Deontology and the Categorical Imperative

First, let us examine what it means to issue in a deontological manner. Demonology is the normative honourable position that Judges the incorruptity of an kneadion ground on the actions adherence to a rule or rules (Ethics-virtue, Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy). For some oneness to act in a deontological manner, he must follow a course of action not beca implement it causes the great amount of good to either themselves or others, precisely because it is the duty amour to do. A deontological believes that it is their duty to follow these moral imperatives, and it is these values which be the fanny which Emmanuel Kant bases his compressed Imperative on.In Kantian, a theory of demonology developed by Emmanuel Kant base on his Categorical Imperative, we should make decisions ground on our duty to others and that it is not the actions consequences which make it right or wrong, exactly the motives of the individual who is carrying them out (Kant, Emmanuel. 1780. ins ert). For example, if I say, I do not murder other military man beings because I would not respect others to murder, I am behaving deontological because as a baseball club we would not craving murder to become a popular rule.Similarly, I would not wish someone to secretly defraud Investors and embezzle caller money, but more on that soon. If a person is to act in this decidedly UNdeontological manner, they might have justified it in one of ii likely other manners. The scratch non-deontological theory we someone could enlist with is utilitarianism. In this moral theory, the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, specifically defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering (Utilitarianism. N. D. ) In Wisped. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from http// armying others, we st aguish do not wish this to occur but this time it is because the act of murder does not maximize happiness as a society. The loss of an individual in this manner would detract from the hearty be it either from a production stand-point, or because of the emotion impairment it brings others. Misuse of a corporations funds could be Justified in a certain scenario, so we will add this to our toolbox of motives for now.A second non-deontological moral theory we must examine is the idea of egotism. With egotism, a persons primary front is to enhance their own interests be they intellectual, physical, societal, or otherwise over the interests of others (Egotism. (n. D. ) In Wisped). Within the context of our example about murder, an egotist does not wish for murder to exist simply because he or she would not wish to be murdered. Within the area of business operations, this ideology would seem to row the basis of most practices.While the advancement of a corporation would be preponderating in the eyes of those with the most vested interest, this moral guideline can be disastrous in a society that does not share this doctrine as the rule of the land. Let us no w look at two of the ethical problems raised by the Delphic Communications case. The first problem we will examine is the fact that Delphic was using two different sets of accounting books, one with doctored numbers that was given to investors, and one which showed the align finances and what was being manipulated for the fraudulent figures.This, according to testimony produced by pile R. Brown, Dahlias former vice president of finance (Grant, 2004, p. CLC). Members of the Riggs family were ultimately indicted for looting the association of more the $100 million and aiding $2 billion in debt. irrespective of an argument of either this being a cover-up in order to hide the Riggs familys personal use of compevery funds, or merely a tactic to delay investor outrage in order to settle big debts incurred by Delphic operations, this cannot be considered a deontological based maneuver.Adherence to ones duty to the company and its core operations is contrary to these kinds of behavior. Also, under no circumstance would duplicity biblically about a companys well- being in a with child(p)istic society be considered as being desirable as a normative rule. At best, if this were done as to buy the company time to right its finances, this action could be eschewed as utilitarian if the underlying goal was to continue panic on Wall SST. And to maximize societys net worth.Likelier, this was an egotistic based motive in order for the Riggs family to continue their practices of using the company as their personal piggy-bank as it were. There is evidence of this being the case based upon the next ethical issue we will address. During the course of investigations carried out in the course of this case, it was covered that members of the Riggs family had also used corporate money to finance a golf-course on cliquish family property of theirs (The SEC, 2002).Much like the previously mentioned ethical problem, it is difficult to determine in what, if any, counselling this ac tion could be eschewed as either a deontological or categorically imperative decision. If it were the norm for members of any company with access to corporate funding to use them on private projects without prior approval, there would be few corporations which would be able to influence in much of any capacity. Dominant having misappropriated funds that were allocated for effective business operations.Even when viewed in light of a utilitarian stand-point, the Jobs which would have been created done the construction and operation of said golf-course would not have warranted an unauthorized cost of this magnitude outside of the companys normal business operations. The member of the Riggs family who authorized the use of these funds should have instead chosen to use his own capital in order to finance this endeavor if it was truly that necessary. Utilizing Dahlias none in order to build this project falls categorically within the scope of an egotist method of reasoning.These coupl e examples were but a few highlights that were unveil during the course of the Delphic indictment. Members of the Riggs family might not have seen an end to their conglomerate had they taken a step back and evaluated not only the consequences of their actions, but the rationale behind what they were doing. Demonology and categorical imperatives, like most morale methodologies, are difficult to apply in every scenario. Doing what is right for the sake of its rightness, or because t is your duty to perform in a specific way can fail in an instance of grave social importance.As instanced in the threaded discussion this week, if a programmer of nuclear missile technologies learns of an fervor by his employer against another nation does his or her duty lie with the assailant or those who would be attacked? Of the moral decision making tools discussed in this paper, Egotism, Utilitarianism, Demonology, and Categorical Imperatives all provide a different answer to the question in hand. The members of the Riggs family might still feel they are in the eight if their ill gains were greater than the pain of imprisonment from a strictly Egotistic model.