¶ … moral relativism applied in this case and why did that result in fraud? Fraud occurred because morals apparently were not even a factor in the decisions being made in this particular situation. The one individual Dr. Pollack that did actually show moral fiber regarding the patient was the one penalized for following what he believed to be true and morally correct. The reading describes a scene in which cohorts discuss how they feel the actions of Dr. Pollack were in poor judgment, and further explain that that is probably why they are still working and he is not.
What does this case imply for whistle-blowers? It is abundantly clear that this case implies that if you are a whistle blower you stand to lose a lot. In fact one could say that judging from the circumstances discussed, one would want to conform to the "norm," in order to save ones self from career suicide, as evidenced by what happened to Dr. Pollack in the writing. Another aspect up for consideration deals with the final statement that was made by Dr. Pollack. There has to be a time when people are willing to stand for what is right and in their beliefs. Unfortunately, time has proven that great losses come from standing behind a belief system or truth that is not held by all individuals involved. Conclusively, one would feel that punishment and lose is the payment for stepping out of the box, and pointing out errors, indiscretions etc. The question becomes, is honesty really the best policy? In Dr. Pollack's opinion, the answer is and will remain to be yes. He stood by his beliefs regardless of his losses, which were extreme, especially considering the fact he was trying to do right by the customer, and correct the errors that were taking place. Instead, he personally lost a substantial part of his salary and was demoted, not many people would have done that.
Reference
Nara Schoenberg, "A Man of Principle," 1/25/04, Chicago Tribune Magazine p. 13-29.
Then morality is relative, not absolute (Kreeft) Weaknesses One weakness of moral relativism consists of the consequences of not having moral constraints (Kreeft 2003). Correct or good morality, if valid, should always have good consequences. Incorrect or bad morality should always have bad consequences. The fact is that all wrong or immoral acts and attitudes bring on "good" or pleasant feelings. Moral relativism has never produced people worthy of praise. It
Like Midgley, Bailey would expect the company to conduct its operations and make the same decisions that would be required in its native society. More importantly, Bailey would likely also argue that the company has a moral duty to respond to the situation even if it were the case that its native society recognized no such moral obligation. Both Bailey and Midgley would probably require the company to consider the
Moral Good and Moral Value Determining moral "good" is a fundamental philosophical study. Only the lazy philosopher would revert to codes of ethics. Ethical standards come from somewhere, and generally those standards can be grouped into three main categories of analysis: consequentialism, deontological ethics, and virtue or character ethics. While these three modes of thinking about the moral good can sometimes interact with one another to create more complex moral analyses,
Such differences may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste" (Velasquez, Andre, Shanks and Meyer: 1). If there is no transcendent ethical or moral standard, then cultural relativists argue that culture becomes the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong. This ethical system is known as cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the
Absolutism v. Relativism Absolutism and relativism represent the extreme ends of the ethical discussion of reality (Harman, 2000). They describe the approach that individuals adopt to make value decisions in their lives. Values are the sustenance of human life that provide passion and meaning and are often the motivation that keeps society cooperating toward a common goal. How these values are determined, however, is not done consistently throughout society (Bloomfield, 2003).
Absolution vs. Relativism Columnist William Wineke points out that the real problem with relativism is that it gives no place to stop the slippery slide, no place to stand and say "no" (Wineke pp). In other words, each step taken simply makes it easier to take the next step until, eventually, society finds no logical basis for saying "no" to anything (Wineke pp). Yet, if the error of moral relativism is
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now