In many modern societies, the Mayor in the first scenario may be deemed lucky and privileged for the free memberships and the gifts he gets from people that hope to do business with him in the future. However, any right-thinking person can see, and with the help of the basic tenets of ethical behavior , it is possible to see that his actions are unethical and corrupt to the core. Locke would have shunned from accepting the membership and the gifts based on his theory of moral good, and I would have done the same thing too.
Every administration has specific laws and regulations and requires officeholders to follow due process and particular procedures when awarding tenders or accepting remunerations for the same. Moreover, the Mayor is not entitled to benefit from any of his constituents, friends of foes by virtues of his position. When evaluating the theory of utilitarianism, corruption can only be validated when it benefits individuals more than it harms (Nardin et al., 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Accepting gifts from the above people gives the Mayor an undue advantage and sets a bad precedent for the future. For instance, it will oblige the Mayor to award tenders to his friends in the future based on their gestures of kindness and the need to repay indebtedness to them and not because of meritocracy. One of the tenets of such public offices is the just administration and application of the law to all constituent, and no business partner to the city should be treated otherwise. The Mayor will be forced to sign future contracts with his friends because of the need to keep them silent in-case they choose to use blackmail to get back at him.
Overall, the Mayor is corrupt and must adhere to the rule of law and follow due process in awarding contracts based on merit and not as a means of assigning friendship. His actions are unethical and must be prevented from infiltrating the office he holds, and he must be aware that he is subject to the law that created his office and hence must be guided at all times to act accordingly.
The second case presents a lecturer who finds it hard to balance between her night school doctorate classes and her day teaching classes and therefore decides to copy and paste examinations and notes for her students every other academic year without caring for the quality of her teaching and the regulations. Because she is undertaking a doctorate, it would be rote learning, and she would not like it if her professors did the same for her, and this alone makes her action unethical and undesirable.
Utilitarianism holds that the morally upright decision is the type that results in the production of the good. In this sense, an ethically upright choice cannot be right unless it results in positive actions in the lives of other people other than the person initiating the action. One of the ways to grasp this concept lies in understanding that the right steps are only defined by the kind of results that accrue from it. The theory of greater good assumes that people will be more intent on seeking for other people’s happiness as opposed to their own (Nardin et al., 2018). The opposite of this theory would be egoism which asserts the pursuit for self-gratification and self-enrichment.
Therefore, even though the teacher's decision to administer the same lecture notes, lectures and examinations to her students may be beneficial to her, it is undoubtedly detrimental to her students, and this will be evidenced by their poor performance. The concept is typically quantified as a form of neutrality because every party's happiness counts in the same way. However, in considering a person's position in the hierarchy of happiness, then personal gratification comes last in the list.
Parents decide to have children for various reasons, and in most cases; they usually arrive at a decision after proper planning and thorough consideration. They must pull their resources together and make the environment financially, socially, and economically comfortable for the incoming family member by the time the baby arrives. Therefore this is not a decision that parents should rush into or use it as a solution to their problems as the case of Edna and Todd suggests.
To begin with, the decision to have a child requires more than an emotional attachment or the need for fulfilling the desires of spouses. It entails raising a child, and this is a matter that must be treated with the utmost seriousness it deserves. Rationality and logic must, therefore, be employed to a large extent in deciding to have the child and it should not come as a means of ending the challenges spouses already have in their relationship. This is because making such a decision does not guarantee that Todd and Edna will end their differences. Perhaps seeking the advice of a third party like a psychologist might be all they may need. They could choose to have the child and watch as matters escalate for the worse between them, and this will further complicate the case because of the child involved in the picture.
Overall, Edna and Todd should settle their differences by other means before coming to a sober decision to have a child. In no way should the decision to have a child be used to try and make them come together and solve their marital woes. At times having children furthers the differences in marriage and complicated the equation because of the child involved, it is unethical and selfish for the spouses to use a child to quell their tensions.
References
Terry Nardin, David Mapel, & Smith, S. (2018). Traditions of International Ethics. New York: Cambridge Univerisity Press.
