The Dilemma of Dual Morality: Mediating Cognitive Dissonance Essay Sample
Ethical motives and values are considered to be the nucleus of an individual’s personality Most believe that ethical motives are a changeless and adept and held at every clip and topographic point an single occupies at any given minute. But. changing fortunes can take one to move in a manner that in incongruent with their ethical motives in footings of self-satisfying behaviours. One may keep the thought that their instrumental values allow them to utilize their resources in any manner necessary and that the terminals justify the agencies used to accomplish ends. A individual may come across as a loving household adult male. for illustration. but have a repute that is incongruent to this at the workplace. Bing excessively critical and rough with colleagues or subsidiaries and being selfish or immoral with issues environing fundss and the wellbeing of those one is charged with. while guaranting household members are good taken attention of and respected is yet another illustration. It is indispensable that a concern individual and every individual use an ethical attack to action. such as the useful theoretical account that causes one to oppugn what determination will make the least injury in others in all facets of life. Similarly. moving outside of one’s ethical motives will finally take to cognitive disagreement and emphasis. which is harmful to the person.
In the germinating workplace. to stay in or draw a bead on to a outstanding place within an organisation can be nerve-racking and equivocal. This type of uncertainness may be more tolerable to some than to others. who may experience invariably “on guard” or in danger of falling buttocks. This province of head can take to a alteration in attitude and. in bend. ethical motives although attitudes and ethical motives are normally stable. Keeping sight of one’s moral compass. so to talk. is the best manner to proactively cover with issues environing all facets of life. It is better to be prepared and proactive so to respond and go irrational in times of occupation emphasis. There are many ethical manners that can be instilled. as portion of a larger value system. but Utilitarianism offers a simple and easy contemplation on the results of all our actions. This is particularly utile. as one may go stressed at the workplace and be rough and difficult to cover with at place. As mentioned antecedently. a individual. who does non prosecute in ethical contemplation may make the antonym and be sort to household. while being scratchy at work. The Utilitarianism attack allows one to analyze all these possibilities.
To analyse an issue utilizing the useful attack. we foremost place the assorted classs of action available to us. Second. we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or injuries will be derived from each. And 3rd. we chose the action that will bring forth the greatest benefits and the least injury. The ethical action is the 1 that provides the greatest good for the greatest figure ( Velasquez. Andre. Shanks. Meyer & A ; Meyer. 1996 ) .
Many believe that this rule is excessively simplistic and hard to use. The thought. though. is that by maintaining moralss. concern. and household life simple. less emphasis is likely to happen. In no manner does this imply that other ethical methods or spiritual positions can non be substituted ( such as the “golden rule” or the rights approach. ) These are likewise. simple. but in the “golden rule” . for illustration it is impossible to make the same to others. as their is a hierarchy in both concern and household. Looking at possible injury or possible benefit for the greatest Numberss in the useful attack makes sense for everyone and. basically takes away the overruling inherent aptitude to rule others in chase of personal felicity.
Traveling against personal values for personal addition can finally take to cognitive disagreement. dissatisfaction. and emphasis. “The theory of cognitive disagreement. developed by societal psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950’s. says that people want to act in conformity with their attitudes and normally will take disciplinary action to relieve disagreement and accomplish balance” ( Daft & A ; Noe. 2001 ) . It may look to an person that. since they do value their household and wish to supply the best for them that it is good to them to move in any manner necessary to accomplish success at work. But. after a clip. ache inflicted to others ( direct or indirectly ) at the workplace will make cognitive disagreement and a demand to equilibrate behaviour. If the reconciliation agencies said individual will move more loving at place to do up for Acts of the Apostless at work. this is non ethical and really unacceptable. Furthermore. the defeated employee. who has struggles with his or her foreman may go easy disquieted with and cruel with household to equilibrate out this disagreement. Again. this is unacceptable and unethical.
In decision. one must measure and invariably re-evaluate their system of moralss. such as with the utilitarianism attack. One must weigh the results of the actions and minimise any struggles. both on the occupation and at place. It is best to be proactive and trade with issues. before they become debatable. so that cognitive disagreement and balance attainment are non changeless. cardinal. and nerve-racking. It is extremely unethical to act in different ways at place than at the workplace or frailty versa. Self-satisfying behaviours become harmful to others and should be avoided. It seems logical. every bit good. that a individual will be more successful if they are known to handle everyone reasonably and every bit in life. The terminals do non warrant the agencies. The means to success is moralss and empathy for others.
Mentions
Daft. R. & A ; Noe. R. ( 2001 ) .Organizational Behavior.Orlando. Florida: Harcourt. Inc.
Velasquez M. . Andre C. . Shanks T. Meyer. S. J. & A ; Meyer. M. ( Winter1996 ) . “Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making” inIssues in Ethical motives.pp. 2-5.
