Happiness and Liberal Model Essay.
JD suggests that we might consider the liberal model of work as a middle ground between the hedonistic interpretation of the convention model and human fulfillment model. Hedonistic interpretation focuses on the happiness and aims at getting whatever one wants. And it claims that individuals are free to choose their own preferences and the goal of economic activity is to satisfy preferences. That is the common point between liberal model and hedonistic interpretation. And the fulfillment school believes work can offer some potential for employee, which is the same to liberal model.
However, humane fulfillment school focuses on what makes work; liberals focus on how work affects a worker’s ability and his life. Liberals denies that there is some norm to determine every one should do.
For Kantian’s perspective of the constitutions of meaningful work, meaningful work should be the work is free for people to choose and it gives them opportunities to learn something, should be the work offers a sufficient salary to satisfy workers’ desires, should be the work can help worker to develop her capacities, and should be the work can not bother she wishes to obtain happiness.
And the work relationship should obey autonomy and humane beings. Kantian thinks autonomy and independence are important, and flex time gives employees greater latitude over their work schedules. In addition, wage compression would partly address a developing social issue. Lastly, the work can contribute to the development of employees’ rational ability.
Student Comments :
Attached Files :
Grade : 22 out of 25
Good#1 Answer:Here is the key:
A. Compared to the conventional model:
(1) Individual workers should be free to choose the ends of their work and there is no single human good/end that all work should serve. (2) On the other hand, the Liberal model is not about complete individualistic relativism or a kind of anything-goes subjectivism. B. Compared to the Human Fulfillment model:
(1) Recognizes that work can shape character. Work can be ethically evaluated on that basis. (2) Unlike the HFM, the Liberal model abandons the connection to a specific conception of the human telos (a commitment to an objective, substantive norm when it comes to human happiness). C. The Liberal model promotes the protection of what are called primary goods (necessary goods to achieve happiness – e.g. autonomy, rationality, physical/mental health and the chapter 6 rights). Work should be structured in ways that recognize and protect these things. #2 Answer:
(1) Not money in itself. Money is a pure means, Kant says. And a miser is a person of poor character. (And even: The thrifty who acquire their wealth by saving, are as a rule small minded people. Saving, in itself, has no intrinsic merit.) But a job needs to provide enough income to give the employee financial independence. And that contributes to employee self-respect. (2) Remarks that suggest an objective notion of happiness:
a. [Even] an arrant fool can save and put money aside; to spend one’s money with refinement with refinement on pleasure needs knowledge and skill. . . . (130) (3) In general, meaningful work for Kant would not violate his principle of humanity (by using people as a means only) and take seriously the imperfect obligation of beneficence to others. (4) Work that is freely chosen.
(5) Work that supports the autonomy and rationality of the employee. (6) Work that does not interfere with the employee’s moral development. (7) Work that is not paternalistic in terms of the human telos. (b):
(1) Work is necessary for the development of selfhood. (2) The fruits of work (wealth) contribute to self-respect because it provides independence. (3) Work provides opportunities for the exercise of one’s autonomy and develops one’s rational capacities. (c):
(1) Both Kant and the Liberal model focus on the importance of primary goods like autonomy in the workplace. start.
Home work 3
November 6, 2011
For Ronald Duska, he agrees Norman Bowie’s opinion— employee should be loyal to their employer and their companies which means they cannot whistle blow to the public. However, concerning the reason why employee should be loyal to their employer, Ronald has a different opinion with Norman Bowie. Norman thinks employee has an obligation to keep secret for employer and company and it will make employee get into trouble if they whistle blow, while Ronald thinks companies are not the kind of appropriate purpose of loyalty.
For commercialization of work, Ronald gives some examples. In his opinion, employers care about the profit and aim to get as much profit as they could. He mentions this because he wants to connect to loyalty— there is no loyalty in such a commercialization of work. When it is profitable, they will leave from the original position. All the things are about profit, so he believes it is important.
According to Duska, he makes an analogy which is a company is like an instrument for making profit. And if we remember that the primary purpose of business is to make profit, it can be seen just like an instrument. Duska wants to connect business and loyalty, so he makes this analogy. He thinks loyalty requires us to think of a company as a person or as a group with a goal of human enrichment.
Concerning loyalty and business, I think JD doesn’o t agree with Duska. Because JD thinks employee has an obligation to be loyal to employer. However, Duska thinks employee doesn’t have an obligation to be loyal to employer; he thinks company is not the kind where loyalty is appropriate.
Student Comments :
Attached Files :
Grade : 19.5 out of 25
Good start. Here is the key:
(a) He agrees with Bowie that whistleblowing is sometimes ethically justified, but takes issue with Bowie regarding his assumption that an employee has a prima facie duty to be loyal to the company she works for. Companies, RD argues, are not the kind of thing that warrant loyalty. Loyalty is appropriate with family relations, friends, and other special people in my life, relations that sometime require us to sacrifice our self-interest. Loyalty is a characteristic of special relations involving mutual sacrifice and enrichment. Business relations are all about enlightened self-interest. I may make certain kinds of sacrifices for the company, but it is only because in the end doing so is in my best interest.
(b) Duska suggests that to commercialize an activity or relation is to make it all about profit. To be guided by market forces, RD suggests, it to be guided toward profit. All other aspects of the activity or work (e.g. quality) are subordinate to that end. RD says commercialization changes the nature of the relation in such a way that loyalty is no longer appropriate. The terms of a commercialized relation is worked out contractually. For RD loyalty is different. It cannot be bought or traded and has its roots in relations that sometimes expect sacrifice with no reward.
(c) Business is compared to a team. Umpires or referees usually blow a whistle when a foul has been committed. This suggests there is something wrong with the act of whistleblowing. In some sense the whistleblower is blowing the whistle on his own team – an act of disloyalty. RD argues the analogy is flawed because: (1) Teams engage in sport activity within a socially defined context that usually involves clearly defined roles and rules for the players involved. Business permeates all of society and can affect everyone. (2) One can lose a game with no serious consequences. Losing in business can be very serious. (3) Those who participate in sports do so voluntarily. Those who can suffer from the activities of business do not. (4) Competition is a positive virtue in sports but not in a moral context like whistleblowing.