1.
For a moment, let us consider what would happen if the school remained silent about the activities of the candidates outside the scope of the curriculum and premises. The candidate, in that case, was known as an insider trader who is a student of New York University Stern School of Business. That would have caused a huge loss of reputation for the school resulting in loss of dignity for the school staffs, existing students, past students, and prospective students. Almost all the stakeholders would have affected by the decision. As per the principle of Utilitarianism, this would have been immoral in that it reduced the overall happiness of the people associated with the school (Flew, 1979). So, from Utilitarianism point of view, the action of not awarding the degree is correct given the court …show more content…
Generally, the application to any university course requires a declaration from the candidate that he/ she was never convicted of any civil/criminal charges in the past. The New York University Stern School of Business must also be not an exception. The candidate convicted before he started the course and concealing the same means he has violated the primary condition of admission. So, this was as if there was a contract between the school and the candidate and the candidate has violated the contract. Due to this, the school is entitled to revoke its decision to award a degree as per the terms of the contract.
The ethical exception of cultural relativism or moral relativism does not stand here because the contract terms and the interpretation are the same across all the society, culture, or individuals. The terms of this particular contract between the candidate and the university thus pass all the ethical doctrines as well and following all the legal norms (i.e. the terms of the contract) thus signifies that the university is doing everything ethically. Therefore, the candidate concealing required information before admission is subject to not awarding the
For a moment, let us consider what would happen if the school remained silent about the activities of the candidates outside the scope of the curriculum and premises. The candidate, in that case, was known as an insider trader who is a student of New York University Stern School of Business. That would have caused a huge loss of reputation for the school resulting in loss of dignity for the school staffs, existing students, past students, and prospective students. Almost all the stakeholders would have affected by the decision. As per the principle of Utilitarianism, this would have been immoral in that it reduced the overall happiness of the people associated with the school (Flew, 1979). So, from Utilitarianism point of view, the action of not awarding the degree is correct given the court …show more content…
Generally, the application to any university course requires a declaration from the candidate that he/ she was never convicted of any civil/criminal charges in the past. The New York University Stern School of Business must also be not an exception. The candidate convicted before he started the course and concealing the same means he has violated the primary condition of admission. So, this was as if there was a contract between the school and the candidate and the candidate has violated the contract. Due to this, the school is entitled to revoke its decision to award a degree as per the terms of the contract.
The ethical exception of cultural relativism or moral relativism does not stand here because the contract terms and the interpretation are the same across all the society, culture, or individuals. The terms of this particular contract between the candidate and the university thus pass all the ethical doctrines as well and following all the legal norms (i.e. the terms of the contract) thus signifies that the university is doing everything ethically. Therefore, the candidate concealing required information before admission is subject to not awarding the