Compare and Contrast Articles
According to Christopher peter (1987), the equality prescriptive principle fails in having a meaningful force of normative. This is because the equality principle corresponds with the non-egalitarian justice principle of reinforcement and if it fails it is able to counterbalance with the rest without becoming incoherent. However the principle is effective only when the individuals involved are to be treated and are significantly related and those that are given bad or unjustified treatment will be aware of a better treatment when provided his or her equals. According to Christopher treating individuals equally is bound to clash with treating them as equals because inequality can thus be assumed to be more of a symptom or a sign that is developed to send a warning which is not an inherent evil. Therefore, Christopher asserts that right treatment should succeed equal treatmnet6 when circumstances arise and the two elements clash. The principle of prescriptive equality in the system of justice should prevail especially in situations when decisions are made which are bound to perpetuate the bad without generating any particular benefits.
Similarly, Dworkins (1981) holds that the resources equality theory seeks to establish and specify the meaning of just distribution of resources among the societal individuals. He holds that equal distribution of goods among individuals would be achieved if it is permitted by the envy principle. The envy principle holds that individuals will not permit others to hold more than they have. This is because individuals will acquire what they want and therefore the equality principle is irrelevant. This is similar to the assertion by Christopher because the both hold that individuals must struggle to get what they what. In the market resources distribution, the person’s value is fully determined by the worth of resources in regard to their individuals. Those that acquire resources that are linked with high demand are necessitated to pay higher while those that acquire resources that are not highly demanded will pay less.
Additionally, Christopher, (1987), argues that the equality concept is based on opportunities and this influences the capability of equaling the generated results. The egalitarian logic norm by Christopher peter holds and argues that the equality concept is contradictory by itself and this at times results in absurd’s impacts like wrongs and wastes which level down the benefits achieved by individuals socially. The author questions the egalitarian norms holdings because he claims that the norms are misleading because they aim at favoring those individuals that do not deserve the equality opportunities. The equality principle is termed as empty because it is a tautology and those that deserve equal treatment will get the treatment in whichever means (Christopher, 1987).
Christopher asserts that the equality principle slows the social benefits of those that deserve them because it distributes the benefits to those that have done nothing to acquire the benefits. He, therefore, disowns the equality principle that holds that the treatment principle of treating an individual better generates a reason to treat another person in the same way. He claims that the principle is based on the traditional statement which is wrong. Individuals should be given equal opportunities but not equal treatments because being treated in a better ways mainly depends on the particular individual who works on getting the treatment (Christopher, 1987).
Even though the concept of basic equality can be defined as an independent concern in a particular way there is no responsibility from the equality concept to conduct the things that are impermissible to everyone in equal measure (Dworkin, 1981). Equal treatment does not necessarily mean that we have to treat individuals in the right form because the opportunities are limited by the cases of treatment. Equality should always be rectified by nature’s unfairness which correspondence with equal treatment. Unfairness in trying to achieve equality should compete with the value of the treatment because for instance a child cannot be given the chance to stay wake in the night because his sibling had acquired the same treatment prior. The individuals must, therefore, strive in maintaining the chances (Dworkin, 1981).
Contrarily to Christopher peter Dworkin asserts that the unequal distribution that arises after the auctioning occurs can thus be traced from the brute and option luck (Dworkin, 1981). He, therefore, argues that inequality in resources distribution is not caused by lack of efforts subjection as argued by Christopher but it is caused by lack of opportunity. .With this, he claims that inequality in resources distribution has no issues because inequality is mainly caused by the options and opportunities differences. He asserts that problems are generated when the resources distribution fails the envy test presented. He was, therefore, attempting to emphasize the idea that the equality principle is only real when the inequalities are caused by the brute luck (Dworkin, 1981).
This opposes the principle that is generated by Christopher because it holds that the resources that are gained through the bad and a good luck option and this cannot be included as a section of an individual’s purposes bundle in the test of envy. This is because the risks should be considered before the distribution. This matches the assertion by Christopher which holds that the equality principle results in negative effects as it withdraws the social benefits levels due to the unfair distribution (Dworkin, 1981).
According to Dworkin, (1981), Individuals with handicaps are associated with fewer resources than those who hold equal capabilities. Those individuals with physical or mental in capabilities have challenges in auctioning for the resources that they need as compared to those individuals that are well. Both Christopher and Dworkin agree that equal distribution of resources in the society cannot be achieved fully without the participation of all the involved individuals. This is because the quest for distributing resources is satisfied by the need of resources. Those that require particular resources more are therefore bound to add efforts in order to acquire the resources. Although the lack of opportunities may hinder individuals from achieving that what has required the lack of luck may also prevent the equality from prevailing. The principle of equal distribution of resources cannot be achieved fully because it fails in passing the envy test. Individuals want to own more than the others in order to satisfy their needs and therefore, the drives of individuals in acquiring resources may not be equal. The capabilities of individuals in acquiring resources matters so much and this is why the equal distribution of resources may not be achieved fully. Both authors hold that resources must be distributed based on needs and not based on a traditional moral measure of distributing resources unequally. Although the equality principle is aimed at satisfying the individual’s needs it fails in identifying trends that should determine equal distribution.
According to Elkington, (1994) in order for the business to attain sustainable value and development, environmental considerations must be followed. This should, therefore, be the purpose of improving the surrounding performance. The sustainable development can, therefore, be achieved by considering the development policies in increasing the awareness on the environmental preservation. The author holds that the organization can be involved in environmental gaming where them, the consumers, as well as the environment, can be the sole winners. O’Brien, Catherine (2008), holds that the companies can be involved in environmental expanding by reporting the corporate environment which includes the target audiences and environmental disclosures of the exponent’s field. This is similar to Staut Hart and Milstein Mark, (2003), who holds that organizations must be ready to develop a framework in dealing with the societal challenges in achieving global sustainability. This should, therefore, be aimed at creating high value to the corporate shareholders by the organization.
According to Staut Hart and Milstein Mark, (2003), sustainability can be achieved through pollution prevention, utilization of clean technology, pyramid base and stewardship of products. This, therefore, involves the cooperation minimizes the generated wastes and minimizing the emissions generated from operations and facilities. The organization should, therefore, aim at engaging their stakeholders by managing all the products cycles. In order to develop the corporate environment, the organizations are necessitated to utilize the clean technology in developing and deploying the coming generation. This strategy is therefore aimed at securing the future of the organization which fully depends on the environment.
The cooperation should therefore not be self-fish and it should consider the well-being of the society. According to the article social responsibility is essential in ensuring that the cooperation achieves the long-term benefits since successfully depends on the community. Moreover, this is similar to the assertion by Elkington, (1994) which holds that the corporate surrounding is essential for the sustainability development of the business. Both articles agree that the businesses should create a favorable environment that favors all the involved individuals in the environment. However, the articles differ in ways that the organizations can achieve and meet the needs of those that are poor and underserved. Both articles agree that technology should be utilized in developing the corporate technology by reducing the risks involved as well as cost. This should be achieved by minimizing pollutions and emission in order to ensure the wellbeing of the corporate as well as of the society. Additionally, Elkington , (1994), holds that environmental conservation is aimed at increasing the value of the shareholders while on the other hand Staut Hart and Milstein Mark, (2003), holds that it should be purposed for social responsibility and it is, therefore, the issue of the firm on deciding the initiatives to undertake.
De George, (1987), The organization should work beyond the selfish measures by ensuring that it is involved in social responsibilities in ensuring that it achieves sustainable development. The organization should be flexible enough to adopt the changing trends while accomplishing the objective of meeting the needs of individuals. Human resource management should thus be integrated with the supply chain management in ensuring that the business ethics in the organization are considered. The development of human resource is expected to play a crucial role in the social responsibility of the corporate and therefore, it should be managed properly. Sustainability can highly be influenced by HRD And business ethics because it holds a greater capacity of ensuring that the organization is associated with continuity as it gives more focus on performance as well as efficiency in the operation. However in accomplishing this business must, therefore, be conscious of its own role and therefore the business is fully accountable for sustainability achievement. Business ethics are essential in ensuring that sustainability development is easily achieved through performance development.
Similarly according to Mintzberg, Simons, & Basu, (2002), the organization must operate beyond self-benefits as they are required to consider the societal well-being. The value of the corporate stakeholders must be considered as well as those of the society and the environment. The article holds that most organizations are focused on ensuring that they maximize their value generation thus forgetting sustainability development. Social responsibility is crucial in ensuring that individuals are fully concerned about the environment and that the future success is ensured. The article additionally holds that the success of the business is not influenced by profitability but by the needs to become innovative. The cooperation should ensure that the needs of the society well take taken off by incorporating innovation and technology. This should work beyond the self-measure because the corporate development depends on the general social performance.
According to wood, (1991), the corporate should give more focus on developing the corporate responsibility by developing the society. This should thus be focused on achieving social improvement which is essential in corporate development. The authors, therefore, agree that social development is crucial in ensuring that sustainability is achieved. However, the articles differ in ways that the corporate should achieve social responsibility without causing social issues.
References
De George, Richard T.,(1987)"The Status of Business Ethics: Past and Future," Journal of Business Ethics,6(3), pp. 201-211.
Dworkin, R. (1981) What is Equality? Part II: Equality of Resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10 (4): 283 -345.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the Sustainable Corporation. California Management Review, Winter: 90-100.
Hart, S., & Milstein, M.B. (2003) Creating Sustainable Value. Academy of Management Executive, 17 (2): 56-67.
Mintzberg, H., Simons, R., & Basu, K. (2002). Beyond Selfishness.
O’Brien, Catherine (2008). Sustainable Happiness: How Happiness Studies Can Contribute to a More Sustainable Future, Canadian Psychology, 49(4):289-295.
Peters, Christopher J., Equality Revisited, Harvard Law Review Vol. 110 No. 6, 1210 -1264 (April 1997)
Wood, D. (1991) Toward Improving Corporate Social Performance, Business Horizons, July – August, 66-73.
