Essay About Decision Of Demonetization And Relateddeontological Justice

Ethics
Essay Preview: Ethics
Report this essay
Moral RuleEthical TheoryMorality of the corporate Executive Act based on:Moral Rule Applicable to the Corporate ExecutiveR01-Process RelatedKantian Formalism-doing what one is ought to do, whether one likes it or not.That is being open to all the choices and acting for betterment of allPrinciples of Universalizability(Applied)The decision of demonetization was applicable to all the citizens of the country so it was universalReversibility(Applied)Demonetization was implemented to for the betterment of the country and all the peopleIs the act of demonetization is motivated by a law that can apply to all?Yes, demonetization was applicable to all the citizens and to remove black money in the market.R02-Process RelatedWas the act of demonetization grounded on moral reasons that convince all?Yes, the reason was convincing to all the people as it was implemented for betterment of the peopleR03-Process RelatedDeontological Justice-thinking about the rightness or wrongness of the action itselfDeontological rights of all stakeholders, especially the poor (Not applied)The basic rights of the people using their own money were restricted. The poor who mostly depend on all cash transactions suffered the mostDid the act of demonetization safeguards personal and social rights of all stakeholders.No, it did not safeguard personal and social rights. It affected adversely mostly the poor and people in the crisis situations like medical emergenciesR04-Process RelatedDeontological rights of corporate Executives (Not Applied)It affected all the businesses which run on high liquid money. It affected the people in turnDid the act of demonetization uphold the rights and duties of  corporate executivesNo, the law did not uphold and protect the rights of the corporate executives. There was loss in business and total output of the economy was hit adversely.R05-Outcome RelatedSituationalism (J. P. Sartre)When right and duties conflict one taking the decision should take the ownership of the resultsWhen people were affected did government respond.(Applied)The government took the responsibility of the inconvenience caused to the people and tried to respond quickly. But it did not anticipate the problems before implementationWhen rights/duties conflict, act freely, but own responsibility for the consequencesThe ruling party took responsibility for the actions and tried to rectify the mistakes in the system. They tried helping out to the people who needed urgent liquid cash like medical emergencies and marriagesR06-Outcome RelatedExistentialism (R. Niebuhr;  D. Bonhoeffer)-When right or the wrong consequences and good or bad effects are ambiguousWas the decision of demonetization right or wrong, good or evil.(Not Applied)The decision of demonetization even though was for the good of the people the consequences of the actions adversely affected the people. People were out of cash and faced a lot of problems.Did government act  amidst risk and ambiguity, and owned the consequences.Yes,the government tried to reduce the ambiguity by accepting old notes in hospitals,petrol pumps and stopped the tolls across the country to reduce the inconvenience of the peopleR07-Outcome RelatedLegalismWas the decision legalWas the decision of demonetization legal(Applied)The government decision of demonetization was legal and was taken under section 26(2) of RBI actDid demonetization decision, obey legitimate law and ordinanceYes, as the decision was legal it obeyed the law of the countryR08-Outcome RelatedContractualismDid the decision freely acted on contractsDid the people and government  freely agree on contracts. (Not Applied)The people were not aware of the action of the government.Did people mutually agree upon contracts.The people were not aware of the demonetization before it was implemented. So there was no agreementR09-Process RelatedParenesis: A Code of ethics that counsels and exhorts action.Was demonetization credible and valid for industry and corporate ethical code of conduct(Applied)Yes,demonetization was valid and  was to remove the black money from the system and hence was for the betterment of the peopleComply with agreed upon codes of conduct.  The obligation is hortatory.No,there were many loopholes in the system and the action of demonetization was not foolproof.Before implementation all the possible outcomes and problem should have been studied.Teleological JusticeR10-Outcome RelatedHedonism (Jeremy Bentham)-Should be satisfactory to the majoritySatisfaction of the majority(Not applied)The government did not look at the possible problems which the people would face on implementation of demonetizationDid demonetization decision maximize satisfaction of all.No, the rich people were not affected much, but the poor people who did not have liquid cash were not using digital payment modes were affected the most.R11a-Outcome RelatedUtilitarianism-Utilization for maximum peopleUtility of the maximum(Not applied)The decision of demonetization was thought to be beneficial for all but the consquences were not studied in detailDid demonetization benefited to all.Yes, the decision was taken to benefit all the people and reduce the black money in the system.R11b-Outcome RelatedConsequentialism-Some decisions should not be taken even if the consequences are good.Utility of the Consequences. (Not applied)Before implementation the consequences of the action were not thought of. The possible problems were not explored.Minimize harm of the consequences to all innocent stakeholdersNo,the innocent stakeholders suffered a lot. Many people were standing in the long queues to exchange their old notes and to draw cash from ATMs.R12-Outcome RelatedEudemonism-Maximize the happiness of all the peopleHappiness of the maximum(Applied)Demonetization was implemented for betterment of all the people and bringing black money out in the system.Maximize happiness of all.Yes, though it was implemented for happiness on long run but the short term consequences were overlookedDistributive JusticeR13-Process RelatedFormal Justice-Canon of equalityAristotle’s Canon of Equality(Applied)The rule was same for all the citizens of the countryOne’s level of equalityYes, the demonetization was implemented to reduce the inequality in the system and reduce the gap between rich and the poor by bringing out the black money out of the system.R14-Outcome RelatedSocialist Justice-Was there a needThe Canon of Need (Applied)There was need to clean the system and remove the black moneyOne’s level of needYes, the needs of all were considered. There was restriction for daily withdrawal of the cash hence it gave opportunity to all to get money.R15-Outcome RelatedNaturalist Justice-Justice for allThe Canon of Natural Ability(Applied)There was equal opportunity for all the people to draw cash and exchange old notesOne’s level of innate merit or abilityYes, the needs were addressed. Like the old notes were accepted in hospitals. Tolls were closed as people were low on cash. Special cases of marriages were addressedR16-Outcome RelatedRetributive JusticeJustice for effortThe Canon of Effort(Applied)Demonetization was not to take away money from the rich, it was to take away money from the people who bypassed taxes and got money through illicit mannerOne’s level of effortYes, the government took the action to reduce the disparity between the efforts put to earn the money and wealth possessed.R17-Outcome RelatedCapitalist JusticeResponsibility of the actionThe Canon of Productivity(Applied)The black money in the system affected the system. The taxes were not collected and paid,such money was brought outOne’s level of contributionYes, demonetization was implemented to curb the black money in the system and so that all non-taxed money is brought into the system. It was implemented for the betterment of the peopleR18-Outcome RelatedLibertarian Justice-Social Justice for allThe Canon of Social Utility(Applied)It was bringing justice to all the people who were honest and paid taxes and stayed away from the corruptionOne’s level of social valueYes, the demonetization was implemented for social value. It was to promote honesty and punish the people who were corrupt and avoided taxesR19-Outcome RelatedLibertarian Justice-Justice for allThe Canon of Supply-demand(Not Applied)The government did not print enough new notes and thus there was disparity between the supply and demand for the cash which created a lot of problemsOne’s level of market-exchange valueYes, there was one level of justice for all the people. But, should justice of mass should be addressed overlooking justice at individual level? People suffered a lot during implementation.R20-Outcome RelatedIndividual JusticeJustice at individual levelRescher’s Canon of Legitimate Claims(Applied)Addressing the legitimate claimsOne’s level of legitimate claimsYes, such claims were addressed like special lines for aged people and toll was removed so that cash available in the market is not reduced furtherR21-Process RelatedFair Opportunist Justice-Ethical for all the stakeholdersRawls’ Equality Principle(Applied)Ethical and fair to all the stakeholdersOffering equal opportunityYes, demonetization will redistribute the wealth among the people and create equal opportunity for all the people in the systemR22-Process RelatedLibertarian Egalitarian Justice-Remove the undeserved advantageRawls’ Difference Principle(Applied)Demonetization did not take away money earned and taxed in ethical wayNullifying undeserved advantages along all stakeholdersYes, people who had money earned in illegal ways and not taxed money were only penalized due to this. It thus nullified the undeserved advantage to all the stakeholdersR23-Process RelatedLibertarian Justice-Ethical treatment to all the stakeholdersNozick’s Principle of Distributive Justice-To bring justice in the societyOne’s level of original entitlementsYes, demonetization was to bring justice in the society. It also pushed cashless transactions to bring justice in the long run in the society. Some people who were hiding cash and caiming to be poor were caught and they lost the false BPL claimsR24-Outcome RelatedNon-malfeasance Justice-Not causing evil to the peoplePrinciple of Strict Liability(Not Applied)Demonetization did not consider the harm caused to all the people in the societyDoing no harm or evilNo, it harmed the poor and small businesses which depended mainly on cash. Proper system for these people should have been implemented. Many small businesses shut down as they lost their working capital.Corrective JusticeR25-Process RelatedPreemptive JusticePreventing evil in futurePrinciple of Preventive Justice(Not applied)The actions taken in demonetization were short term and did not look into a long term solution to the black money.Preventing all evilNo, it removed the black money from the system, but does not prevent black money from entering the system in the future.R26-Process RelatedProtective JusticeProtecting all from evil in the situationPrinciple of Protective Justice(Not Applied)There were no means to prevent hoarding of black money and corruption and fake notesProtecting all from evilNo, fake notes immediately entered the system and the people were not protected against such an evil.R27-Process RelatedProcedural Justice; Corrective JusticeTaking corrective actionPrinciple of Procedural Justice and Corrective Justice(Applied)When old notes were removed from the system, the new notes were introduced immediately on next daySetting up just procedures for equitable distribution of benefits or correcting current structured injustice systemsYes, the new notes were brought into the system immediately and printing was also increased to meet the future needs.Distributive JusticeR28-Process RelatedBeneficent JusticeFor the goodPrinciple of Beneficent Justice(Applied)Doing and promoting goodThe actions were implemented for promoting good in the society. Prime Minister promoted people to pay taxes and act ethically