organizational normsand rules by its members.Acceptance can take different forms; it can be conscious or unconscious, overt of implicit, but it is almostalways present, because an organization can survive only if it holds it members together.Group cohesiveness requires that individual members “commit” themselves – that is, relinquish some of their personal freedom in order to further organizational goals. (Loyalty to the “team”)Pressure to meet corporate objectives, to be a team player, and to conform to organizational norms can sometimes lead people to act unethically.Groupthinkhappens when pressure for unanimity within a highly cohesive group overwhelms its members’ desire or ability to appraise the situation realistically and consider alternative courses of action.When under the sway of groupthink, group members may have the illusion that the group is invulnerableor that because the group is good or right, whatever it does is permissible.It may be difficult to say exactly who should be held accountable. This diffusion of responsibility inside an organization leads individuals to have a diluted or diminished sense of their own personal moral responsibilities. They tend to see themselves simply as small players in a process or as cogs in a machine over which they have no control and for which they are unaccountable. Diffusion of responsibility inside an organization can weaken people’s sense of moral responsibility.
. MORAL REASONING An argument is a group of statements, one of which (called the conclusion ) is claimed to follow from the others (called the premises) . An argument whose premises logically entail its conclusion is a valid argument . An invalid argument is one whose premises do not entail its conclusion. One way to show this is by means of a counterexample , an example that is consistent with the premises but is inconsistent with the conclusion. Sound arguments have true premises and valid reasoning. Unsound arguments have at least one false premise, or invalid reasoning, or both. Moral arguments can be defined simple as arguments whose conclusions are moral judgements. Moral reasoning or argument typically moves from a moral standard, through one or more factual judgements about some action, or policy. DEFENSIBLE MORAL JUDGMENTS Patterns of Defense and Challenge: 1) Evaluating the factual claims. 2) Challenging the moral standard. 3) Defending the moral standard. 4) Revising and modifying the argument. Our goal as moral philosophers is not to “win” arguments but to arrive at the truth – or, put less grandly, to find the most reasonable answers to various ethical questions.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 9 pages?