Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning

Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning

Name:

Institution:

Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning

Question 1

Legal reasoning is an argumentative process aimed at evaluating the basis of certain legal stipulations as well as interpreting these laws rationally. In some instances, legal and moral forms of reasoning comprise of similar aspects since they both entail value-based verdicts. For example, most of the legal provisions governing certain communities outlaw activities considered by the society as immoral. This includes fraud, theft, or physical attacks. Nonetheless, some situations do not utilize the concepts of moral reasoning (Thirlway & Hague Academy of International Law, 2003). This includes the interpretation of policies involving the accepted business operations in a particular region. One of the major similarities exhibited by both approaches of legal reasoning includes the evaluation of the intended purpose of the policy under consideration (Moore & Parker, 2012). Moreover, it entails the identification of principles validating the law as well as the most appropriate formation process. Based on these arguments, there are three chief approaches of legal reasoning.

One of these mechanisms used to evaluate the embedded principles of a policy is legal moralism. It puts emphasis on the ideology that the formulated policies should forbid any activity considered as immoral in the community setting. This interpretation approach is helpful to the society since it avoids any form of divergence between the legal stipulations and the moral values embraced by the public (Cady, 2005). For example, most communities consider drug abuse and trafficking as contradictory to the moral principles. Accordingly, related business operations should be illegal. This is helpful in ending such societal problems, and facilitating economic developments since the abuse of narcotics affects various subdivisions including public health, internal security, and education.

However, legal moralism may be harmful to the community owing to the generalization of the embedded values (Golding, 2001). For example, there exists an ethical dilemma in the establishment of companies producing alcoholic beverages. Although alcohol consumption is against the moral values embraced by certain communities, these businesses create numerous employment opportunities, in addition to contributing significantly to the local and national economic growth. For this reason, it would be harmful to the society’s welfare if the validity of such business operations were in line with the concept of legal moralism (Moore & Parker, 2012). Other aspects of legal reasoning that are helpful to the society include the harm principle and legal paternalism. This is because it entails the validity of a policy with the intent of prohibiting activities that cause harm to others or oneself respectively. For instance, the banning of the production of nuclear weapons based on these arguments aids in reducing environmental pollution.

Question 2

Despite the benefits of promoting diversity in the organizational setting, there are certain challenges associated with the incorporation of human resources with different opinions on certain aspects. This is evident in such processes as the formulation of policies exhibiting an ethical dilemma. Such situations may result in destructive conflicts, an aspect that has negative effects on the attainment of the set objectives at the team and organizational levels (Moore & Parker, 2012). Some of the various principles adopted by human resources in an organization include utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, relativism, and absolutism.

To begin with, employees who adhere to utilitarianism exhibit desirable traits such as honesty, selflessness, and fairness (Kitson & Campbell, 2007). This is because of the moral concepts integrated in this ideology. For this reason, inclusion of such individuals in an organizational team enhances equality and consideration of other people’s ideas. Nonetheless, such employees may not appreciate the personality differences in a group. This may lead to destructive conflicts as opposed to acquiring the benefits of constructive disagreements. Similarly, consequentialism bases the morality of an activity or policy on its outcome. In an organization, human resources who support this theory focus on attaining desirable results as the main approach of justifying their actions. This is beneficial in increasing one’s performance. However, it is difficult to evaluate the competence of an employer based on this concept especially in situations where the manager adheres to this supposition. This is because such individuals tend to define one’s performance based on the outcome of a single action without considering other influential factors (Moore & Parker, 2012).

In contrast, deontology is an ethical theory that focuses on the intentions of a person. Some of its pros include the policies that enable its adherents to scrutinize their behaviors. This results in increased productivity and adherence to the set policies. However, it does not focus on the categorization and prioritization of official duties. This may result in conflicts, in the organization. Moreover, supporters of relativism believe in the coexistence of people from different cultures and opinions. This is essential in the establishment of a strong and competent team. However, due to the lack of a defined ethical agent in the evaluation of one’s actions, it may be challenging to promote accountability among the human resources. Furthermore, dealing with employees who support the concept of absolutism as their major moral ideology is beneficial since they disregard all actions and policies that conflict with the set policies regardless of the influential factors (Arnold, 2014). The strict adherence to the organizational rules aids the managerial team to guide the workers towards a platform of increased productivity. Nonetheless, it may be difficult to convince such individuals to adopt ethical flexibility in justifiable situations.

References:

Arnold, D. (2014). Ethical theory and business.

Cady, D. L. (2005). Moral vision: How everyday life shapes ethical thinking. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Golding, M. P. (2001). Legal reasoning. Ontario: Broadview Press.

Kitson, A., & Campbell, R. (2007). The ethical organization: Ethical theory and corporate behavior. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Business.

Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2012). Critical thinking. Nueva York: McGraw Hill.

Thirlway, H., & Hague Academy of International Law (Den Haag). (January 01, 2003). Concepts, principles, rules and analogies: International and municipal legal reasoning. Recueil Des Cours De L’académie De Droit International De La Haye = Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 2002, 265-405.