1. If the owner of an apartment complex that caters to KU students offered to make a $10,000 dollar contribution to the Lawrence suicide hotline, if I reduced the number of parking places and benefit the KU bus line the effects could range from very small to very large. If I give into the owner of the apartment complex the suicide hotline has more money and could save more lives. However the students would loose their parking spaces and the apartment complex would become more appealing to them as a place to store their cars. The decision to accept the owners offers vs. not accepting it are drastically different, by analyzing it through the eyes of the philosophers, Aristotle and Immanuel Kant. Aristotle claims for someone to be virtuous
…show more content…
Why not build more parking spaces closer to campus, instead of forcing them to make the long journey to and from their cars. Second the values, KU asks students and staff to use the unused parking sports not only cause they are more available, also it costs more money to create new parking sports across campus. Third are the principles, if we use the philosophy of Mills and his idea of utility, it makes more sense for the students and staff to use the parking spots farther away and then simply walk to campus. Lastly where do the loyalties of the KU lie, their loyalties lie with the students, staff and university itself. Because of their loyalties, KU would have to take money out of its own pockets to pay for more parking spots. Money that could go to academics, buildings, and more when there are already unused parking spots that can be used. In conclusion KU’s ethical decision to force students and staff to find different parking arrangements across campus is for the greater good of the whole …show more content…
I would ask what exactly was the tweet and how much did it embarrass me. After defining the question, what do I value about this situation, how much does this tweet affect me as someone who is in charge of others in a business. How much do I care of what others think of me after I make my decision? Third, on the principles I’m arguing my decision, as an employer I want to do what’s best for the business I run, and how a weak link in the chain can break it. So I would stand by the principles and ideals of one of John Mills, and show utility to employee who made the tweet. Finally who am I more loyal to, the business I run or the employees I manage, overall the business is where my loyalties belong and a single employee can be easily replaced. In conclusion, my thought process to fire the employee who posted the embarrassing tweet on social media would be fired again, under the reasoning of the Potter Box. Reasoning on why I fired him, and on the severity of the tweet could have changed my opinion, though if I’m seeking to do something for the greater good the employee who undermined my authority. I would have to reintroduce my authority and the employee who tweeted would be
Why not build more parking spaces closer to campus, instead of forcing them to make the long journey to and from their cars. Second the values, KU asks students and staff to use the unused parking sports not only cause they are more available, also it costs more money to create new parking sports across campus. Third are the principles, if we use the philosophy of Mills and his idea of utility, it makes more sense for the students and staff to use the parking spots farther away and then simply walk to campus. Lastly where do the loyalties of the KU lie, their loyalties lie with the students, staff and university itself. Because of their loyalties, KU would have to take money out of its own pockets to pay for more parking spots. Money that could go to academics, buildings, and more when there are already unused parking spots that can be used. In conclusion KU’s ethical decision to force students and staff to find different parking arrangements across campus is for the greater good of the whole …show more content…
I would ask what exactly was the tweet and how much did it embarrass me. After defining the question, what do I value about this situation, how much does this tweet affect me as someone who is in charge of others in a business. How much do I care of what others think of me after I make my decision? Third, on the principles I’m arguing my decision, as an employer I want to do what’s best for the business I run, and how a weak link in the chain can break it. So I would stand by the principles and ideals of one of John Mills, and show utility to employee who made the tweet. Finally who am I more loyal to, the business I run or the employees I manage, overall the business is where my loyalties belong and a single employee can be easily replaced. In conclusion, my thought process to fire the employee who posted the embarrassing tweet on social media would be fired again, under the reasoning of the Potter Box. Reasoning on why I fired him, and on the severity of the tweet could have changed my opinion, though if I’m seeking to do something for the greater good the employee who undermined my authority. I would have to reintroduce my authority and the employee who tweeted would be