Deontology: The Following Course Outcome Is Assessed In This

Deontologythe Following Course Outcome Is Assessed In This Assignment

Deontology The following Course Outcome is assessed in this assignment: GB590-2: Evaluate deontology theories within discrimination and workplace issues. In the course overview, you learned that you will be using GVV as a foundation for a personal journey on relationship building and decision making based on your values. Why do you need to learn about ethical theories and frameworks? “Ethical Theories are attempts to provide a clear, unified account of what our ethical obligations are. They are attempts, in other words, to tell a single “story” about what we are obligated to do, without referring directly to specific examples” (Ethical Theory: Overview, 2022, para 1).

Learning about select traditional ethics theories and incorporating this information into your decision-making process will help you to understand your decision-making processes in greater detail and enhance your ability to act in concert with your values. In this assignment you will be learning about deontology and applying this theory to a current example that you select for analysis. You will also be using your work with GVV so far in this analysis process. In a 3-7 page APA formatted paper excluding diagrams and other visual/oral aids as appropriate, address the following:

Section 1 - Deontology

In this section, you will be delving into this theory from a variety of perspectives. Using the weekly readings and videos and at least two other scholarly sources, provide an overview of this theory including the following elements: definition, individual elements or subsets of the main theory, contributors to the development of this theory, historical foundations—what societal elements or circumstances caused this theory to be developed? What are the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating this theory into decision-making in the contemporary world? Using your GVV work to date, would this theory align with your decision-making? Why or why not?

Section 2 - Analysis of a current business situation or event

In this section, you will apply your prior work to a recent business situation (within the last 6 months) related to discrimination or workplace issues. You may use a personal example, select from your own sources, or utilize business reporting sources from the university library. Discuss the business and societal ramifications of discrimination and workplace issues.

Include at least two scholarly sources beyond the weekly readings/videos. Provide a summary of the selected business, including but not limited to: name, industry, values, vision, mission, purpose, whether it is public or private, financials, size, and whether it is national or international. Explain why you selected this company and what interests you about it. Describe the identified discrimination or workplace issue, potential impacts on the business—including direct costs and other effects—and discuss whether the issue conflicts with the company's stated values and purpose. Also, consider cultural norms and your GVV work related to this company. Identify potential causes of these issues.

Section 3 – Personal Application

If tasked with creating an action plan to reduce the recurrence of this issue, would you base decision-making on consequentialism? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Why or why not? Similarly, would you choose deontology? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Why or why not? List your GVV work to date and discuss how you incorporate this work into creating the action plan.

Paper For Above instruction

Deontology is a fundamental ethical theory that emphasizes the intrinsic morality of actions based on adherence to rules, duties, and principles rather than consequences. Rooted in Kantian philosophy, deontology asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of outcomes, and that moral agents must follow moral duties to act ethically. This paper explores deontology's core elements, historical foundations, and its application to contemporary workplace discrimination issues, integrating personal and scholarly perspectives to evaluate its relevance in decision-making processes.

Deontology, derived from the Greek words "deon" (duty) and "logos" (study or reason), focuses on the innate morality of actions. The core element of deontology is the moral duty to act according to a set of universal principles, such as honesty, justice, and respect. Unlike consequentialist theories like utilitarianism, which assess morality based on outcomes, deontology holds that certain actions are intrinsically wrong or right. Immanuel Kant is considered a pivotal contributor to deontological ethics, advocating that moral duties are categorical and applicable universally, regardless of personal interests or social circumstances (Kant, 1785). Kant's formulation of the 'Categorical Imperative' emphasizes that one should act only according to maxims that can be universally willed without contradiction, underscoring the importance of duty over personal or societal preferences.

Historically, deontology emerged during the Enlightenment as a response to earlier ethical theories that prioritized consequentialism or relativism. Its development was influenced by societal shifts towards individual rights, rationalism, and the quest for universal moral principles. The Industrial Revolution and subsequent social transformations spotlighted issues of justice, rights, and obligations within workplaces, prompting the need for ethical frameworks that uphold individual dignity and fairness, thus fostering deontological principles in professional contexts (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).

The advantages of integrating deontology into contemporary decision-making include clarity of moral duties, consistency in ethical evaluations, and respect for human rights. It provides a stable moral compass that upholds fairness and justice, especially relevant in issues like discrimination, where treating individuals with inherent dignity is paramount. However, deontology also has disadvantages. Its rigid adherence to rules can lead to conflicts when duties clash or when strict application disregards contextual nuances (Alexander & Moore, 2016). For example, a deontological stance might prohibit lying even when lying could prevent harm, raising questions about flexibility in real-world scenarios.

In my work with GVV (Giving Voice to Values), I have found that deontological principles resonate in situations demanding honesty and fairness. Upholding integrity and respect aligns with my values, supporting consistent ethical decisions. Nevertheless, GVV's emphasis on aligning actions with personal values also requires balancing duties with potential consequences, a tension acknowledged in deontological ethics. For example, advocating for transparency and fairness in organizational decisions can sometimes conflict with pragmatic concerns about organizational stability, illustrating the need for nuanced application of deontological principles in decision making.

Applying deontology to a recent business situation concerning workplace discrimination, I selected a tech company's allegations of gender discrimination that surfaced within the last six months. The company, renowned for innovation, has a mission emphasizing diversity and inclusion; however, reports indicated unequal pay and promotional disparities affecting women employees. This issue profoundly impacts the business, causing potential legal risks, reputational damage, and reduced employee morale, which can translate into increased turnover and decreased productivity (Catalyst, 2023).

Analyzing its societal ramifications reveals broader implications about gender inequality and systemic bias, reflecting cultural norms that sometimes perpetuate discrimination despite stated commitments to diversity. This disconnect between values and actions creates internal conflicts, undermining organizational credibility and stakeholder trust. As an employee with prior GVV training, I recognize the importance of advocating for ethical practices aligning with core values of fairness and respect, identifying causes such as unconscious biases, lack of accountability, and inadequate diversity training.

In developing an action plan, I would consider both consequentialist and deontological approaches. From a consequentialist perspective, decisions would aim to maximize overall benefits—such as enhancing organizational reputation and employee satisfaction—while minimizing harm caused by ongoing discrimination. Advantages include pragmatic flexibility and focus on tangible outcomes; disadvantages involve potential neglect of moral duties and individual rights (Singer, 2011). Conversely, employing deontology as the guiding principle emphasizes adherence to duties like fairness, honesty, and respect for persons. Its advantage is the ethical consistency and moral clarity in addressing discrimination, but its rigid nature might risk conflicts with organizational pragmatism or create resistance when duties seem in conflict.

Integrating GVV, I would leverage my prior work to formulate an action plan that upholds integrity and moral duties while considering organizational context. For instance, fostering open dialogue, implementing transparent review processes, and advocating for policy reforms align with deontological duties and GVV's emphasis on values-driven advocacy. This combined approach ensures that decision-making remains rooted in core ethical principles, promoting sustainable change resistant to superficial fixes or efforts purely driven by consequences.

References

• Alexander, R., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Catalyst. (2023). The Cost of Gender Inequality in the Workplace. https://www.catalyst.org/research/gender-inequality-impact/
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Ethical Theory: Overview. (2022). https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/what-is-ethics/overview
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.