Tahlil 1 Jeymining harakati axloqiymi?

Analysis 1 Is Jamie’s action ethical? UTILITARIAN METHOD We need to compare the action of taking a cake home for her husband with the alternative of not doing it. We then need to analyze whether taking a cake for her husband increases or decreases overall happiness compared to the alternative and consider harm and benefits to all parties affected. Bringing the cake home may benefit Jamie and her spouse, as he probably will enjoy the cake, and she will be happy that he is pleased with the cake (assuming that he is not bothered by her taking grant money to pay for it). Are there others affected by this action? This is difficult to evaluate: there are many consequences and parties affected in some way, but the effects are rather small and hard to determine: the restaurant benefits, but the research project, the foundation, and the university may be harmed. The quantitative effects are hard to determine, though, and the number of people affected here is also unknown. These effects may or may not override the benefits to Jamie and her husband. Consequently, we cannot appropriately assess and argue whether Jamie’s action to take the cake increases or decreases overall happiness compared to the alternative of not taking the cake. The utilitarian method is therefore inconclusive here.
Tahlil 1 Jeymining harakati axloqiymi?
UTILITAR Usul Biz eri uchun uyga tort olib ketish harakatini buni qilmaslik muqobilligi bilan solishtirishimiz kerak. Keyinchalik, eri uchun tortni olish muqobil bilan solishtirganda umumiy baxtni oshiradimi yoki kamaytiradimi, tahlil qilishimiz kerak va zarar ko'rgan barcha tomonlarga zarar va foydani hisobga olishimiz kerak. Tortni uyga olib kelish Jeymi va uning turmush o'rtog'iga foyda keltirishi mumkin, chunki u tortdan zavqlanishi mumkin va u tortdan mamnun bo'lganidan xursand bo'ladi (agar u buning uchun grant pulini olgani uni bezovta qilmagan deb hisoblasa). Bu harakatdan ta'sirlanganlar bormi? Buni baholash qiyin: ko'plab oqibatlar va qaysidir ma'noda ta'sirlangan tomonlar bor, ammo ta'sirlar juda kichik va aniqlash qiyin: restoran foyda keltiradi, ammo tadqiqot loyihasi, jamg'arma va universitet zarar etkazishi mumkin. Miqdoriy ta'sirlarni aniqlash qiyin, ammo bu erda ta'sirlangan odamlar soni ham noma'lum. Bu ta'sirlar Jeymi va uning eri uchun foydalarni bekor qilishi mumkin yoki bo'lmasligi mumkin. Binobarin, biz Jeymining tortni qabul qilish harakati umumiy baxtni keksni olmaslik muqobiliga nisbatan oshiradimi yoki kamaytiradimi, to'g'ri baholay olmaymiz va bahslasha olmaymiz. Shuning uchun utilitar usul bu erda noaniq

CI METHOD A What type of action do we observe here? What personal rule of action is Jamie establishing? Jamie is buying a cake for her husband using grant money, which means she uses funds for her private interest that were earmarked and given to her for a certain purpose. More specifically, the grant money is public money devoted to research that can be considered a public good. Therefore, Jamie uses funds devoted to a public good for a private good. Can we reasonably want this to become a universal principle of action? Can we reasonably want everyone who is trusted with, and responsible for, funds that are devoted to a specific purpose to use those funds for private purposes and interests? Probably not, as this would establish a general principle of misappropriation of funds. It would establish permissibility around misuse of funds for any private use. This is a slippery slope: what a cake is to one person, is a flight ticket to another, and a car to the next. People in all kinds of positions would misuse all kinds of funds for all kinds of private purposes. This would contradict and undermine the very idea of dedicating funds for specific purposes, lead to serious misallocation of funds, and destroy any trust in the persons who are responsible for such funds. Probably, people and institutions would stop giving money for specific purposes, particularly for public goods. One therefore cannot reasonably want Jamie’s action to become a universal rule of action. Thus, the CI method A supports the judgment that Jamie’s action is unethical. Ethical theory and application to business

CI METOD A Bu yerda qanday turdagi harakatni kuzatamiz? Jeymi qanday shaxsiy harakat qoidasini o'rnatadi? Jeymi grant pullari hisobiga eri uchun tort sotib olmoqda, ya'ni u o'zining shaxsiy manfaati yo'lida ma'lum bir maqsad uchun ajratilgan mablag'dan foydalanadi. Aniqrog‘i, grant mablag‘lari tadqiqotga ajratiladigan davlat mablag‘lari bo‘lib, uni jamoat mulki deb hisoblash mumkin. Shuning uchun Jeymi jamoat manfaati uchun ajratilgan mablag'larni shaxsiy manfaat uchun ishlatadi. Bu harakatning universal tamoyiliga aylanishini oqilona istaymizmi? Muayyan maqsadga yo'naltirilgan mablag'lar ishonchli va mas'ul bo'lgan har bir kishi ushbu mablag'larni shaxsiy maqsadlar va manfaatlar uchun ishlatishini oqilona istaymizmi? Ehtimol, yo'q, chunki bu mablag'larni o'zlashtirishning umumiy tamoyilini o'rnatadi. Bu har qanday shaxsiy foydalanish uchun mablag'lardan noto'g'ri foydalanishga yo'l qo'yishni belgilaydi. Bu sirpanchiq: bir kishi uchun tort nima bo'lsa, boshqasiga parvoz chiptasi va boshqasiga mashina. Har xil lavozimdagi odamlar har qanday turdagi mablag'larni har qanday shaxsiy maqsadlarda suiiste'mol qiladilar. Bu mablag'larni muayyan maqsadlarga yo'naltirish g'oyasiga zid bo'ladi va uni yo'q qiladi, mablag'larning jiddiy noto'g'ri taqsimlanishiga olib keladi va bunday mablag'lar uchun mas'ul bo'lgan shaxslarga ishonchni yo'q qiladi. Ehtimol, odamlar va muassasalar ma'lum maqsadlar uchun, xususan, jamoat mollari uchun pul berishni to'xtatadilar. Shuning uchun Jeymi harakati universal harakat qoidasiga aylanishini istamaydi. Shunday qilib, CI usuli A Jeymining xatti-harakati axloqiy emas degan fikrni qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. Axloqiy nazariya va biznesga tatbiq

47 VIRTUE METHOD A The case provides some basic information about Jamie: she is an employee, professor, grant holder, and spouse. What ideals do we expect from these roles? From an employee, we generally expect some degree of loyalty and responsibility. From a professor of a public research university, we may expect professional responsibilities such as upholding the relevance and value of research. From a grant holder, we expect responsible use of grant money, as well as trustworthiness and accountability. The action of buying the cake to take home, as small as it might be, contradicts all these professional virtues. One might argue, though, that Jamie is also a spouse, and buying the cake for her husband displays virtues of a good spouse, virtues like care and attentiveness. However, in this case, it is questionable that this would justify neglecting professional virtues. Jamie could easily be a good and caring spouse without violating her professional virtues; for instance, by buying the cake for her husband with her own money. Overall, in this case, utilitarianism does not give us a clear result, but the CI method A and virtue method A both lead to the same conclusion: Jamie’s action to use grant money to purchase a second cake is ethically wrong.

47 FAZILIK METOD A Bu holat Jeymi haqida ba'zi asosiy ma'lumotlarni taqdim etadi: u xodim, professor, grant sohibi va turmush o'rtog'i. Bu rollardan qanday ideallarni kutamiz? Xodimdan biz odatda ma'lum darajada sodiqlik va mas'uliyatni kutamiz. Davlat tadqiqot universiteti professoridan biz tadqiqotning ahamiyati va ahamiyatini saqlash kabi professional mas'uliyatni kutishimiz mumkin. Grant egasidan biz grant mablag'laridan mas'uliyat bilan foydalanishni, shuningdek, ishonchlilik va javobgarlikni kutamiz. Uyga olib ketish uchun tort sotib olish harakati, qanchalik kichik bo'lsa ham, bu professional fazilatlarga zid keladi. Biroq, Jeymi ham turmush o'rtog'i va eri uchun tort sotib olish yaxshi turmush o'rtog'ining fazilatlarini, g'amxo'rlik va ehtiyotkorlik kabi fazilatlarni namoyon qiladi, deb bahslashish mumkin. Biroq, bu holatda, bu kasbiy fazilatlarni e'tiborsiz qoldirishni oqlashi shubhali. Jeymi o'zining kasbiy fazilatlarini buzmasdan osongina yaxshi va g'amxo'r turmush o'rtog'i bo'lishi mumkin edi; masalan, o'z puliga eriga tort sotib olib. Umuman olganda, bu holatda utilitarizm bizga aniq natija bermaydi, lekin CI usuli A va fazilat usuli A ikkalasi ham bir xil xulosaga olib keladi: Jeymi ikkinchi tortni sotib olish uchun grant pulidan foydalanish harakati axloqiy jihatdan noto'g'ri.

2 What are potential economic implications of the action? The action of buying the cake using grant money seems to be an insignificant issue. However, the action constitutes a misuse of funds, which generally, and at a larger scale, can result in serious consequences. Donors and investors who give money for well-defined purposes may withdraw their support if they learn that their money is not being used properly. The success of many non-profit organizations, such as universities, depends on donations and public support, and may be negatively impacted when their reputation is tarnished by misappropriation and waste of funds. On a larger scale, improper use of research funds can have significant economic implications if it becomes a more widespread issue. Research can be considered a public good. Research is supposed to produce new knowledge that benefits society and contributes to the future flourishing of society. As a public good, research cannot be optimally funded by the market: investors and businesses will only fund research that is likely to turn profits for them within a reasonable timeframe. However, some of the most significant research has had delayed benefits to society and humankind, and these were unforeseeable at the time. For instance, theoretical research in mathematics at the beginning of the 20th century established the foundations of informatics, which eventually led to the development of computer technology. Many advanced societies therefore finance the public good of research through public funds and mechanisms like public research foundations. If Jamie uses money from her research grant for the cake, this actually is not a zero-sum game in which the restaurant gains what other businesses that sell materials for the research lose. Economically, Jamie shifts funding of public goods to consumption of private goods. If this were to happen on a large scale, it would have significant economic consequences. It would result in underfunding and suboptimal provision of public goods, in an inefficient allocation of means in the economy, and significant consequences for the overall wellbeing of society.

2 Harakatning potentsial iqtisodiy oqibatlari qanday? Grant pullari hisobiga tort sotib olish harakati ahamiyatsiz masaladek. Biroq, bu harakat pul mablag'larini noto'g'ri ishlatishdan iborat bo'lib, bu odatda va kengroq miqyosda jiddiy oqibatlarga olib kelishi mumkin. Yaxshi belgilangan maqsadlar uchun pul beradigan donorlar va investorlar, agar ular o'z pullaridan to'g'ri foydalanilmayotganini bilsalar, o'z yordamlarini qaytarib olishlari mumkin. Universitetlar kabi ko'plab notijorat tashkilotlarning muvaffaqiyati xayriya va jamoat yordamiga bog'liq bo'lib, mablag'larni o'zlashtirish va isrof qilish tufayli ularning obro'siga putur etkazsa, salbiy ta'sir ko'rsatishi mumkin. Kattaroq miqyosda, tadqiqot fondlaridan noto'g'ri foydalanish, agar u yanada keng tarqalgan muammoga aylansa, muhim iqtisodiy oqibatlarga olib kelishi mumkin. Tadqiqotni jamoat manfaati deb hisoblash mumkin. Tadqiqot jamiyatga foyda keltiradigan va jamiyatning kelajakdagi gullab-yashnashiga hissa qo'shadigan yangi bilimlarni ishlab chiqarishi kerak. Ijtimoiy manfaat sifatida tadqiqot bozor tomonidan optimal tarzda moliyalashtirila olmaydi: investorlar va korxonalar faqat o'rtacha vaqt ichida foyda keltirishi mumkin bo'lgan tadqiqotlarni moliyalashtiradilar. Biroq, eng muhim tadqiqotlarning ba'zilari jamiyat va insoniyat uchun foydani kechiktirdi va o'sha paytda buni oldindan aytib bo'lmaydi. Chunonchi, 20-asr boshlarida matematika boʻyicha olib borilgan nazariy tadqiqotlar informatika asoslarini yaratdi, bu esa oxir-oqibat kompyuter texnikasining rivojlanishiga olib keldi. Shuning uchun ko'plab ilg'or jamiyatlar tadqiqotning jamoat manfaatini davlat fondlari va jamoat tadqiqot fondlari kabi mexanizmlar orqali moliyalashtiradi. Agar Jeymi o'zining tadqiqot grantidan tort uchun pul ishlatsa, bu aslida restoran tadqiqot uchun materiallar sotadigan boshqa korxonalar yo'qotadigan narsalarni yutib oladigan nol summali o'yin emas. Iqtisodiy nuqtai nazardan, Jeymi jamoat tovarlarini moliyalashni shaxsiy tovarlarni iste'mol qilishga o'tkazadi. Agar bu keng miqyosda amalga oshirilsa, bu muhim iqtisodiy oqibatlarga olib keladi. Bu davlat ne'matlarining etarli darajada moliyalashtirilmaganligi va suboptimal ta'minlanishiga, iqtisodiyotda mablag'larning samarasiz taqsimlanishiga va jamiyatning umumiy farovonligi uchun jiddiy oqibatlarga olib keladi.