Hospitality Ethics

To recognize and analyze ethical dilemmas and respond appropriately.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Question 1

What is the difference between individual self-interest and collective self-interest?

Posted by Prof. Radames Cintron at 5:03 PM

Email This BlogThis!Share to X Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest

No comments:

Course Professor

Microsofia

Labor Harassment

World Tourism Organization

Equal Rights

Example: Ethic in Images

Institute of Business Ethics

Isbell Hospitality Ethic

Fraud News

Blackboard

International Association of Hospitality Advisors

Abuse of Power

Maldives Island 1

Repaso Examen I

Chapter 1

Ethical Principles for Hospitality Managers

Ho1. Honesty – hospitality managers are honest and truthful. They do not mislead or deceive others by misrepresentations.

&lt2. Integrity – hospitality managers demonstrate the courage of their convictions by doing what they know is right even when there is pressure to do otherwise.

&lt3. Trustworthiness – hospitality managers are trustworthy and candid is supplying information and in correcting misapprehensions of fact. They do not create justifications for escaping their promises and commitments.

&lt4. Loyalty – hospitality managers demonstrate loyalty to their companies in devotion to duty, and loyalty to colleagues by friendship in adversity. They avoid conflicts of interest; do not use or disclose confidential information, and should they accept other employment, they respect the property information of their former employer.

&lt5. Fairness – hospitality managers are fair and equitable in all dealing; they do not arbitrarily abuse power, nor take undue advantage of another’s mistakes or difficulties. They treat all individuals with equality, with tolerance and acceptance of diversity, and with an open mind.

&lt6. Concern and respect for others – hospitality managers are concerned, respectful, compassionate, and kind. They are sensitive to the personal concerns of their colleagues and live the “Golden Rule”. They respect the rights and interests of all those who have a stake in their decisions.

&lt7. Commitment to Excellence – hospitality managers pursue excellence in performing their duties and are willing to put more into their job than key can get out of it.

&lt8. Leadership – hospitality manager are conscious of the responsibility and opportunities of their position of leadership. They realize that the best way to instill ethical principles and ethical awareness in their organizations is by example. They walk, they talk!

&lt9. Reputation and Morale – hospitality managers seek to prospect and build the company’s reputation, and the morale of its employees, by engaging in conduct that builds respects. They also take whatever actions are necessary to correct or prevent inappropriate conduct of others.

&lt10. Accountability – hospitality managers are personally accountable for the ethical quality of their decisions, as well as those of their subordinates.

Chapter 2

Ethical Thought

A moral person lives according to principles of right and wrong. The study of these principles is called “moral philosophy” or “ethics”.

The study of moral philosophy is divided into two parts:

&ltMeta-ethics

&lt Normative ethics

Meta-Ethics

&lt1. Subjectivism – says that all moral beliefs are based on personal feelings.

&lt2. Emotivism – the principle that what we like is expressed emotionally and not considered either true or false.

&lt3. Cultural Relativism – another meta-ethic theory is cultural relativism, which holds that ethical principles are not universal, but rather, determined by culture. Cultural relativists are tolerant of other cultures and do not judge one culture’s ethical norms to be superior to others.

&lt4. Supernaturalism – supernaturalists, on the other hand say that good or right is what God wills us to do. The theory of natural law says that everything in nature has a purpose.

&lt5. Intuitionism – says that there are self-evident objective truths within us that any mature person can know.

The golden rule – “do unto other as you would other do unto you”

Normative Ethics

&lt1. Utilitarianism – is divided into

a. Act utilitarianism – requires that every time we act we ought to calculate and determine which among all the options open to us would promote to greatest net utility for all.

b. Rule utilitarianism – requires that every time we act we obey the set of rules that, taken together, promote the greatest utility for all.

&ltSocial contract theory – believes that good or right is solely determined by the rules we need to make and follow in order for us to live together peacefully.

&ltCategorical imperative – the moral laws are absolute and do not change according to the situation.

ViVirtue theory – a virtue is character trait that results in habitual good behavior, rather than a principle of action.

Ethical Theories and decision Making

&lt1. Consequentialism – is the class for normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct.

Introduction

Aristotle

The Goal of Ethics

The Goal of Ethic

Aristotle applied the same patient, careful, descriptive approach to his examination of moral philosophy. Here he discussed the conditions under which moral responsibility may be ascribed to individual agents, the nature of the virtues and vices involved in moral evaluation, and the methods of achieving happiness in human life. The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality, what does it take for an individual human being to be a good person?

Every activity has a final cause, the good at with it aims, and Aristotle argued that since there cannot be an infinite regress of merely extrinsic goods, there must be a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. This end of human life could be called happiness (or living well), of course, but what is it really? Neither the ordinary notions of pleasure, wealth and honor nor the philosophical theory of forms provide, and adequate account of this ultimate goal, since even individuals who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be happy.

According to Aristotle, things of any variety have a characteristic function that they are properly used to perform. The good for human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire proper function of human life as a whole, and this must be an activity of the soul that express genuine virtue or excellence. Thus, human beings should aim at a life in full conformity with their rational natures, for this, the satisfaction of desires and the acquisition of material goods are less important than the achievement of virtue. A happy person will exhibit a personality appropriately balanced between reasons and desires, with moderation characterizing all. In this sense, at least, “virtue is its own reward.” True happiness can therefore be attained only through the cultivation of the virtues that make a human life complete.

God & Ethic

Kantian Ethic

Kantianism is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher. The term Kantianism or Kantian is sometimes also used to describe contemporary position is philosophy of mind, epistemology, and ethics.

Kantian ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotions or end goals. All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle, which are deeply different from each other, it is according to this that the moral worth of any action is judged. Kant’s ethics are founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are fundamentally rational beings. This led to the most important part of kant’s ethics, the formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which is the criterion for whether a maxim is good or bad.

Simply put, this criterion amounts to a thought experiment: to attempt to universalize the maxim (imagine a world where all people necessarily acted in this way in the relevant circumstances) and then see if the maxim and its associated action would still be conceivable in such a world. For instance, holding the maxim kill anyone who annoys you and applying it universally would which would soon be devoid of people and without anyone left to kill. Thus holding this maxim is irrational as it ends up being impossible to hold it.

Universalizing a maxim (statement) leads to it being valid, or to one of two contradictions – a contradiction in conception (where the maxim, when universalized, is no longer a viable means to the end) or a contradiction in will (where the will of a person contradicts what the universalization of the maxim implies). The first type leads to a “perfect duty”, and the second leads to an “imperfect duty”.

Kant’s ethics focus then only on the maxim that underlies actions and judges these to be good or bad solely on how they conform to reason. Kant showed that many of our common sense views of what is good or bad conform to his system but denied that any action performed for reasons other than rational actions can be good (saving someone who is drowning simply out of a great pity for them is not a morally good act). Kant also denied (highly simplified for brevity) that the physical world is outside our full control and thus we cannot be held accountable for the events that occur in it.

The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:

1. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

2. Act so that you always threat others as an end, and never as a means to an end only.

Hospitality Ethics

Monday, August 13, 2012

Question 1

No comments:

Post a Comment

Institute of Business Ethics

Isbell Hospitality Ethic

Fraud News

Blackboard

International Association of Hospitality Advisors

Abuse of Power

Ethic Part 1/3

Ethic Part 2/3

Ethic Part 3/3

Introducing Virtue Ethic

Moral Dilemma

Moving Beyond Fast Food Nation