COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONRobert BassSundayOct 31 at 9:48pm
Manage Discussion EntryHi Marcus,
Thanks for your comment. Can you explain what you mean by proprietary estoppel? I'd like to hear more.
Thank you,
Rob
COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONRobert BassYesterdayNov 1 at 7:35pm
Manage Discussion EntryHi Marcus,
If there are differences in ethical values among different groups, how far should we go towards "comply[ing] with the local . . . ethical standards and values"? For example, should a representative of an American company be willing to deal with a local supplier who in turn deals with a company using child labor? Does the responsibility of Americans operating in another country extend only to those they directly deal with, or do they have further responsibility to research the supply chain leads to those with whom they directly deal?
Your thoughts?
Rob
1A- COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSIONMarcus Mccall Marcus Mccall SundayOct 31 at 11:47am Hello Laura, Laura, you have made strong points regarding “Proprietary morality” as it is the central theme. Moral values are a part of the doctrine in terms of proprietary estoppel (PE). However, some research has been entirely focused on the fact that effective and cognitive processes underpin the dilemma judgments where causing suffering also maximizes the results (Gawronski & Beer, 2017). I agree with you that doing right or wrong is established by the Deontological theory as deontology and utilitarianism have become one of the most powerful frameworks in conceptualizing moral judgment. As per the utilitarianism principle, it is suggested that an action’s morality depends on the results only. If individuals decide to do something for themselves along then, they consider only their utility (Rom & Conway, 2018). References: Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”?. Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632. Rom, S. C., & Conway, P. (2018). The strategic, moral self: Self-presentation shapes moral dilemma judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 24-37.