Sample Solution
Ethics play an important role in helping managers determine the right way to behave when dealing with stakeholders. Ethics provide a framework of principles and values that guide how decisions should be made and how people should interact with each other (APA Ethical Principles 2020). By considering ethical values such as fairness, honesty, respect and trustworthiness, managers are able to make informed decisions based on their own moral compass rather than simply relying on external regulations or laws (Knapp et al., 2018). Furthermore, they can use these principles to evaluate the consequences of their actions before making decisions that could potentially harm any stakeholders (Raelin 2008).
When looking back at my good and bad manager identified in part 1 I can see differences in terms of ethics. The good manager was always fair when dealing with staff members by rewarding those who had done well while also taking into account individual circumstances for every decision she made. She also respected her employees’ opinions even if it contradicted her own views which increased morale significantly. On the other hand, my bad manager often took advantage of his position by using unethical tactics such as strong-arming employees into submission or manipulating situations so he could benefit from them financially – all without regard for ethical considerations.
In conclusion, ethics serve as an invaluable tool for guiding managerial decision-making processes and behavior when working with stakeholders . Adhering to these standards allows one to maintain high levels integrity setting example others thus increasing chances achieving successful outcomes beneficial all involved parties .
is leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which
