Category: Principles

Introduction

In general, Social justice is defined as the reasonable and just distribution of, resources, power and responsibilities in society to all people, irrespective of ethnicity or race, age, ability status, gender, and religious context (Van den Bos, 2003). When talking about youth social justice is very important. According to research social justice in the young population effects are damaging. Family dysfunction and Poverty serve as risk factors for a number of hindrances in youth, comprising emotional, mental and behavioral ailments, poor physical well-being and delayed cognitive development (O’Connell et al. 2009). Related with ideas of mutual good, freedom and equality people believe it has lost its sense. It has become more of a word for objectors and campaigners. It’s stress-free to consider of what it’s not… it’s not government restriction, gender disparity, discrimination. This is a thought-provoking new method for attempting poverty in all its forms. It is not the only story about income poverty only but this Government have faith that in doing so has permissible community issues to extend and become rooted and the emphasis on income from the last decades has overlooked the original reasons of poverty, and (Britain and Government, 2019). The main purpose of this research is to analyze if the UK is socially just or not.

Discussion

Fundamental principles underlying this definition include values of inclusion, collaboration, cooperation, equal access, and equal opportunity. Such values are also the foundation of a democratic and egalitarian society (Sue, 2001).

Social Justice by John Rawls

Justice Theory by John Rawls delivers a convention concept of the principles of social justice in terms of the structure of society or the method in which the major communal institutes allocate essential duties and rights to regulate the partition of benefits from societal collaboration (Rawls, 1971). According to Rawls, the supervisory impression is that the ideologies of fairness for the main arrangement of society are the purpose of the new settlement. They are the principles that sensible and free persons anxious to advance their own interests would agree to take an opening position of equality as describing the important terms of their suggestion. These values are to control all further contracts by state the types of the forms of government that can be established and communal teamwork that can be pass in. This method of regarding the values of justice is known a justice as fairness (2009).

There are two principles of justice that Rawls supposed would be selected in the new situation. In this section, he wished to create merely the most common remarks, and so the first creation of these values is temporary. For example, we go on by running over numerous inventions and estimated piece by piece the ultimate declaration to be agreed much far along. He had faith that doing this lets the explanation to continue in a normal manner. The leading declaration of the two principles states as follows. Number 1 is that every person is to have an equivalent right to the most widespread elementary freedom well-matched with alike freedom for others. Secondly, economic and social disparities are to be organized so that they are equally (a) devoted to positions and workplaces exposed to all… There are two uncertain phrases in the second principle, namely ‘everyone’s advantage’ and ‘open to all’ (b) rationally anticipated to be to everyone’s benefit (John Rawls, 2009).

Principles of Social Justice by David Miller

There is a great and increasing form of experimental study on observations of justice and ‘justice behavior’. David Miller claims that values of impartiality essential to be implicit contextually, with all standard result its usual home in a dissimilar method of human relationship. Because current cultures are intricate, the philosophy of justice essential to be complex, too. The three primary modules in Miller’s scheme are the philosophies of reward, necessity, and equality.

Miller developed a draft of the philosophy of social justice that claims why it is essential to be chastised in indication about how normal people comprehend dispersive fairness and states uncertain applied queries of societal justice. He raises challenging queries about and then criticisms research readings that put light on the responses. Research shows that Publics’ approaches about what people be worthy based on effort used, their views about parity and inequalities, their outsets of fairness in the face of needs, the effect of self-regard on how moralities of justice are made practical, and the result of class membership on one’s overall approach to societal disparity. The inferences that Miller draws from the indication are mainly applicable for anybody concerned in trying to impact communal wellbeing policy grounded on the responsiveness of community views (Van Soest, D., 2001).

Miller had much common with a researcher Michael Walzer (Spheres of Justice, 1983). He said claims that he found out principles in the meanings of social good. Miller argues that principles of justice are linked with solidarity, a reward is equally associated with residentship. Rather than proposing a regulating hypothesis of social equity, Miller represents how unique standards are utilized in various social settings. His hypothesis of equity accomplishes more than basically report mainstream views, be that as it may. It presents standards of need, desert, and balance that are thoughtfully intelligible and mixed together to shape a firm hypothesis. Mill operator keeps on being worried about the reasonableness of social equity by coming back to the subject of political practicality. The prospects for social equity in light of two inclinations globalization and multiculturalism-and finishes up, to some degree, that ‘the quest for social equity in the twenty-first century will be extensively harder than it has been in the last 50% of the twentieth … also, that we should contemplate inquiries of extension, about what the universe of social equity ought to be in a world in which financial, social, and political limits never again flawlessly agree (Miller, 1999).

Social Justice in the UK

The government dedicated to working together to slit down the obstacles to community flexibility and equivalent chances in Britain and shape a fairer society. No one should be seized back because of who they are or their contextual. But, similarly, no-one should be demarcated simply by these individualities. We need a society where people are known for who they are and what they attain and not where they are from.

Equality

Government by this time has taken steps to devise maximum of the Equality Act 2010 which make simpler the law-making structure, together with those new provisions that will mark a real change and fighting those, like the latter government’s administrative ‘socioeconomic task’ that generate more system of government, not better equality. The government will carry on to mark directed interferences where there is a strong indication that regulation is desirable. But while regulation has made a dissimilarity in history, it is not a solution for the on-going slits in fairness that we face.

This plan sets out the Government’s new method to undertaking disparity: one that moves left from handling people as groups or ‘equality aspects’ and as an alternative identifies that we are a country of 62 million entities

Years after equivalent pay rules were conceded, women are remunerated over 12 percent fewer than men crosswise a series of sectors, increasing to 22 percent when freelance workers are counted in (National Statistics, 2009).

Opening up community facilities and authorizing individuals and communities

From the Government’s Idea for Fully developed Societal Care: Active Citizens and Proficient Communities, introduced on 16 November 2010, test assemblies to offer subjective resources, rather as direct outflows, for everybody who is entitled by April 2013. This would mean roughly one million people would obtain nonstop payments or a personal financial plan.

International Rights

Nearly one in ten British residents’ lives, studies overseas or works; like never before (Sriskandarahaj and Drew, 2006). Management will take efforts to defend and endorse the privileges of British residents abroad and usage of their power to alter equality and attitudes and encourage culture primarily by example.

Carry on to thrust for worldwide approval and application of the UN agreements on ethnic discernment and judgment in contradiction of women, and those encouraging the privileges of families and disabled individuals and make a worthy model through local application of these agreements and with the constant broadcasting scheme (Randall, V.R., 2002)

Conclusion

The UK is a profoundly isolated country. Those divisions take numerous structures. Class, pay sexual orientation, race. As of late, everyone has been the subject of much investigation. In any case, one type of division that has gotten far less consideration is dependent on geology (Kerckhoff, 1985). Conveying Social Justice will require solid administration at both national and

nearby dimensions to advocate the standards in this technique and to convey for those people and families encountering various detriments. Conveying Social Justice will likewise require new and creative ways to deal with structuring and subsidizing administrations, also, close organization between the private, open and beneficent segments (Anon, 2019). In the UK, the government is acquainting new measures with assistance to enhance family solidness. The point is to assist families with providing a sheltered, stable and supporting condition supported by viable connections, regardless of whether guardians are together or separated. Helping kids beat poverty will have an enormous effect not exclusively to their lives yet to the lives of their families, networks and to society as an entirety. Government is focused on closure tyke neediness in the UK by 2020 (Anon, 2019).

References

1. Great Britain. HM Government, (2011). Opening doors, breaking barriers: A strategy for social mobility.
2. O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (Eds.). (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington: National Academies Press.
3. Office of National Statistics (ONS) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. (2009). cited in Working Towards Equality, published Government Equality Office (GEO). (2009); and Metcalf, H. (2009). Pay Gaps Across the Equality Strands: A Review. Research Report 14, Manchester, Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
4. Randall, V.R., 2002. Racial discrimination in health care in the United States as a violation of the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. U. Fla. JL & Pub. Poly, 14, p.45.
5. Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
6. Rawls, J., (2009). A theory of justice. Harvard university press.
7. Sriskandarahaj, D. and Drew, C. (2006). Brits Abroad: Mapping the Scale and Nature of British Emigration. IPPR Report www.ippr.org/ publications and reports
8. Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence.
9. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 790–821.
10. Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of effect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482–498.
11. Van Soest, D., (2001). Principles of Social Justice. David Miller. Reviewed by Dorothy Van Soest.

In general, ethics is a system of moral principles. They affect the way people make decisions and lead their lives.

Every year, as shown by the figure, fraud of corporate costs billions of dollars, which resulted in the collapse of the companies in Italy, the US and Australia. According to Dr. Rushworth Kidder, this can be stopped if code of ethics is followed by all the companies. The ethical position or obligations of Rob can be described with the following characteristics of ethics as given by.

Being Honest and Showing Integrity: Rob should show his honesty and go against the company about the false data. He should report the real financial position about the information and the information about the drugs. By doing this, he is showing his integrity.

Loyalty: Rob should be loyal to the patients and also to himself. Though management have been manipulating the data, he should show the real position of the company and the real fact about the drugs.

Being Fair: Rob should highlight the fair financial position of the company. He should be fair to the patients no matter what the management have been doing.

Accountability: Rob should also consider his future actions if he tries to hide the information and should be accountable to his own actions. He should be ready to face any actions because of his faulty behaviour.

Responsibility: Rob should also comply with the laws of the accounting and also be responsible to the community and the patients as a whole.

Respect: In terms of this, Rob should show some respect to everyone. In our case, Rob should be respectful for the patients and the society. He should tell about the fact of the drug.

But Rob might show unethical behaviour due to some reasons as mentioned by Josephson:

1. Protection of Self: Rob might show unreal financial condition of the company to save his job. In fear of losing the job, he might hide the real information.

2. Faulty Reasoning: Rob might not estimate the costs correctly due to fear of losing the job and he might show the fake information and success to the patients.

3. Self Indulgence: Rob might also think that he is working for the company and show fake information whereas when he does that, it will be for his own benefit.

Not only this, there arise the question of ethics and accounting. If Rob is seeking for short term profitability, he may not seek to show the ethical behaviour. Also as mentioned by agency theory, Rob might try to align the interests of managers and shareholders. Looking at this as well, for the sake for management’s best interest, Rob will be willing to engage in the unethical behaviour and misinterpret the success of the drug to other patients. Though he knows that he is involving in unethical behaviour, for the sake of management he will be forced to do that.

Insider Trading isn’t about who is on the inside, it is about what comes from the inside and how it is used.

Australian insider trading law prohibits any person or corporation from trading in securities while in possession of sensitive and non public information. There is strict law in Australia for insider trading where the maximum penalty is 10 years and or fine upto $450000.

Regarding the legal implications, this can be discussed in two sections. One about the legal actions to the company for the unethical practices and another legal actions for insider trading.

The Big Pharma has been conducting the faulty and unethical business misleading the patients with supplying the CR45 drugs as good measure but now it has resulted in loss of lives of many patients. The authorities are conducting the investigation in the company for its bad practices. After detail findings by the authorities, the company might be charged with hefty fine and the business might also have to be shut down. Not only that, the information given by Rob to his parents, this involves the insider trading which results in Rob being penalised.

There are lots of examples where these types of unethical business practices are being conducted and the legal actions are taken against them as well.

We can take example of BHP and its company OTML, which operates in mining business, conducted the operation near Mount Fuliban for copper and gold mining even though the geographical situation was unstable and in result the construction of dam was collapsed resulting in loss of millions. The landowners filed a $4billion action against them in the Supreme Court of Victoria for damages and compensation. Even in Brazil, due to negligence of the company, the dam erupted resulting in huge loss of property and loss of lives of the people.

Another example can also be highlighted where car manufacturer, Ford hid the information about the gas tank fire and tried to solve it by using various temporary measures and kept on selling its product ‘Pinto’. Despite poor product safety and to save the brand image, ‘Pinto’ were sold in the market. But ultimately there were many deaths occurred due to use of that car. The company was charged with millions of dollars fine by the court.

In case of Rob, his parents have got the inside information about the negative impact the company might face due to the investigation, which will lead to decrease in share price of the company. The information was not made public yet. Hence their decision to sell the shares owned before the announcement is called insider trading where the parties use the non-public information solely for the personal profit.

We can also discuss lots of example where there are legal actions against the insider trader. Recently, the partner of Ex KPMG has been accused of leaking information and involved in insider trading and has been fines $125000 and also banned him from practising as an accountant or auditor. Hence, Rob will also consequently face the same result. Also, recently in Australia, there is another example where the Sydney IT consultant has faced the three years sentencing for insider trading.

Hence, with so many strict rules against insider trading, Rob will definitely be facing the charges for leaking the information to his parents and acting as an insider trader. Furthermore, he will lose his license to work as an accountant in the upcoming future as well.

The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework for principled Catholic engagement in political life and, rightly understood, neither treats all issues morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues. It anchors the Catholic commitment to defend human life, from conception until natural death, in the fundamental moral obligation to respect the dignity of every person as a child of God. It unities us as a ‘people of life and for life’ pledged to build what Pope John Paul II called a ‘culture of life’. This culture of life begins with the pre-eminent obligation to protect innocent life from direct attack and extends to defending life whenever it is threatened or diminished.

Catholic voters should use the framework of Catholic teaching to examine candidates’ positions on issues affecting human life and dignity as well as issues of justice and peace, and they should consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy and performance. It is important for all citizens ‘to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest’.

As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.

As noted previously, the Catholic approach to faithful citizenship rests on moral principles found in Scripture and Catholic moral and social teaching as well as in the hearts of all people of good will. We now present central and enduring themes of the Catholic social tradition that can provide a moral framework for decisions in public life.

Human life is sacred. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. Direct attacks on innocent persons are never morally acceptable at any stage or in any condition. In our society human life is especially under direct attack from abortion. Other direct threats to the sanctity of human life include euthanasia, human cloning and the destruction of human embryos for research.

Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture, unjust war and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering.

Nations are called to protect the right of life by seeking effective ways to combat evil and terror without resorting to armed conflicts except as a last resort, always seeking first to resolve disputes by peaceful means. We revere the lives of children in the womb, the lives of persons dying in war and from starvation, and indeed the lives of all human beings as children of God.

The human person is not only sacred but also social. Full human development takes place in relationship with others. The family – based on marriage between a man and a woman – is the first and fundamental unit of society and is a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children. It should be defended and strengthened, not redefined or undermined by permitting same-sex unions or other distortions of marriage.

Respect for the family should be reflected in every policy and program. It is important to uphold parents’ rights and responsibilities to care for their children, including the right to choose their children’s education.

How we organize our society – in economics and politics, in law and policy – directly affects the common good and the capacity of individuals to develop their full potential. Every person and association has a right and a duty to participate actively in shaping society and to promote the well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable.

The principle of subsidiarity reminds us that larger institutions in society should not overwhelm or interfere with smaller or local institutions, yet larger institutions have essential responsibilities when the more local institutions cannot adequately protect human dignity, meet human needs and advance common good.

Human dignity is respected and the common good is fostered only if human rights are protected and basic responsibilities are met. Every human being has a right to life, the fundamental right that makes all other rights possible, and a right to access to those things required for human decency – food and shelter, education and employment, health care and housing, freedom of religion and family life.

The right to exercise religious freedom publicly and privately by individuals and institutions along with freedom of conscience need to be constantly defended. In a fundamental way the right to free expression of religious beliefs protects all other rights. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities – to one another, to our families and to the larger society. Rights should be understood and exercised in a moral framework rooted in the dignity of the human person.

While the common good embraces all, those who are weak, vulnerable and most in need deserve preferential concern. A basic moral test for our society is how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst. In a society marred by deepening disparities between rich and poor, Scripture gives us the story of the Last Judgment and reminds us that we will be judged by our response to the ‘least among us.’ The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains: Those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has no ceased to work for their relief, defense and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere.

Pope Benedict XVI has taught that ‘love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind is as essential to [the church] as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel’ (Deus Caritas Est, 22). This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalized in our nation and beyond – unborn children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression.

The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. Employers contribute to the common good through the services or products they provide and by creating jobs that uphold the dignity and rights of workers – to productive work, to decent and just wages, to adequate benefits and security in their old age, to the choice of whether to organize and join unions, to the opportunity for legal status for immigrant workers, to private property and to economic initiatives.

Workers also have responsibilities – to provide a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, to treat employers and co-workers with respect, and to carry out their work is ways that contribute to the common good. Workers, employers and unions should not only advance their own interests but also work together to advance economic justice and the well-being of all.

We are one human family whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers wherever they may be. Loving our neighbor has global dimensions and requires us to eradicate racism and address the extreme poverty and disease plaguing so much of the world.

Solidarity also includes the scriptural call to welcome the stranger among us – including immigrants seeking work, a safe home, education for their children and a decent life for their families. In light of the Gospel’s invitation to be peacemakers, our commitment to solidarity with our neighbors – at home and abroad – also demands that we promote peace and pursue justice in a world marred by terrible violence and conflict.

Decisions on the use of force should be guided by traditional moral criteria and undertaken only as a last resort. As Pope Paul VI taught, ‘If you want peace, work for justice.

A more just world will likely be a more peaceful world, a world less vulnerable to terrorism and other violence. The United States has the responsibility to take the lead in addressing the scandal of poverty and underdevelopment. Our nation should help to humanize globalization, addressing its negative consequences and spreading its benefits, especially among the world’s poor. The United States also has a unique opportunity to use its power in partnership with others to build a more just and peaceful world.

We show our respect for the Creator by our stewardship of God’s creation. Care for the earth is a duty of our faith and a sign of our concern for all people. We should strive to live simply to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

We have a moral obligation to protect the planet on which we live – to respect God’s creation and to ensure a safe and hospitable environment for human beings, especially children at their most vulnerable stages of development. As stewards called by God to share the responsibility for the future of the earth, we should work for a world in which people respect and protect all of creation and seek to live simply in harmony with it for the sake of future generations.

Building a world of respect for human life and dignity where justice and peace prevail requires more than just political commitment. Individuals, families, businesses, community organizations and governments all have a role to play. Participation in political life in light of fundamental moral principles is an essential duty for every Catholic and all people of good will.

In the light of these considerations, public policy should be marked by a focus on moral principles rather than the latest polls, more on the needs of the weak than on benefits for the strong, more on the pursuit of the common good than on the demands of narrow interests.

Moral principle is a significant idea in human life. It is a core value of what is good and bad. Without morals, life can be so testing since everybody should act how they need without pondering the interests and government assistance of others. Our activities and actions influence ourselves as well as the people we encountered. Huge numbers of our professional choices include morals. Once we lie, we can lose somebody’s trust and subvert our honesty. On the off chance that we utilize poor materials or workmanship at work, we can risk the wellbeing of others. If an individual has great good character, this is a direct result of his ideals and morals. As an employee, great good character is basic to the business representative relationship, worker confidence, and the development of the organization. Also, no matter where you work, whether it is a small company or a big company, there is a need to live and follow by moral principles. Similar to what happened to Enron and other businesses that they did not adhere to moral principles so that they were bankrupt. Companies have to meet financial expectations, they additionally have moral responsibilities. Everyone, from the bottom to the top management, must meet these responsibilities.

In a PowerPoint presentation of Dr. Jose Mario B. Maximiano gives an in-depth discussion about the different types of moral principles in business ethics and the issues regarding corporate social responsibility. Paramount in the slide of PowerPoint is the author’s view regarding the importance of applying the moral principles in every organization. The information on these principles can assist an individual in making discerning decisions. This suggests the comprehension of profound quality is separated from everyone else is very insufficient without understanding the rule rules in regards to them. Notwithstanding their opposition, these standards despite everything assume an important job in managing a person to settle on choices on what is good and bad. Based on the presentation, there are six moral principles. First, Human Dignity in the priority of Labor Over Capital; second, Respect for Basic Employee Right; third, Social Justice; fourth, Social Dimension of Private Property; fifth, Option for the Bottom of the Pyramid; and lastly, Earth Responsibility and Sustainable Development.

The first ethical principle emphasized how important human beings are in the organization. The Author insists the principle applies regardless of whether capital is owned and controlled by public companies or private companies. So the priority of labor over the capital that all these who work should make certain that all they do is directed to benefiting labor itself humans rather than capital. Most importantly, it is the capability that any and each company has a responsibility, to make sure that its employees are being enabled by using their labor to emerge as greater human, to enhance their human fulfillment. This principle matters because in reality most companies, their priorities are capital over labor. However, they do not even think that without labor, money, land, and machinery are useless. This is the principle of human dignity – but, as our route in the direction of searching at this, we think about the biblical idea that people are made in the image of God.

Respecting employee rights is now not simply a touchy-feely way to hold your employees contented and happy—it is the law. Businesses need to recognize these rights to keep away from being sued for workplace harassment, discrimination, pay discrepancies, and etcetera. In connection with respecting employees, rights are social justice. The word “social justice” has come to be simply as distinguished as “human rights.” What is social justice exactly? It is genuinely wondering of fairness inside society. That applies to equity in wealth, opportunities, basic needs, and more. It is elevated over the decades, and now you will hear the term in discussions about gender, race, and the environment. Moreover, social justice is a topic that some people may additionally find uncomfortable. By touching on problems like race, gender, and income, it is effortless for people to grow to be shielding and resistant to change. That said, social justice has become increasingly more vital in our world. Diversity and equality are ideas that sincerely cannot be ignored. But by using pursuing social justice and working to make these thoughts greater prominent in our society, we can heal many of the divisions that are plaguing our country.

Another moral principle is the Social Dimension of Private Property. Now, how does justice relate to personal property? Everyone has the right to own, possess, or dispose of any property. With this moral right, no one can take your property due to the fact you are the rightful owner. However, this personal property is a conditional right. It is conditional right because the natural right to private possession is not absolute. The right to personal and private property has evolved, as it has become a necessity for the modern-day social life. Exceptions to this right, however, are possible if demanded through a higher law like, for example, when common good and public interest demand it. By advantage of the inherent prioritization of rights, property right is not unlimited. The right to private property is not absolute, for it is a proper conditioned using two factors: one, our personal needs, and second, higher needs of the community.

Ethical behaviour involves respecting moral principles such as honesty, fairness and integrity. Ethical behaviour tends to be good for business, whilst unethical behaviour has long lasting damaging effects on a company’s reputation. Employee behaviour and organisational climates are coming under increased scrutiny in the financial industry. McCormick and Kinder reported that the accounting regulator levied £43 million of fines on large accounting firms in the year 2018. It is therefore evident that ethical behaviour is a major managerial challenge facing organisations today. This academic essay will look at why the culture of an organisation is a leading factor that influences employees to make unethical decisions, as well as discuss strategies that organisations can use to develop a culture that supports ethical behaviour in order to meet this challenge.

Organisational cultures can have a powerful influence over their employees, even those employees who had steadfast ethical standards to begin with. It is therefore the organisational culture that evidently shifts the employee’s belief system, because organisations tend to develop counter norms, which are practices that conflict with ethical business conduct. A typical counter norm to an ethical practice such as “follow the rules at all cost” would be to “do whatever it takes to get the job done”. The massive Wells Fargo debacle reported on by Corkery best explains this counter norm. Wells Fargo employees secretly issued credit cards without a customer’s consent to rake up fee income in order to meet targets. Ideas and strategies are therefore required in order to develop organisational cultures to help address the ethical behaviour challenge facing organisation today. Discussed below are some ideas and strategies that institutions can use to encourage ethical behaviour and shape organisational cultures.

Ronald states that the first strategy that should be implemented to attempt to address unethical behaviour in the workplace, is for executives to encourage ethical consciousness in organisations. Fichter states that ethical consciousness can be encouraged through leaders welcoming the opportunity to be challenged and ensuring that values and integrity always trump power. Fichter states that this can be done through advocating for dialogue with employees on the organisation’s ethical standards and through expressing willingness to change it when required. The second strategy in developing an ethically oriented organisational culture, is to create opportunities for debate. Leaders should ensure that majority vote does not rule. According to Fichter, ethical leaders should actively hold discussions with those employees who have different perspectives in order to generate new ideas to challenge unethical dilemmas. Discourse opportunities should be created to increase communication regarding current ethical standards. Team meetings and training sessions should be used as a platform where leaders can discuss ethical mistakes of the past.

Fichter explains that organisations tend to punish unethical conduct, but do not reward ethical conduct. According to Fichter, organisations already understand the power of driving employee behaviour though incentive programmes, and they should be encouraged by this to use tools such as compensation, promotion and recognition to celebrate actions that promotes doing the right thing, which ultimately strengthens the organisations ethical standards. Finally, escalating mechanisms are required for sustainable ethical conduct. Fichter mentions that escalating channels should make employees feel safe, and they should be able to trust where the information is heading. Fichter states that organisations should implement escalating procedures that are done through an external, neutral source outside of the organisation.

In conclusion, ethical conduct within organisations has propelled into the spotlight. Increased levels of scrutiny are being placed on organisations by regulators to identify reasons for unethical behaviour. Organisational culture is the predominant factor that promotes unethical behaviour due to gaps between ethical standards and actual practices. An organisation’s culture may differ from its standards because organisations create counter norms which conflict with ethical conduct. Strategies that could help narrow these gaps and help develop ethical organisational cultures that meets the ethical behaviour challenge facing organisations today include challenging authority, creating debating opportunities, rewarding ethical behaviour and strengthening escalating procedures.

Much as philosophy and ethical beliefs differ as we ask different people, so too can we find variations amongst the philosophers themselves. This applies to ethical dilemmas and quandaries, as well. As we consider the Philippa Foot thought experiment, both Mill and Kant’s beliefs can be applied in order to glean a better understanding of the relevant morals.

Utilitarianism advocates a focus not solely on individual happiness but also the consideration of all happiness, of net happiness in any outcome. For Mill, such dilemmas are a basic calculus wherein the morality of an act is dependent upon the positivity of its results. One would therefore expect Mill’s advice in the Philippa Foot thought experiment to advocate the rescue of the five at the cost of the one in both the Rescue I and Rescue II hypotheticals. Such a decision is generally accepted by all in any circumstance for Rescue I, as saving the lone individual instead of the five is infeasible anyways. For Rescue II, Mill’s decision may seem more controversial, but it is perfectly in line with Mill’s belief that the greatest net positive should be the most morally correct option. In Mill’s own writing, he holds that “…the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 1). We can describe Mill’s beliefs by the Theory of Value and the Principle of Utility. This principle is responsible not only for governing morality in an individual’s belief system, but it exists as a meta-principle of practical reason, governing all areas of thought and behavior. Operating under the aforementioned principles, it is very likely that Mill would advocate such positions with regard to the Rescue hypotheticals in the Philippa Foot Thought Experiment.

It is important, however, to distinguish Mill’s utilitarianism and the Greatest Happiness Principle from normal, simple hedonistic pleasure-seeking, even though for Mill, utilitarians, by definition, are hedonists as it comes to moral theory. What makes Mill’s utilitarianism different from the common perception of hedonism is that Mill conceives of different types of pleasure, each more or less valuable compared to others by virtue of their qualities (Schefczyk, 11). For instance, pleasures that employ intellect or imagination are considered by Mill to be more valuable. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied,” he asserts (Mill, 3). This thinking can still be applied to the Philippa Foot experiment in support of the idea that Mill would advocate for the rescue of the five at the cost of the one in Rescue II. After all, is it not a higher pleasure, a higher satisfaction, to be responsible for the rescue of multiple, good lives even if another had to be sacrificed for that end result? It is likely that Mill would agree with such a position.

Alternatively, how would J.S. Mill’s chronological predecessor Immanuel Kant respond to such a hypothetical? Kant’s moral philosophy was distinguished by deontological theory and deontological ethics. The latter informs one to never act in opposition to the most moral method, and we can still conclude that the most morally correct course of action in Rescue I would be to save the five while abandoning the other individual. As such, Kant, like Mill or most any other individual, would choose to save the five in Rescue I. Rescue II is hypothetical that poses the most serious moral dilemmas, however, and it is in this hypothetical that Kant’s position would differ from Mill’s.

In the Rescue II hypothetical, Kant would most likely not advocate saving the five at the cost of the one. He would choose to spare the lone individual blocking the road, thereby waiving the opportunity to save the other five. This would make sense in the context of deontological ethics, as the moral obligation of an individual operating under this system is to act for the most moral and ethical outcome, not necessarily for the ‘best’ or greatest net positive. Of course, by subscribing to a system of ethics that obligates individuals to always act for the ‘most moral’ outcome, it naturally begs the question of how the ‘most moral course of action is defined and found.

Much as Plato viewed humans as ‘basically sane, rational beings, Kant believes that human beings possess the mental capacity and ability for rationality and for rationalization. This forms a primary focus of Kant’s moral theory. Humans are special because they are given thought and the freedom of choice; these are responsibilities that must not be taken lightly. In carrying out this responsibility, humans must act on morals. Further, not just the outcome, but the actions themselves hold moral value, and so must be judged separately. It may seem strange, for how could action be morally improper yet the outcome morally proper, or vice versa? To answer, consider one of Kant’s own examples, one of a shopkeeper who charges the same of his goods for both inexperienced and experienced customers. “This is in accord with duty. But here is also a prudential and not-duty-based motive that the shop-keeper might have for this course of conduct…” (Kant, 3). Just because the shopkeeper sells his goods at the same price to every customer, he doesn’t necessarily do so because of any moral obligation, but perhaps purely out of self-interest, acting to his own advantage. If the shopkeeper acts solely to gain an advantage later on, indirectly, can his action truly be described as moral, even if in the moment, the outcome was moral? These are questions important in considering the moral appropriateness of an action.

Under deontological ethics, one must choose the course of action most in accordance with the moral principles they operate under with a genuine intent to fulfill one’s duty to uphold those moral principles. Considering the Rescue hypotheticals in the Philippa Foot experiment once again, we can see why Kant, in Rescue I, would consider there to be an existing moral obligation to save the five people instead of the other individual. You, in the thought experiment, were already heading towards the five and were readily capable of saving them; it would be morally wrong to abandon that quest and risk their deaths for only an unlikely chance of saving the other. What trumps the calculus that is used in Rescue I when instead considering Rescue II from Kant’s perspective is that to rescue the five would require the literal, intentional murder of another individual. Whereas in Rescue I, an individual would be continuing to carry out an existing moral obligation, making no violations of their moral principles in so doing, Rescue II would instead require an individual to commit an immoral act to continue their mission. This immoral act would not hold with deontological ethics, and so even though a moral obligation exists to save the five people, there is a greater moral obligation to not kill the lone individual blocking the road. By the moral principles that govern our society, the more ‘morally appropriate’ act would be to spare one individual, even though this means five would die.

This can be further explained by the categorical imperative, the rationally necessary and unconditional objective humans must follow in all circumstances, regardless of individual inclination (Johnson, 1). Kant himself describes the categorical imperative thusly: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 8). To apply this to the thought experiment, we must avoid contradiction. That choice that allows us to follow this maxim and avoid contradicting moral principles and moral obligations is the best course of action.

Also in both Rescues, we must operate according to the maxim Kant provides in his writing: “Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means” (Kant, 11). This is the second version of the categorical imperative. In other words, we must never use people solely as a tool or stepstool to attain an end result. In Kant’s estimation, there are several duties derived from the categorical imperative, those being a perfect duty and one of two imperfect duties. The first imperfect duty is the duty of self-improvement, and the other is the duty to aid others. What differentiates imperfect duties from perfect duties is that the former is a duty that must not be ignored, but may be fulfilled in multiple ways. There is a duty in Rescue I to aid others, and this is an imperfect duty. The perfect duty present in both Rescues is to uphold the moral maxim and to prevent contradiction; we cannot use anyone as a means to an end. In Rescue I, this is not an issue, as we may simply continue on and rescue the five innocent people, thus fulfilling our duty. In Rescue II, however, fulfilling the imperfect duty to aid others by aiding the five cannot be achieved without contradicting moral principles and the aforementioned maxim, failing the perfect duty that exists. As such, by the categorical imperative, Kant would advocate sparing the individual blocking the road. Have we not, at the least, aided one other, in so doing? And even though we leave the five others to their fate, we fulfill our moral duty.

When it comes to such dilemmas, many obviously wonder who is right, and why. Such a query is a difficult one to answer, and so it is best to examine Mill’s and Kant’s philosophies fairly and equally, finding what faults exist in each and determining which of those we are most averse to accepting. While Mill’s utilitarianism provides a basic, easy-to-understand path for us to follow, it risks being subverted by utter pragmatism. If consequences are true all that matters, what is to stop society from encouraging unjust acts. Consider, for instance, a town wracked with riots and social unrest after an unknown criminal killed a beloved citizen. Taking the position of a judge in this town, you know that you have the power to restore calm and peace if only you could satisfy the mob; the easiest, fastest, best way to satisfy the mob without having to wait for a drawn-out investigation to hopefully pan out is to sentence an innocent man to death (Austin, 4). Should utilitarianism be considered the correct moral philosophy, should the principle of utility trump all, and should consequences matter more than the action, then it would be the right thing to sentence an innocent man for the sake of the town, would it not? Mill, if presented with this dilemma, may offer a rebuttal, but what matters is that he is no longer present to offer that rebuttal, and utilitarianism, as it is so often interpreted and utilized by humans of the modern age, provides justification for unjust acts so long as the ends are justifiable. Most people who do not subscribe to utilitarian belief would contend that it is wrong to punish the innocent purely on the grounds that his individual rights are violated unjustly, and by the moral principles of society, this would be a heinous act. Generally, utilitarianism’s greatest issue is that it provides a means to justify unjust acts, and we have already seen throughout our history how providing such rationale can be harmful to our societies (Austin, 6). Mill’s moral philosophy may have its benefits, but this is a serious fault, indeed.

This is not to say, however, that Kant’s deontological ethics, as an alternative, are without fault. Deontology has its own detriments that need to be acknowledged. The biggest issue with deontological ethics is that it is inflexible, thereby rendering it difficult to use as we scale moral dilemmas or apply it to less than rational contexts. For instance, taking the Philippa Foot Rescue II thought experiment, what if we changed the number of people we could rescue from five to five hundred? That is no small number of people who would perish should we refuse to run down one innocent man blocking the road, but by Kantian deontology, to commit the murder of one man is wrong under any circumstances, as it would contradict our moral principles and violate the second version of the categorical imperative. As humans face more and more complex moral dilemmas where arithmetic becomes more difficult to manage, Kantian deontology, frankly, will struggle with providing what would otherwise be deemed a reasonable solution. Simply because the categorical imperative must be universally followed, the blameless course of action would always be to avoid killing one individual, even at the cost of perhaps hundreds to thousands of innocent lives (Studebaker, 3). Further, Kantian deontology struggles with dilemmas concerning controversial moral principles. For instance, if society generally held that homosexuality was morally wrong and harmful to society, how would a homosexual individual go about living under a system of deontological ethics? If there is a duty to uphold the moral principles of the society, to maintain the categorical imperative, it would be rather difficult to go about the issue. Deontological ethics has merit in weighing not just the outcome of an action, but the morality of the act itself, yet it is also flawed in how strict it can be in requiring adherence to Kant’s categorical imperative and other principles.

Personally, while I would prefer to also weigh the morality of acts themselves when considering various courses of action, I find utilitarianism to be the superior system. Even though it risks causing humans to behave in unjust ways, I still hold that it provides a better means of meeting moral dilemmas. When the stakes are great enough, I cannot rely on Kantian deontology to provide what I think is a reasonable solution, but I can typically rely on Mill’s utilitarianism. The aforementioned issues with Kantian deontology are simply too difficult for me to reconcile without contradicting a portion of that moral philosophy, whereas utilitarianism, I think, is more flexible in allowing certain actions. Under Mill’s moral philosophy, every individual’s happiness is supposed to be weighed equally, but the fact that he proposes there are varying degrees of pleasure that are more desirable than others means to me that the arithmetic and calculations involved in utilitarian moral dilemmas is not so simple. I would normally choose to save the five while sacrificing the one in Rescue II of the thought experiment, but I think it is possible as well to rationalize sparing the one at the cost of the five if I consider my happiness and the happiness of others who could somehow relate to the situation down the line. What if all five of those who would perish were drunken ex-convicts, finding themselves in their dilemma only through their own fault? And what if also the man I would have to run down was the responsible caretaker of a family of five? Then the math is not so easy, and I would hold that by utilitarianism, the greatest net positive may actually come from sparing the man and letting the other five die. And even were I to be uncertain of the veracity of the previous claims, were I to operate under those assumptions, could I be faulted for doing what I believed at the time to be the most utilitarian behavior? In any case, utilitarianism, I think, provides a reasonable moral philosophy, as well as one that is flexible and adaptable enough for most purposes. For those reasons, and considering the faults I find with Kantian deontology, I consider Mill’s utilitarianism the superior moral philosophy.

To each their own, however. The great thing about such belief systems in a free world is that not all are required to subscribe to only one. Those who prefer another may choose another, and so on. Both Mill and Kant were veritable intellectual titans who provided invaluable writings for generations to inform their moral frameworks, and there remain merits attributable to both.

There are a number of issues about the relationship between morality and law in a (pluralistic, secular) democracy like the United States. Among them are whether legislation should reflect moral principles, whether judges should interpret laws in light of moral values and principles, whether laws should enforce morality, whether laws are binding if they do not reflect moral principles, and whether it is moral or not to disobey bad laws, and what gives law its authority.

Sometimes morality is confused with religion and I have written about that elsewhere. But for the purposes of this essay, it will not matter whether someone’s moral principles are based on religious doctrine or commands or not. The important traits will be the soundness, and perceived soundness, of any moral principles, not their genesis.

I am also not trying here to write a definitive work about all the issues involving the relationship between law and morality, nor to restate all the points others have already made about the issues I do address. Instead, I hope to simply shed some additional light on aspects of the relationship between law and morality in a pluralistic democratic country with a secular government.

Aspects of Law Not Based on Morality

First, as has been said by many people, some laws are managerial or administrative in that they institute behavior for procedural purposes that could equally well, from a moral or socially useful point of view, have been written in a different, or even opposite way. A common example is traffic rules about the side of the road on which one is to drive. Apart from consistency with bordering neighbors (especially for safety purposes of driving across borders and in neighboring countries), it does not matter from a moral standpoint which side a country (or a set of neighboring countries) adopts, as long as the choice is made among equally right (e.g., safe) options, though once a side is chosen by law, it is generally prudent, and morally obligatory without some good reason to the contrary to abide by the choice. These laws are not based on morality, in terms of their specifics. They are moral because they are a way of promoting social benefits of a certain kind in an optimal way.

Second, some laws are immoral, usually because they are unfair but sometimes because they are counterproductive or harmful; in some cases, egregious and reprehensible. Many laws about Jews in Nazi Germany and many laws concerning women and blacks in early U.S. law were morally wrong. Many apartheid laws in South Africa were morally wrong. But there have also been government programs set up by law that simply mistakenly harmed the people they were intended to help, such as aspects of the welfare rules that ended up trapping people in poverty rather than assisting them to escape it.

Laws, or a legal system with a lack of adequate laws, can also have wrong or immoral consequences even if the contents of particular laws are not unjust. For example, laws concerning evidence and procedure in courtrooms often lead to acquittals of obviously guilty defendants, and sometimes to convictions or continuing sentences and punishment of known or likely innocent ones. There is no reason to believe that just because a law passes, it is for the best or that it is right or moral, even if the people passing it think it is. If one were to be charitable about legislators, one might perhaps be able to argue that they pass those laws they believe to be right, whether those laws actually are right or not, but I think there is sufficient evidence legislators will often pass laws for political reasons — to win or keep political support from those whom the law favors or to whom it panders — even though they know the laws are bad or wrong. Either way, however, sometimes bad or immoral laws get passed that are perfectly legal.

Third, not all morality is enshrined in law because the law is in a sense ‘incomplete’. Many unfair and wrong business practices are not anticipated and therefore not made illegal until someone invents and uses them in a way that clearly mistreats others. These practices are wrong and immoral from inception, but not illegal until the law ‘catches up to them. In a sense, morality is ‘complete’ and applies to all acts, but the law typically is ‘incomplete’ and only applies to behaviors legislation has already addressed, or that the courts can interpret to have been addressed by implication in existing law. Law has to be ‘invented’ or manufactured; morality only has to be recognized. And in the creating of specific laws with specific wording, loopholes creep in because it is difficult to predetermine and specify those and only those acts intended to be covered. Morality does not have loopholes. It is probably impossible to make a complete set of laws that anticipate, enumerate, fully describe, and forbid every possible specific wrong behavior.

It might be possible to have general legal principles that distinguish all behaviors that should be legal from those that should not, in the same, or similar, way that correct general moral principles might distinguish between all morally right and all morally wrong acts, but it is not likely that either moral principles or legal principles can lead to a complete and specific (predetermined) enumeration of each and every right act in every circumstance.

Fourth, not all morality should be enshrined in law, because enforcing some morality would be far worse than not enforcing it. For example, even if it might be wrong for someone to lie in bed an extra half hour rather than having a good breakfast or getting to work on time, or even if is wrong for a child or husband to leave dirty clothes on the bed or floor, or even if it is wrong to break a prom date at the last minute for no good reason, those transgressions are not grounds for sending in the police. Liberty and autonomy are important values and they sometimes require letting someone make a mistake or do the wrong thing — as long as the wrong that is done is not so bad or so costly that civil society has a legitimate interest to prevent it. There are sometimes disagreements about where the line should be drawn, but there are clearly some actions where autonomy is more important than being forced to do what is right by law, and there are clearly some actions where prevention of harm overrides autonomy and liberty. While society has a legitimate right to enforce morality in preventing great harm (or cost), it need not, and should not, make everyone do the right thing all the time. In cases where autonomy overrides prevention of wrongdoing, the law should not require people to do what they ought to. While it is wrong for people not to do what is right, it is worse or ‘more wrong for the law to get involved in those situations where either autonomy and privacy are more important than enforcing the right behaviors, or in those cases where police or other government agencies will make things even worse by trying to enforce right behaviors.

There are some cases where even if a moral breach is bad for society, the social costs of trying to enforce morality in such cases would be worse than even the bad breach. Hence, martial law is not the sort of thing democratic societies generally tend to have, even if it would make streets safer; wiretaps are not permitted for just any speculative purpose; confessions cannot be coerced; and guilt must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, even if guilty people sometimes go free because we have made the decision that it is better to free the guilty in cases difficult to prove reasonably than to risk convicting the innocent. Again, people disagree about whether the social costs of enforcement of some potential moral breaches are worth it or not, but a guiding principle seems to be that the law should not try to enforce moral principles where the enforcement efforts are (seriously) worse than the breach of principles would be, even when the original infraction itself is seriously bad.

Fifth, people disagree about moral issues. People also sometimes disagree about which laws should be created or kept, sometimes on moral grounds, sometimes on merely prudential or practical grounds where different consequences are predicted. When moral viewpoints conflict or are contradictory, law, unless it is to be contradictory itself, cannot reflect the morality of different people. Moreover in the United States, Constitutional rights will sometimes even prevent the law from conforming to the wishes of a simple (even substantial) majority of people or their representatives. How can laws conform to morality when people disagree about what is morally right or wrong, or when their collective wishes are ‘thwarted’ by the Constitution and by whatever minority is sufficient to prevent amending the Constitution?

This is sometimes stated as ‘morality is subjective.’ But disagreement can be about objective matters as well as subjective ones when it is difficult or impossible to know or conclusively demonstrate the correct answer. Disagreement, even unresolvable disagreement, does not necessarily make an issue subjective. I will say more about this later.

Sixth, a special case of the above is that it is often normal for people to believe that the status quo and traditional practices are what is morally right. It often is very difficult, especially for those who benefit from current practice, to notice or see there is something wrong with it, let alone agree with that assessment. Hence, they tend to see efforts for reform as unnecessary, destructive of a well-functioning system and social order, or even morally wrong. It is one view of the law that it tends to favor existing power structures and relationships, not necessarily or not only through some sort of Machiavellian attempt to maintain power through evil means, but because existing systems seem to work well (enough) and because they seem psychological to be normal and reasonable, especially to those in power.

Comparing and analyzing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research with consideration of ethical issues associated with research

Research can be described as a quest for new knowledge and the exploration of the unknown. A systematic process in which data is collected and analyzed in order to draw conclusions and generate new concepts (Walliman, 2011). Research within the field of nutrition is crucial and conducted daily, as nutrition is constantly changing is it vital to obtain and utilize current and up-to-date information (Ohlhorst, et al, 2013). Evidence-based research can profoundly make positive changes to health and allow medical innovations to happen, including, prevention and treatment of disease and public health interventions (Dobrow, et al, 2017). The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledges the importance for a more rigorous process for research within nutrition, to ensure the delivery of safe evidence-based information within public health (WHO, 2019).

The essence of this assignment is to compare the similarities and dissimilarities between quantitative and qualitative research methods. Strengths and limitations are apparent in all areas of research and they will be explored within this assignment. Ethical issues throughout the research process will be discussed in depth and the reader will be informed on four ethical principles required when using human participants in research.

According to Jervis and Drake (2014), the main purpose of research is to obtain new knowledge, also to validate and expand on existing knowledge, in order to establish facts to explain a certain phenomenon. Research methods refer to all procedures carried out by the researcher in the research process and comprise of both quantitative and qualitative methods (Polgar and Thomas, 2008). Quantitative research is a systematic approach used to quantify variables, using numerical or statistical data (Polit and Beck, 2010). Hagan (2014) also adds that quantitative research is a systematic, structured, and formal process that uses a statistical approach in the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. Contrarily, Hammerberg, et al (2016) explains that qualitative research is a systematic but unstructured process that is narrative and descriptive in the design of the collection, analysis, and presentation of data. Regardless of the difference in the meaning, both are research methods that follow a step-by-step process that considers each stage of the research process systematically. This correlates with the definition of research as a systematic and rigorous process (Ozhan-Caparlar and Donmez, 2016).

Quantitative research uses deductive reasoning, which works on a hypothesis and examines all possibilities before reaching a specific and logical conclusion (Azungha, 2018). It could be argued, that as deductive reasoning is based on assumptions, affirming the consequent may pose as a limitation, for example, if one of the premises are wrong or if different assumptions are made, then all logic becomes falsifiable (Abutabenji and Jaradat, 2018). On the other hand, the possibility to explain its hypothesis by discovering a relationship between an independent (cause) and a dependent (effect) variable is a deductive strength (Oaksford, 2015). In contrast to this, qualitative research uses inductive reasoning, which begins with an observation, forms a pattern, a hypothesis is created to support its theory and a conclusion is drawn based on multiple ideas, generating a new theory for quantitative research to experiment on. However, Zalhagi and Khazei (2016) are from a different point of view and suggest that quantitative research is more than just experimenting with a theory developed by qualitative research and that it can also develop its theory based on the researcher’s predictions.

Pritchard (2018) emphasizes on the importance of epistemology (existence of knowledge) and ontology (existence of truth/reality) on the paradigm of research. Consisting of positivism and interpretism. Quantitative research is based on positivism, it is objective in nature as it generates knowledge and truth from a single idea and prediction from the researcher, empirical confirmation, and experimentation. In contrast, qualitative research is based on the interpretive paradigm, as it is subjective in nature and draws knowledge from interpreting other people’s experiences, behavior, and understanding of their natural environment, often with little or no prediction from the researcher (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017).

Quantitative data is gathered through questionnaires, surveys, and polls. Pre-existing statistical data can be manipulated using specialist computer software, by doing this, it allows the research to be replicated and therefore, increases the reliability of the study (Swift and Tischler, 2010). Data collected using the quantitative method can be generalized across populations, as large sample sizes can be used in the study (Austin and Sutton, 2014). For instance, in order to find out the nutritional intake of university students living on campus, a cohort study could be conducted by way of using dietary assessment methods, such as 24-hour recalls and a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Although the accuracy of using such methods could be questioned, as social desirability response may lead to inaccurate self-reporting, therefore, this limitation may impede the conclusion (Miller, et al, 2008). In comparison, qualitative methods produce results by means that are not quantifiable. Data is obtained through interviews, focus groups, and observation, as qualitative takes a naturalistic approach the researcher needs to adopt person-centered principles (Sandvik and McCormack, 2018). The outcome of the aforementioned study regarding the nutritional intake of students living on campus would produce very different findings when using a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach is used to better understand human experiences and behaviors and as human behaviors are influenced by surroundings, the research is conducted in the natural setting of the subjects (Anderson, 2010). Rahman (2016) argues that research carried out in such a way lacks validity, as small sample sizes cannot be generalized, also the results can be manipulated by the researcher’s own opinions.

Although quantitative research has dominated the research world and with methodological purists taking the stance of being either primarily quantitative or primarily qualitative, combining both methods using the mixed method approach can be highly beneficial in research (Schoonenboom and Johnson, 2017). Almalki (2016) connotes that adopting a mixed method approach is particularly useful to understand contradictions between the findings of qualitative and quantitative, plus offers great flexibility, therefore, can be adaptable to various study designs, such as randomized trials and observational studies. Although the mixed method approach has gained momentum within the field of research, it has also been the subject of much debate as to whether it carries any weight of the substance. Research involves a vigorous process and should be carried out meticulously, in the case of mixed methods the researcher needs to be skilled in both qualitative and quantitative methods and this proves problematic when conducting mixed methods research, due to the researcher’s personal preference to research methods (Regnault, et al, 2018, Shorten and Smith, 2017).

Along with the possibility of uncertain outcomes in research, there is also an element of risk to participants or the environment. Therefore, all research should be designed and carried out ethically (Vanclay, et al, 2013). In 1964 The Declaration of Helsinki, a formal statement, was developed to provide ethical guidelines for all medical researchers to adhere to when using human subjects in research, with the intention to protect human participants from being mistreated. The Declaration of Helsinki set the foundations for future ethical developments (Carlson, et al, 2004). Before any study can begin a proposal of what is intended should be submitted to an ethics committee in order to gain approval for the study being carried out. The researcher must then obtain informed consent from the participant and the participant should be made aware of the exact procedure in which they are committing to. The opportunity to withdraw at any stage of the process should be emphasized and the researcher should reiterate this at every stage of the study(Erlren, 2010). This is particularly crucial in qualitative research, as the outcomes can often take a different direction it is paramount that no distress is caused by the findings. For example, if a study was conducted to measure the subject’s intake of sugar, considering the fact, that consuming excessive amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, and in turn, can lead to type 2 diabetes mellitus (Khasari, et al, 2014). Participants’ personal data must be guarded with the strictest confidentiality, any information that could identify a person, for example, date of birth, name, address, or contact information should be kept safe from (Saunders, et al, 2014). This is in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Gov.uk, 2018).

Beauchamp and Childress (1979) devised a framework of four ethical principles. The four prima facie principles are respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The term prima facie means that the principle is binding unless it contradicts another of the moral principles (Gillon, 2014). The aim of autonomous decision-making is to treat participants with fairness and to have their involvement in all decision-making throughout the whole research process (Mellado, 2016). However, having respect for autonomy is not absolute and a person may at times act without autonomy, for example, for a person hospitalized and suffering with severe anorexia nervosa and refusing food, the decision to be forced fed by medical professionals, then their autonomous right has been taken away, even if the decision is in their best interest (Coggon and Miola, 2011). The Mental Health Capacity Act is in place with principles designed to act on behalf of a person who lacks the mental capacity to make informed decisions (Biswas and Hiremath, 2010). Non-maleficence (do no harm) and beneficence (do good) are often used interchangeably but even though they are closely related, the two should be confused. Beneficence aims to promote good and well-being in society and in patients. While non-maleficence aims to first do no harm, which is achievable by careful decision-making (Townsend, et al, 2010). Justice encompasses all the principles, intended to treat all with fairness, whilst upholding moral principles in all aspects of laws and legislation (Jahn, 2011).

In conclusion, although qualitative and quantitative methods both possess weaknesses, they also have their strengths, therefore, none is superior to the other and both have a place in the field of dietetics. The mixed method research is a research approach that is gaining in popularity amongst researchers and this approach has deservedly earned its place. Strengths and limitations are a part of any research and they have been highlighted within this essay. The author has gained a broader knowledge in ethical principles through the writing of this essay.

Reference List

1. ABUTABENJI, S. and JARADAT, R. (2018). Clarification of research design, research methods, and research methodology. Teaching Public Administration, 36(3), pp.237-258.
2. ALMALKI, S. (2016). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Data in Mixed Methods Research—Challenges and Benefits. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), p.288.
3. ANDERSON, C. (2010). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), p.141.
4. AUSTIN, Z. and SUTTON, J. (2014). Qualitative Research: Getting Started. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 67(6), p.772.
5. AZUNGHA, T. (2018). Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), pp.383-400.
6. BISWAS, A. and HIREMATH, A. (2010). Mental capacity assessment and ‘best interests’ decision-making in clinical practice: a case illustration. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 16(6), pp.440-447.
7. CARLSON, R., BOYD, K. and WEBB, D. (2004). The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 57(6), pp.695-713.
8. COGGON, J. and MIOLA, J. (2011). AUTONOMY, LIBERTY, AND MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING. The Cambridge Law Journal, 70(3), pp.523-547.
9. DOBROW, M., MILLER, F., FRANK, C. and BROWN, A. (2017). Understanding relevance of health research: considerations in the context of research impact assessment. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), pp.223-227.
10. ERLEN, J. (2010). Informed Consent. Orthopaedic Nursing, 29(4), pp.276-280.
11. GILLON, R. (2014). Defending the four principles approach as a good basis for good medical practice and therefore for good medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(1), pp.111-116.
12. HAGAN, T. (2014). Measurements in Quantitative Research: How to Select and Report on Research Instruments. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(4), pp.431-433.
13. HAMMERBERG, K., KIRKMAN, M. and DE LACEY, S. (2016). Qualitative research methods: when to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3), pp.498-501.
14. JAHN, W. (2011). The 4 basic ethical principles that apply to forensic activities are respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 10(3), pp.225-226.
15. JERVIS, M. and DRAKE, M. (2014). The Use of Qualitative Research Methods in Quantitative Science: A Review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(4), pp.234-247.
16. KHASRAI, Y., DEFUDES, G. and POZZILLA, P. (2014). Effect of diet on type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, 30(S1), pp.24-33.
17. KIVUNJA, C. and KUYINI, A. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), p.26.
18. MELLADO, J. (2016). Autonomy, consent and responsibility. Part 1: Limitations of the principle of autonomy as a foundation of informed consent. Radiología (English Edition), 58(5), pp.343-351.
19. MILLER, T., ABDEL-MAKSOUD, M., CRANE, L., MARCUS, A. and BYERS, T. (2008). Effects of social approval bias on self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption: a randomized controlled trial. Nutrition Journal, 7(1), p.339.
20. OAKSFORD, M. (2015). Imaging deductive reasoning and the new paradigm. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9(335), pp.97-106.
21. OHLHORST, S., RUSSELL, R., BIER, D., KLURFELD, D., LI, Z., MEIN, J., MILNER, J., ROSS, A., STOVER, P. and KONOPKA, E. (2013). Nutrition research to affect food and a healthy lifespan. Advances in Nutrition, 4(5), pp.579-584.
22. OZHAN CAPARLAR, C. and DONMEZ, A. (2016). What is Scientific Research and How Can it be Done?. Turkish Journal of Anesthesia and Reanimation, 44(4), pp.212-218.
23. POLGAR, S. and THOMAS, S. (2008). Introduction to research in the health sciences. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elservier, pp.64-71.
24. POLIT, D. and BECK, C. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(11), pp.1451-1458.
25. PRITCHARD, D. (2018). What Is This Thing Called Knowledge?. 3rd ed. Milton: Routledge, pp.144-167.
26. RAHMAN, M. (2016). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), p.102.
27. REGNAULT, A., WILLGOSS, T. and BARBIC, S. (2018). Towards the use of mixed methods inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2(1), pp.36-55.
28. SANDVIK, B. and McCORMACK, B. (2018). Being person-centred in qualitative interviews: reflections on a process. International Practice Development Journal, 8(2), pp.1-8.
29. SAUNDERS, B., KITZINGER, J. and KITZINGER, C. (2014). Anonymising interview data: challenges and compromise in practice. Qualitative Research, 15(5), pp.616-632.
30. SCHOONENBOOM, J. and JOHNSON, R. (2017). How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(S2), pp.107-131.
31. SHORTEN, A. and SMITH, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: expanding the evidence base. Evidence Based Nursing, 20(3), pp.74-75.
32. SWIFT, J. and TISCHLER, V. (2010). Qualitative research in nutrition and dietetics: getting started. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23(6), pp.559-566.
33. TOWNSEND, A., COX, S. and LI, L. (2010). Qualitative Research Ethics: Enhancing Evidence-Based Practice in Physical Therapy. Physical Therapy, 90(4), pp.615-628.
34. VANCLAY, F., BAINES, J. and TAYLOR, C. (2013). Principles for ethical research involving humans: ethical professional practice in impact assessment Part I. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 31(4), pp.243-253.
35. WALLIMAN, N. (2011). Research methods. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, p.37.
36. World Health Organization. (2019). Nutrition. [online] Available at: https://www.who.int/nutrition/en/ [Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].
37. ZALHAGI, H. and KHAZEI, M. (2016). The Role of Deductive and Inductive Reasoning in Accounting Research and Standard Setting. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 8(1), p.23.