Reintroduce your organization, ethical challenge you are addressing, and the philosophical principles and obligations which you have stated (in your first paper) that stakeholders must consider.
For leadership to lead an ethical organization, they must be aware of and understand how to use both internal and external controls. Discuss both types of controls that are at the disposal of your organization’s leadership, citing the Cooper text.
Identify current specific structures, controls, and/or policies essential to addressing the ethical dilemma upon which you are focused. For example, internally is there a hierarchical structure to your organization which can serve to help with decision-making? Is there a Board to which leadership is accountable? Externally, are there legal structures that (at least in theory) should ensure ethical decisions are being made (or, due to weaknesses in the structures, are these allowing unethical decisions)?
Considering what may be needed (future), what are the new internal structures, controls, and policies and/or procedures that you believe may be necessary to address the ethical challenge? How would you develop these new structures, controls, policies and/or procedures? What would be required to implement these changes? What needs to occur, external to the organization itself, to support the ethical decision (which you identified in paper #1) that is needed?
ore, Locke’s prerogative theory is largely dependent upon the the legislature as representative of the people, and wider society as elected officials. The enforcement of both natural laws and the executive are, according the Lockean theory, dependent upon the support of the common good; “Such consent is expressed not only through voluntary compliance with a rule, but also through its persistent recognition as authoritative coupled with consistent efforts to adjudicate violations and coerce compliance.” Thus, it is critical that governments are charged by the consent of the individual, in order for the just execution of such prerogative powers at the hand of the executive; “i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them”. In this way, “the true basis of any “law,” whether constitutional or international, appears to be relatively universal acceptance of—or consent to—a rule within a relevant community.” It may however be considered that by endowing the executive with such scope regarding the use of prerogative that a state of tyranny may emerge as these powers become unchecked and thus exploited. This may occur situationally where it becomes difficult to distinguish between legitimate use of prerogative and tyranny; moreover alluring “the exercise of power beyond right”. It is in this case, Locke states, that dispute may emerge between the executive and the legislature; rule by legislation and rule by prerogative each preserve the political community and reflect its foundation out of the state of nature. Therefore, one may argue that therefore, the executive and the legislature do not easily coexist in the constitution, furthermore providing no means to judge the rightful use of prerogative. Others may consider Locke’s power to act outside of normal law as entirely extra- constitutional—its foundation is in natural law, prior to positive law—a natural power. In this way, prerogative is not a grant of the people to the executive in the social contract, embedded in a constitutional structure, but a natural power that persists in civil society. Therefore one may contend that, in effect that only a countervailing natural force can restrain extralegal power; in this way the manifestation of this force may not be under the authority of the legislative as the representation of the people. A number of counteracting forces may prevent such a body from fully defining such uses of prerogative in order to assert its use beyond, or without the rule of normative law. The powers of the prerogative under the executive are only at balance when the use of prerogative can be clearly defined; thus significantly limiting the scope of power of the legislative in respect to that of the executive.>GET ANSWER