Redford’s concept of democratic morality as a cornerstone of the public organization is befitting when analyzing the indoctrination of ethical standards, especially in governmental bureaucracy. As governmental entities compelled to uphold democracy, their legitimacy is derived from a democracy and they are therefore compelled to embrace it (Denhardt, 2007). The standards held by these organizations are derived from democratic rule, perhaps more so in the form of representative bureaucracy. It functions in such a way, that our views and agendas are to be legislated through our elected officials, and then enacted in law. It is only natural that citizens should expect society’s morals, values, and ethical standard to be expressed in our public organizations. If they are not expressed in the governmental institutions then it would inspire one to question: “What power does the democratic will ultimately hold?”
In the values put forth by Redford, he mentions equality for all. As explained earlier, America has not always been a society that incorporated equal rights. Eradicating doctrines such as “separate but equal” drastically changed the shapes of public institutions such as the public education systems providing students with an equal opportunity. According to Fred Mosher (2007), it is through the educational system and universities that the character of public officials will be shaped. These values were exemplified in public organizations with passage of legislations such as the APA and nineteenth amendment. The APA gave rise to Redford’s value of individual worth, by requiring that administrations provide employees with due process usually executed by hearings to ensure that their rights are not violated. The necessity...
... middle of paper ...
...fic approaches to organizational theory typically do not allow room for the principles that exist in democratic morality.
Works Cited
Dao, James. 2004. “Same-Sex Marriage Key Issue to Some G.O.P. Races”, The New York Times; Retrieved on March, 29, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/campaign/04gay.html.
Denhardt, Robert. (2007). Theories of public organization. Wadsworth Pub Co.
Kingsley, Donald. (1944) Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil
Service. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch University Press.
Radine, Lawrence B. 2007. “Organization Theory in Administrative Law: A proposal for a Design Science”, The American Sociologist (pp. 278-285).
United States Department of Labor (2010). “Wage and Hour Division”. Retrieved on March 29,
2010 from http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/index.htm.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
In Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. everybody is equal. Equality should be shown in rights not in looks or thoughts. “All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.”(Vonnegut,1). The
In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality. The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum. At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual. According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality. At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values. For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should have as small a role as possible. In between these two extremes sit the liberal egalitarians, who attempt to reconcile democratic decision-making about moral values with liberalism. The problem is made more complex when one considers that both law and morality are contested concepts. Two recent cases where this continuum can be illustrated are Canada [Attorney-General] vs. Mossap, and Egan vs. Canada. In this essay, I will attempt to explore some of the issues produced in these two cases. I will begin with a summary each case, followed by an analysis of the major themes involved. I will then place the issues in a larger, democratic framework, and explore the role of law in enforcing morality in a democracy. I will then prove how the communitarian position - as articulated by Patrick Devlin - supports the decisions given in Mossap and Egan, and how even the great proponents of libertarianism - Mill and von Hayek - would agree that the decisions were just. A conclusion will then follow.
Hall, Daniel E. Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2012. Print.
Equality and equal opportunity are two terms that have changed or have been redefined over the last 100 years in America. The fathers of our constitution wanted to establish justice and secure liberty for the people of the United States. They wrote about freedom and equality for men, but historically it has not been practiced. In the twentieth century, large steps have been made to make the United States practice the ideals declared in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The major changes following Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her bus seat to a young white man and the Brown v. Board of Education trial in 1954.
While hundreds, even thousands of excellent movies have been made over the years since motion pictures were invented, there are some movies that stand out among the best. There are various reasons for these standouts, sometimes incredible acting, sometimes impeccable story lines, but in many cases, it is the issues addressed by the movie. Most of the greatest movies contain commentaries or analyses of certain issues, be they moral, social, or otherwise. John McTiernan directed one of these films, The Hunt for Red October, based on the similarly titled best-selling novel by Tom Clancy. The Hunt for Red October, a product of the anti-communist attitudes of the 1980’s, is above all a commentary on morality. It follows a critical moral decision made by one man, Soviet Captain Marko Ramius, portrayed by Sean Connery, and follows the consequences of that moral decision to their conclusion. While this is not the only instance of morality being questioned in this movie, it is the most important, as it is the decision upon which the story is based. Other characters, like Alec Baldwin’s character of Jack Ryan, and Scott Glenn’s character Captain Bart Mancuso also have to make moral decisions that will have important effects on Ramius’ decision.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer , J. W. , and Rowan , B. “ Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth
Becker, Joe. "A Conservative’s Road to Same-Sex Marriage Advocacy." New York Times 18 Aug. 2009: 1-3. Print.
Morley, M., Moore, S., Heraty, N., Linehan, M. and Maccurtain, S. 2004. Principals of Organisational Behavior: An Irish Text. 2nd ed. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
The classical school of organization theory dominated administrations from the early 1900’s well into the 1930’s, and it is still relevant today in many of the contemporary organization theories. Shafritz states that classical organization theory was the first theory of its kind, and serves as the foundation of other schools organization theory (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2011, p. 32). Classical organization theory includes scientific management approach, bureaucratic approach, and administrative management approach. Several major theorists of classical organization were Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Luther Gulick.
The difference between ethics and morals, between unethical conduct and immoral behavior, is significant with regards to the actions of elected officials. Elected officials should be obliged to live with ethical conduct but necessary moral behavior. Obligating elected officials to live ethically exemplary lives with regards to their profession is appropriate because the officials are elected into their government positions by the nation's or region's citizens. Those denizens expect their officials to abide by the region's own ethics, by “well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ough...