As they carry out their operations, businesses are often forced to make difficult decisions. To aid in the making of these decisions, leaders usually make moral considerations (Ladd p. 147). John Ladd offered insights that organizations could use to shed light on the decision making process for decisions that demand moral considerations. He opined that it is unwise for organizations to rely on moral principles for decision making (Long and Snoeyenbos, p. 61). While his argument is interesting, it does not account for the moral dimension in most decisions that businesses need to make. In this essay, the position of the President of the United States who needs to make a decision on the measures to take to address a looming health crisis is assumed. The essay identifies the options available to the President as he demands accountability from parties involved in the crisis.
The case that the President is confronted with involves different parties. These include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), politicians, experts in laboratories, and FBC, the company behind the material that has been linked to health risks. In the following discussion, the measures that the president can take are offered.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA is the government agency charged with the mandate of conserving the environment. In the situation that the President needs to make a decision on, the EPA was expected to ensure that the materials made by FBC posed no risks to either the environment or human health. The looming crisis is clear indication that the agency failed to execute its mandate. The President has been advised to fire the leaders of this agency. While this seems fair, it would be inconsistent with the principles that Ladd set out regarding morality and formal organizations. Ladd argues that the decisions that individuals make while in their official capacities are impersonal (Ladd, p. 147). Therefore, an individual cannot be made to suffer personally for the decisions that they make on behalf of the organization that they represent. Since the EPA officials acted on behalf of the agency, it would be unfair to fire them. Besides, the agency has raised valid reasons in its defense. The EPA argues that there exist laws which made it difficult for them to intervene. These laws are punishment enough as they hindered the agency from executing its mandate. Firing the agency’s top officials would therefore be cruel and unfair.
Politicians
In the case concerning the impending health crisis, politicians are blamed for delaying investigations that the EPA sought to launch. Also, these politicians are accused of receiving significant amounts from FBC. That the politicians bear some responsibility for the health crisis is not in question. What is unclear is the measures that the President can take against the politicians. The principle of separation of powers limits his options. One of the arguments that Ladd raised is that that no moral responsibility is placed on any organization (Long, p. 62). Assuming that this is true, the President would simply lack the authority to take action against the politicians. Should he choose to pursue the politicians, his action would amount to an overreach. The arguments that Ladd made regarding morality and formal organizations imply that no moral organization can interfere with the operations of the other (Long p. 62). This means that the President is simply unable to take action against the politicians. However, the President may choose to pursue the politicians in their individual capacities and not as legislators. In his discussion on the issue of social decisions, Ladd introduces the concept of collective responsibility. Here, he argues that individuals can be held accountable for decisions that they made in their individual capacities (Ladd p. 133). It can be argued that the politicians were not acting in their capacities as legislators when they received the contributions from FBC. The President can therefore push for the bribery charges to be brought against the politicians.
Lab Researchers
The lab researchers were behind the report that pointed to the safety of the material that is posing the health risks. In their defense, they argue that the FBC used the report for purposes for which it was not meant. They argue further that the techniques that they used in the preparation of the report were based on scientifically sound principles. The researchers appear to be victims in the situation as they only performed the duties that they received payment for from the FBC. It would therefore be unwise and unfair for the President to take any action against them. Besides, even if the President chooses to demand accountability from the researchers, he would be unable to construct a strong case. Additionally, as Ladd points out, individuals should not be made to assume responsibility for the actions that they undertake on behalf of moral organizations. Since the researchers were acting for the lab, Ladd’s argument accords them immunity.
FBC and its Executives.
FBC and its officials are the main culprits responsible for the crisis. Ladd raises an interesting argument regarding the responsibilities that a moral organization has to outside parties. He holds that moral organizations should never suffer inconvenience in their efforts to safeguard the interest of outside parties (Ladd p. 141). When attending to the welfare of third parties compromises the effectiveness of an organization, the organization should not honor its obligation to the parties (Ladd p. 141). It seems that FBC obtained the audacity to produce the material that has caused the health crisis from Ladd’s arguments. It could be that the organization did not wish to suffer losses from withdrawing the material after it realized that it posed risks to human health. Additionally, Ladd argues that individuals are shielded from moral responsibility when they act for their organizations. Considering these arguments, it seems sensible that the President should not pursue the FBC executives. However, disregarding the arguments that Ladd raises, it would seem unfair to spare FBC and its officials given the devastation that their actions have caused.
Ladd recognizes the challenge that individuals grapple with when they are faced with the dilemma presented by morality. He argues that it is difficult to balance the need to ensure that individuals are not dehumanized as they assign responsibility for their actions to moral organizations, and ensuring moral conduct which allows mankind to address the difficulties that it faces (Ladd p. 142). The case that the President is faced with is a clear representation of this dilemma. From a neutral and sober standpoint, FBC and its executives are responsible for the health crisis. They share this responsibility with the politicians who received contributions. Since he is unable to pursue the politicians in their official capacities, the President needs to tackle them as individuals. Given the devastating economic impacts that would result from suing FBC, the President should implement the advice that he has been offered. He has been advised to push for laws that would prevent similar actions from exposing the nation to health risks. In addition to pursuing the politicians as individual citizens, the President should also push for the recommended laws. In conclusion, this case highlights the dilemma resulting from the issue of morality and formal organizations. It is important for individuals to remain neutral and sober as they examine such cases.
References
Long, C. R., and Snoeyenbos, M. (1992). Ladd on Morality and Formal Organizations.
Ladd, J. (1970). Morality and the Ideal of Rationality in Formal Organizations. The Monist.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/monist197054433
