa. The various Justice theories do not relegate justice based on sex, just on relevant differences based on ability, endeavor, contribution, etc.
LEGAL RIGHTS
Legal rights are those set of rights that require recognition and enforceability by a given political system e.g. the U.S. and each state government. For instance, U.S. citizens cannot expect to have their civil rights recognized, except under limited circumstances e.g. by treaties, when traveling or residing to other countries. Legal rights are usually territorially bound. One must be able to cite a legally recognized right in order to enforce that right against others in a court of law. So, as you compose your analysis, be sure to name the specific law upon which the legal right under analysis depends. Also, you want to consider that if we declassify sex as a protected class would it also rescind other legal protections designed primarily for women such as protections regarding pregnancy and equal pay, etc. ?
Are women entitled to be given priority over men just by virtue of their sex, or must they be “otherwise qualified”? What does that mean? What is a BFOQ defense to sexual discrimination?
If we declassified sex as a protected class would women still be able to demand to be given equal employment opportunities or would they be forced to depend upon the goodwill of their male counterparts in the government and business communities
JUSTICE THEORIES
Rawls’ theory of justice has two main principles and two minor principles that condition the second main principle. Like all of the other theories and legal concepts, these come as a set and must be all examined for compliance. Lacking one of the elements, results in either a mitigating factor or an excusing factor, independent of affirmative defenses such as a BFOQ defense in employment law?
Would any rational self-interested person wish to live in a society that does not legally protect its members against sexual discrimination, if he might be a victim of that lack of legal protection, even if that lack of protection was offset by a greater good for the rest of society? Would rescinding these legal protections make the least advantaged -for argument’s sake,women-better off than they would be with the protections in place? Would this guaranty women an equal opportunity to compete for access to all offices and positions in society? Does this theory advocate absolute equality or Equality of opportunity, and what one makes of that equal opportunity is up to each individual, which might result in natural inequalities due to skills, effort or luck, but would still be fair?
ARISTOTLE’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
Aristotle posited that persons should be treated alike (equal) unless there is a relevant difference, in which case it is just to treat them differently in proportion to that relevant difference. So, would this support the BFOQ legal defense in employment law? Is this theory unsupportive of legal protections for women? Do the current legal protections allow for differences in treatment, even on the basis of sex, if there is a relevant difference in education, skills, experience or ability, so long as anyone is treated differently only in proportion to the relevant difference in the aforementioned differences (qualifications)?
NOZICK’S ENTITLEMENT THEORY OF JUSTICE
Nozick’s theory also has a set of elements that must all be discussed in your analysis, as one builds upon, and informs the others.
I list them here differently that the authors of your text because they might make more sense in this way.
There must first be a just-free of force or fraud-acquisition of the property right. This does not mean just land or physical personal property but, includes entitlements, such as equal opportunities to fulfill any of Mazlow’s levels of needs. If you gained your employment through your superior efforts, experience or even good luck, as long as you did not use force of wrongfully attained unequal power or fraud – misrepresentation of facts about genetic abilities-then the acquisition is just.
Second, if the first element is met then any subsequent transfer of that acquisition is just, even if it results in an inequality within society.
This third element is especially useful in this case analysis because it obligates one to rectify the situation where the two elements above were not met. What were the legal protections for members of protected classes intended to accomplish?
