The limits of the application of this principle include the question of who decides who is right and who is wrong and who has been wronged in complex situations. This is particularly the case where the facts are not available and there is no objective external competence of the Land or the Federal Government. In addition, we are sometimes faced with the question: “Who has the moral authority to punish to whom to pay compensation?” Nevertheless, as with the other principles discussed here, justice is a necessary and invaluable element of democracies and freedom. Ethical relativism is really not a “principle” to be followed or modeled. This is an orientation that many use quite often. Ethical relativism states that people set their own moral standards for judging their actions. Only the individual`s self-interest and values are relevant to the evaluation of his or her behaviour. Moreover, according to this principle, moral standards vary from culture to culture. An easy way to summarize this principle when considering a moral dilemma is to ask questions about a proposed action or decision: (1) Is it fair? (2) Is this correct? (3) Who is injured? (4) Who bears the consequences? (5) Do I/we want to take responsibility for the consequences? It`s interesting to think about how many disasters and corporate crises could have been avoided if leaders and stakeholders had taken these issues seriously before making decisions.
For example, the following precautions could have prevented the disaster: upgrading equipment and machinery that failed during the BP and Exxon Valdez oil crises, and investment banks and lenders following the rules of not selling subprime mortgages that could not and would not be paid. measures that led to the near collapse of the world economy. The limitations also show that the application of this principle may not always be realistic or feasible in all situations. Moreover, the application of this principle may require sacrificing human life – that is, giving one`s life to help or save others – which may seem contradictory to the principle. The fact-based film The Post shows how the daughter of the founder of the famous Washington Post newspaper inherited the role of CEO and was forced to make a decision on releasing secret government documents from a whistleblower of generals and high-ranking officials at the time or to remain silent and protect the paper. The classified documents contained information proving that generals and other senior government officials had lied to the public about the real status of the United States in the Vietnam War. These documents revealed that there were doubts that the war could be won as thousands of young Americans continued to die in combat. The dilemma for the Washington Post CEO at the time centered on whether she had to choose between revealing the truth on the basis of free speech — which was the mission and foundation of the newspaper — or remaining silent and suppressing classified information. It decided, with the support and pressure of its publishers, to make the secret documents available to the public. The Supreme Court upheld his decision and that of his staff. One result has been the sparking of widespread public protests by American youth and others. President Johnson was pressured to resign, Secretary of State McNamara later apologized, and the war finally ended with the withdrawal of U.S.
troops. Thus, universalist ethical principles can cause difficulties when used in complex situations, but such principles can also save lives, protect the integrity of a nation, and stop senseless destruction. Basically, the owner of a good character is moral, acts morally, feels good, is happy and flourishes. Altruism is also part of the character-based virtue ethic. However, practical wisdom is often necessary to be virtuous. The ethics of virtue are based on character traits such as truthfulness, practical wisdom, happiness, prosperity, and well-being. It focuses on the type of person we should be, not specific actions that should be taken. Based on good character, motives and core values, the principle is best illustrated by those whose examples show the virtues that must be imitated. Some limitations of this principle suggest that it does not take into account individuals and that there is no agreement on the definition of “good for all parties involved”. In addition, it is difficult to measure “costs and benefits”.
This is one of the principles most widely used by companies, institutions, nations and individuals, given the limitations involved. The application of this principle generally applies when resources are scarce, there is a conflict of priorities and no clear choice meets the needs of all, i.e. a zero-sum decision is imminent. Some limitations in the application of this principle are: (1) it can be used to disguise and manipulate selfish and unjust political interests, (2) it is difficult to determine who wins what when both sides are “right” and (3) individuals may exaggerate some claims at the expense of others. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791, was conceived and remains its foundation, which is based on liberty and justice to protect the fundamental rights of all. This principle is linked to universalism. The character and actions of many leaders are examples of how character-based virtues work.