Answer:
The answer is - Einhorn decides not to steal according to the pre-conventional level where as Finkle decides not to steal according to the conventional level
Explanation:
Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development is related to cognitive development and it states that there are three levels of moral thinking which we progress through that build on our cognitive development. It also proposes that there are reasoning behind moral choices.
There are three levels of moral development according to Lawrence Kohlberg. They are;
- The Pre-conventional Level- Children focus obeying external authority or higher authority figures such as parents or teachers because the Child's moral sense is yet to internalize with the society's conventions as regards what is right or wrong. Hence they focus on the consequences of their actions if they obey authority figures.
- The Conventional Level- In this level the child's moral sense is bounded by societal and personal relationships as they try to maintain positive relationships and societal order by accepting rules of authority figures.
- The Post-conventional Level -In this level people now believe that some laws are prejudiced and should be discarded.
In this scenario, Einhorn decides not to steal according to the pr conventional level because he is afraid of getting caught and punished. Finkle on the other hand decides not to steal because it i wrong and he wants to act in a way he would want others to act, this is the conventional level because he knows his right from wrong and is trying to maintain societal order by not doing what he would not want others to do.
Neuroscience is the process they use
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
Answer: I need points and i honestly dont know, sorry ;<
Explanation:
