Ethical Fundamentalism

 Ethical Fundamentalism

I would appeal for the court to enlist the individual in a psychiatric institution. Under Ethical Fundamentalism, a manager would refer to legislation or chief authority for the decision’s guidance (Mann and Roberts 15). The law approves an appeal for the court to enroll to a mental facility and, thus, the decision to have the employee enlisted in a psychiatric facility is ethical regardless of the family’s possible reaction. Additionally, utilitarianism supports a procedure that would result in the utmost net pleasure (Mann and Roberts 16). In this scenario, imploring the jury to commit the worker would save her life that would convey joy to the employer, the family, and the employee. Even though the household may view the supplication as an insult, they are most expected to be gladder that their kin’s life was protected. If I do nothing, the worker could die, causing death to the operative, loss to the manager, and pain to the folks. Thus, on balance, imploring the jury would become the best procedure.

Other moral concepts, including intuitionism, would settle that the manager, as a reasonable individual, has essential authority to evaluate the accuracy of arrangements (Mann and Roberts 18). Such thoughtful individual may decide that action has to be taken, including a petition of the court or contacting worker’s folks to converse the issue. Likewise, television test would possibly settle that the boss ought to take action to attempt helping (Mann and Roberts 18). Also, an employer may observe the competent person’s viewpoint that would include finding and imitating the decision of an individual that always appears to acknowledge the right choice.

Eventually, proponents of corporations’ social responsibility claim that a manager has to attempt saving a worker’s existence by acting since organizations owe the community to consenting their existence (Mann and Roberts 19). Similarly, to a small extent, aiding to salvage the individual will establish goodwill within the society.

All of the above philosophies emphasize that as a manager, I ought to make a decision that would salvage the worker’s life. Thus, these concepts should outperform any argument against corporations’ overall social responsibility.

Q 5.

Even though no one would recognize that I swapped the vouchers, and whereas ethical relativism and utilitarianism support swapping, I would not swipe the tickets (Mann and Roberts 16). According to ethical relativism, switching the coupons is justified if I find it the right action. Similarly, in utilitarianism, swapping the voucher would cause me more happiness than pain since Joe Jones’ only existing folk is already wealthy, and converting the lottery would not give her any pain.

However, referring to the television test, the good personal evaluation, situational ethics, and ethical fundamentalism theories to guide my verdict, I would not convert the lottery (Mann and Roberts 15). Situational ethics direct my decision by placing myself in Jones’ shoes. Since honesty is my regulating moral, then as per situational ethics, I would not shift the tickets. Similarly, since my parents forbid me from lying, taking commodities that are not mine, and demand honesty every time, ethical fundamentalism would stop me from switching my lotteries for Jones’.

Also, the concept of good person test instructs me to find an individual that I believe frequently does good and imitate the individual’s actions (Mann and Roberts 17). My dad is such an individual, and since he would not approve for me to swap the lotteries, them, I would desist from converting Jones’ ticket. Additionally, as per the television test, I would imagine that my deeds were being aired countrywide and would, therefore, stop from taking Jones’ card.

Moreover, under deontology, my motivations, means, and outcomes would be arbitrated (Mann and Roberts 16). According to this philosophy, converting the lotteries would possibly be okay if my life was a struggle. However, my choice to own the cash and deny the rich aunt who legally owns it would be wrong if I despised the aunt, which is the case. Thus, the fact that the relative is wealthy would not impact my decision.

Q 16.

Res ipsa loquitur approves a panel to conclude both causation and negligent conduct (Mann and Roberts 151). This principle holds when “when the accident that causes physical harm to plaintiff, is a type of accident that ordinarily happens as a result of the negligence of a class of actors of which the defendant is the relevant member” (Mann and Roberts 152).

Whether or not res ipsa loquitur is a fitting concept relies on the stadium’s workers and manager, for whom the stadium serves (Mann and Roberts 153). The staffs and manager belong to the crew that preserves the screens in the stadium. Although the facility’s owner changes the filters once in two years, the individual rents the arena to an organization that utilizes the properties. In case the workers and their boss labor for the team that leases the premises, then the organization cannot judge that the stadium’s titleholder operated negligently.

However, in case the staff and the supervisor labor for the arena landlord, then res ipsa loquitur applies as a fitting concept (Mann and Roberts 159). It does so because the landlord of the arena was answerable for fixing holes on the protective screens intended to shield spectators, but did not do it correctly as evident within the case.

Q 11.

Whether the respondent is obliged to reimburse under the original verbal contract or recorded modified arrangement relies on whether the applied State observes the Uniform Commercial Code’s (UCC) tactic, the Restatement, or common law. Within the common rule, contract modification has to be reinforced by joint deliberation. On the contrary, the Restatement rule does not demand consideration but necessitates the agreement to be equitable and fair and executory (unperformed) in account of immediate realities that the participants did not expect when making the arrangement.

Other states observe UCC, which mandates just good faith without consideration. The states contrast on whether or not they need the adjustment to be in executory or writing. In this scenario, the change was not reinforced by any deliberation. Therefore, within the common rule, the first agreement would rule, and the respondent would have to settle the total owed as per the first agreement. Under the method of Restatement, the first verbal pact might hold as well since the alteration was possibly not equitable and fair considering the surrounding realities that the participants did not expect when creating the covenant.

The respondent waited until the arrangement was 90% whole before expressing discontent with the petitioner’s performance. The incidence is improbable to be taken as equitable or fair. Furthermore, a jury may not deliberate the first pact as executory as the complainant was closing to the completion of the contract.

As per UCC, in case the jury determined that the accused expressed displeasure out of good faith, then it might implement the written alteration. However, in case the State demands the first pact to remain executory, the claimant may be competent in debating that the agreement was close to completion. Thus, the magistrate may instead impose the original verbal agreement. Therefore, the respondent is most probably tied to the first spoken pact based on the tactic that the jury applies to alterations to bonds.

Q 12.

A court is unlikely to hold the hospital to the employment contract with Mr. T because doing so would enforce an agreement contravening a regulatory licensing statute.

The State statute, in this case, requires all physicians to have a license to practice medicine from the State. Such a license is granted after a physician passes an examination. Therefore, the statute is regulatory because it is a measure designed to protect the public against unqualified persons.

In this case, Mr. T did not pass the examination to obtain a license to practice medicine, but still sought to practice medicine with the hospital. Even though Mr. T relied on the hospital’s representation that he would have permanent employment as a physician, the public policy behind the license requirement clearly outweighs his interest in being paid for unqualified services.

Therefore, Mr. T’s breach of contract claim against the hospital for not employing him after discovering that he lacked the required license will fail.