How to Avoid Unethical Behavior in Organizations

Introduction

Unethical behaviours are often found in organizations regardless of the knowledge of the code of ethics. The instances of such practices include an employee falsifying documents or an executive stealing money from the firm. Such methods are harmful to the organization as for one they defile the reputation of the company by losing its credibility. This, in turn, leads to dropping of customers as they lose trust in the firm. Ultimately, the business may continually experience losses and the worst of all its shutting down. The society plays a role in the unethical conduct of an organization, determined by whether it is tolerant to such behaviours or whether it considers the particular behaviour acceptable. Societal context, as well as social changes, have contributed to the specific adoption of norms and conduct by the organizations. 

Many firms have their focus on diversity such as ethnicity and age neglecting the homogenous aspect of their businesses. Also, there has been increasing globalization of business operations attributed by fall of international trade barriers. The concept of globalization has caused complexities in tackling ethical issues in an organization. This is majorly caused by diversity in dealing with issues to do with morality across the globe because of a different notion as of cultural morality. The primary source of this confusion is the variation of codes of ethics across different countries. Moreover, social changes have increasingly led to changes of socially acceptable behavior. Additionally, globalization has created many workers in the firm to adopt different cultural norms and behaviours as they work in different countries with diverse cultural standards (Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). This has created uncertainty of what is acceptable codes of conduct. The confusion has often led to the violation of ethical practices in people working in business organizations. However, investors and business managers can opt to drive their employees in working towards prevention of unethical acts in their organizations. The report seeks to explore how unethical behaviour can be avoided in organizations.

Background to the study

Research has been conducted regarding the ways in which unethical conduct has been in practice in organizations. Unethical conduct in a firm entail any behavior that does not comply to the standards of conduct that are employed by the organization. Studies show that in many circumstances such as the relationships between employees, their conduct when carrying out their duties, and the use of company’s resources. Unethical behaviour can also cause breaking of law as well as a violation of human rights. 

Unethical behaviour ranges from the straightforward conduct to the complex action. This conduct includes inappropriate use of computer whereby an employee uses it for personal reasons rather than the intended purpose. Also, there might be a misuse of time such as leaving the job before time or skipping the appointment. Additionally, workers may get involved in illegal activities such as embezzlement of company’s funds. Another unethical conduct is bullying or a type of harassment such as sexual harassment; which is a violation of human rights. 

Studies indicate that upholding good behaviour in firms can be effective if the issue is addressed by the company as a whole (Gonin, Palazzo, & Hoffrage, 2012). Organizations can adopt norms and cultures that set a pace for the practice of ethical behaviour. Behaviours such as selflessness will help work against the use of unethical behaviours as the individuals who engage in these practices have their motives tailored by selfishness. Also, they can employ regulatory standards that reduce unethical conduct in the organizations. 

Studies on ethics suggest that unethical and ethical behaviour in a company results from individual factors and the contextual factors (Treviño et al. 2006). Hence, the practical way to approach the issue of unethical conduct in an organization is to focus on an individual as well as the context of the organization. Individuals can be handled by setting rules, policies, and standards to be followed as they perform their tasks. The workers are monitored to ensure that they support the principles set. Also, firms avoid unethical behaviours by punishing those who violate the established rules and norms as well as rewarding those who continually behave ethically (Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner, 2012). The business context can be handled by developing acceptable policies, practices, and culture so that the employees can be influenced in a positive way towards behaving ethically. Also, the business managers promote the ethical actions by leading by example as their subordinates imitate them.

The research conducted on the topic shows that organizations promote ethical behaviour by instilling codes of ethics as they train their workers on how to carry out themselves ethically. Most approaches to curbing the unethical behaviours emphasizes the organizational aspect rather than individual aspect (Galperin, Bennett & Aquino 2011). The regulatory element is stressed as it views the dishonest conduct of an individual as a result of external impacts. The factors include the organizational structure, its culture, and environmental factors. Hence, many firms address their structures and cultures so that they can influence positive ethical behaviours of their workers. For this reason, corporate culture is seen to have significant impact in changing the behaviour of the employees. This is why many companies have majored on their cultures in promoting the ethical conduct of their employees.

Many researchers have focused on organization’s culture in the way to promote ethical behaviour of their workers (Treviño et al. 2006). The study has also defined the culture by focusing on the values. This is because benefits are essential components of a firm’s culture. Organizational culture has been described as the shared notions of a firm’s work practice within its units that may have differences from other groups in the same organization. On the other hand, ethical organizational culture has been defined as a general corporate culture with a combination of formal and informal systems of conduct control that work collaboratively to provide guidelines to the workers’ ethical conduct and moral reasoning. 

The cultural systems in an organization have the power to influence integrity and ethics to the extent of being supportive (Kulik, O’Fallon, & Salimath, 2008). As it turns out, studies show that ethical organizational culture helps in establishing behaviours that are considered ethical or unethical in a firm and it mainly provides guidelines for the practice of the workers as they conduct their daily activities. Hence, studies on business ethics consider organizational culture as a crucial aspect in influencing ethical conduct in the firm. 

Method of study

The study is carried out by evaluation of the online academic sources that have tackled the issue. Peer-reviewed articles are selected and used to find out detailed information on the ethics in organizations as well as ways to avoid unethical behaviour in the firms. Hence, twenty peer-reviewed articles are used in this study.

Discussion

Ethical behaviour in an organization

According to the studies done by Treviño et al. (2006).  and Gonin et al. (2012), ethics entails good and evil conduct or right and wrong behaviour. In organizations, ethics are viewed from the perspective of the acts of the firm, groups of people, and individuals operating in it. Thus, the business ethics comprise of standards, rules, codes, and principles that provides guidelines on what to be done and what to be avoided. Ethical conduct includes adherence to the identified moral norms whereas unethical behavior entails a violation of the standards. The ethical behaviour in a business organization must be acceptable in the community where it conducts its operations (De Cremer, Mayer, & Schminke, 2010). On the other hand, unethical practice in a business comprises the conducts that violate the essential interests. Not only does unethical conduct violate the official and explicit set standards, rules and laws, but also breaks implicit and informal values in the society. 

Business managers and employees have a responsibility to act ethically as they carry out their operations. This is because an organization has an engagement in a variety of relationships ranging from individuals, groups, and organizations. As the business stakeholders get involved with an organization so as to promote their interests, the firm should treat them with respect and avoid unethical conduct as much as possible. This is because such relationships create mutual relationships between the parties involved (Pierce, Kilduff, Galinsky, & Sivanathan, 2013). Hence, the firm ought to engage with stakeholders’ interests in an ethically responsible manner if at all they want to maintain the relationship. However, sometimes there exists cases of unethical behaviours from the business operators towards different stakeholder groups such as customers, financers, employees, society, and suppliers. 

Ethical and unethical decision making

There are aspects that influence the decision making of individuals, which further determine whether they behave ethically or unethically. The characters include moral judgement, moral awareness, ethical behaviour, and moral motivation. The processes are then influenced by individual and contextual factors. 

Moral awareness

Moral issue identification or knowledge is the first stage in making decisions. Treviño et al. (2006) explain that in identification of a moral issue, there should be a recognition of an existing moral problem in the situation. It is essential that every individual has the ability to detect a moral issue. This is because this is the necessary step that initiates ethical decision making which in turn is reflected in ethical decision making. On the other hand, there exist individuals who are incapable of identifying a moral issue. Others are able to locate, but they just don’t care about their decisions. For this reason, such individuals end up conducting themselves unethically as a result of making poor choices.

Gonin et al. (2012) expounds on ethical sensitivity as the ability of a person to know that the process of making decisions has ethical aspects and thus choosing the ethical direction. Individuals have a significant role in shaping the moral issue identification. Research shows that issues with high intensity of morals are more likely to be ethical as they gain a person’s attention as they try to decide what is right as well as whatever is wrong. Hence, moral awareness and ethical or unethical conduct have a direct relationship. 

Moral judgement

A sound ethical judgement results from proper moral understanding. On the other hand, a wicked ethical sense results from bad moral judgement. Hence, tackling the concept of the moral sense is of importance in the knowledge on ethical and unethical decision making. There are people who base their honest view on reasoning about whatever is right depending on their desire to obey the authority and fear of being punished (Galperin et al. 2011). Secondly, other people make a moral decision based on the expectations of other people who seem significant to them. What’s more, other moral judgements are created by determining what is right by taking into account the universally considered principals of justice and rights. Most people lie in the category of making moral decisions based on the view of other significant people and also based on laws and rules (Treviño et al. 2006).

The concept of moral judgement is reflected in behavioural ethics in organizations. The way people think is seen to be majorly influenced by the external impacts. For this reason, it is imperative to manage such conduct properly by focusing on the adoption of norms, beliefs, peer behaviours, culture, and reward system in the organizations. Some researchers suggest that the ethical decision-making model in an organization related to the influences of contextual variables on behaviours and making decisions is dependent on cognitive moral development (Piff et al. 2012). Those with high cognitive moral development are considered to be less susceptible to contextual influences that those with low growth. 

Moral motivation

Moral motivation concept entails a person’s commitment towards conducting themselves ethically. This is reflected in the extent to which individually take the honourable course, embracing moral values and taking responsibility for the right outcomes. The factors that facilitate moral motivation are the desire to comply with the universal standards and societal norms. Also, people get self-satisfaction when involved in healthful behaviours. This may be a target to achieve, and if that is the case, it motivates people to be moral (Graham, Ziegert, & Capitano, 2015). Moral motivation always leads to ethical behaviours of individuals in an organization.  

The framework of decision-making

People working in organizations apply specific normative criteria in making their decisions; whether ethical or unethical. In as much as individual decision making can be described with respect to rational self-interest, it can also be described in relation to emotional commitments and moral ideals. 

Homo economicus concept and its influence on people’s conduct in an organization

According to the study by Gonin et al. (2012) the idea of homo economicus defines persons within the economic system as informed, rational, egocentric, autonomous, and utility-maximizing agents. The nature of humanity is associated with self-interest. Some researchers define the concept as a crucial rule for human behaviour. The conducts are seen to be cultivated by instrumental rationality and self-interest. The theories explain that individual decisions are not made blindly and intuitively, instead, they are made on the basis of intentional judgement as well as consideration of costs and benefit. On the other hand, people are self-interested in carrying out their activities, and their principal aim is to optimize self-interest. 

The concept assumes that if individuals care only for themselves, they will strive to achieve their needs in one way or another. The acts of defensive selfishness by human beings as defined by this concept can be associated with a difference in conduct by different individuals working in organizations. Some unethical behaviours can be so tempting as they reward the individuals committing them with their desired results. The temptation for selfish gains motivates the unethical practices in the organizations. This is directly contributed by the self— centred perceptions of persons in a firm. Gonin et al. (2012) assert that the framework remains to be the dominant concept on which economic and management depend on the while conceptualizing the rational of human behaviour in organizations. The author further assert that “homo economicus concept has become performative and has gained increasing normative authority over the daily practice in organizations.” (p. 7). The authors further argue that the leading cause of unethical practice in organizations originates from the societal context in which the firm is integrated rather than the individuals performing the act. 

Institutional embeddedness

Institutional theory encompasses the broader aspects of social structure. It considers ways in which structures become established as guidelines for social behaviour. The compositions include rules, schemes, routines, and norms. Components of institutional theory explain how the elements are diffused, created, adapted, and adopted over space and time and how they are declined for use over time. According to the study conducted by Gonin et al. (2012), standardized notions and behaviours are adopted by individuals unconsciously. Most people assume the practices in order to minimize their efforts for decision making. For this reason, everyday practices and standardized perceptions have a significant influence on how organizations and individuals working in them perceive the world, their roles, and how they come up with solutions for issues. 

Institutional theory explains the concept that individual’s decisions are influenced by behaviours of the values acquired by other similar deeds, regardless whether the conduct is irrational or inefficient (Gonin et al. 2012). Any institutionalized behaviour turns out to be standardized as a norm in an organization, which in turn is reflected in individuals. The institutionalization of a norm or a principal is enhanced by the acquisition of justifications that it is socially accepted. Consequently, institutional theory shows the importance of action in which actors in an organization apply and interpret models that are around them. 

The connection between business and societal concept

Since back in the time, in the societies where there is a high prevalence of moral decal, the business organizations operating within the community often have many cases of unethical behaviours (Gonin et al. 2012). This is because there is a link between activities that happen within a business and the moral expectations from outside the company. The societal framework has had a normative interpretation of homo economicus concept, hence reducing its impacts on business organizations and the workers. Further, many pro-social values have been incorporated within many organizations, as they have been taken to be specific standards of interaction. Hence, the society within which an organization operates has a significant impact on the behaviours of the individuals working in the firm. Consequently, businesses have been embedded in the societal context which leads to the influence of the society on organization’s and their employees’ conduct (Gonin et al. 2012). Therefore, concepts such as homo economicus have been applied and interpreted in a compatible way with the societal framework. 

However, for some years back, there has been institutionalized erosion. The societal model has been made weak by increasing practices of individualization, globalization, and specialization. This has contributed to the high rate of personal freedom for individuals. The three changes have provided to the changes of HE embeddedness in the societal framework to reason-based ethical alternatives. Focusing on globalization, the study by Gonin et al. (2012) describes globalization as related to homo economicus. The study states that globalization disembeds the homo economicus from any binding contextual behaviours and norms. Globalization encompasses intensification of economic and social communication across borders enhanced by political decisions, socio-political advancement, and technological development. 

Due to increasing advancement in technology, and ease of communication, globalization has become widespread as organizations now have easy ways of movement of their products across countries. Also, there is the efficiency in conducting their operations around the globe. Through globalization, business organizations acquire new liberties and new powers over nations with geographical limitations (Gonin et al. 2012). If a company does not work under regulation by international laws and guidelines, it can develop its own norms of behaviour as well as a code of conduct without any limitations by the local customs. For this reason, the concept of homo economics does not seem to be civilized by the geographical and societal framework in the concept of global corporation activities any longer. The practice of outsourcing production to suppliers to a diversity of countries, some with low environmental and social regulations has cultivated the tendency of some organizations to get involved in unethical behaviours such as ecological abuse and violation of human rights. Consequently, globalization is seen to be a cause for disembedding of the homo economicus.

The role of specialization, globalization, and individualization in disembedding homo economicus

The three processes have been significant contributors to moral, systemic, and legal disembedding of businesses and their actors from the context of the society and the civilizing norms. Gonin et al. (2012) assert that “on the global context, morality and legal compliance are reduced to simple trade-offs between benefits and risks.”  (p. 17). Organizations operating in a state of weak, nonexistent, or contradictory moral or legal institutions homo economicus behaviour exhibits itself. The business operators end up avoiding many legal requirements as there is no much follow up on their conduct. Hence, avoiding rules is used as a weak economic strategy without considering socio-political factors. For instance, a company that operates across nations without legal and social restrictions is more likely to conduct itself in a way that violates human rights as long as the violation does not have an effect on the bottom line operations of the business in a negative way and the local laws. In the same way, most corporations consider environmental issues as mere economic constraints that need to be minimized. 

Questionable individual morality in organizations

Egocentric homo economicus concept has been applied widely in organizations. Even though business ethicists suggest that business actors do not only employ rationality for self-interest as in the case of homo economicus but also it helps them to reason beyond self-interest. Such actors make some considerations before executing an action. They consider whether the effect can be universalized and whether it considers humanitarian values and traditions or whether it makes a significant contribution to the highest number (Kulik, et al. 2008). Ultimately, ethical approaches are workable depending on an individual reason to determine their required duty in a particular situation requiring decision-making, the impacts of their actions as well as the acceptability of the case by the community.

Both reason-based ethical approaches and the homo economicus approaches abandon the impacts of routines, social norms, and habits on individual behaviours and decision-making. Often, individuals are unable to adequately assess a situation before deciding on the appropriate ethical solution to take. The three processes of globalization, specialization, and individualization often lead to ethical dilemmas which appear difficult to be solved primarily by a single individual (Galperin et al. 2011). As the three methods have exhibited in today’s organizations, unethical behaviours are more pronounced than in the earlier days. For one, specialization makes it hard for individuals to understand the impacts of their acts for other sections of the society, hence failure to develop effective reasoning. Secondly, individualization causes difficulty in identifying a characteristic value set as a standard that evaluates legitimacy for the other available alternatives (Gonin et al. 2012). Thirdly, globalization leads to the creation of a geographic separation between the actors and the impacts of their decisions and actions which blurs ethical reasoning. 

Homo economicus thinking concept is applied in many organizations as compared to reason-based ethical approaches. This is because the latter has a characterization of limitations created by the power of institutions. For this reason, development of a public mindset would do well in the event of an international model which could embed the aspects of life and thus providing guidelines for the conduct of people working in organizations. Apparently, development of such a structure would enable business actors to resist any urges for unethical behaviour

Questionable organizations’ ethics

The three processes of individualization, globalization, and specialization have had impacts on the way firms deal with moral issues. There is a need for corporations to pay attention to ethics within their structures. They also need to embrace the existing compliance programs and use of codes of ethics. Often times, the tools are not utilized effectively hence failing to fulfil their objectives (Baucus, Norton, Baucus, & Human, 2008). What’s more, the developments that are aimed at achieving proper use of ethics often fail as they get confronted by the application of homo economicus concept by many firms. Due to much focus of an organization as small economic structures without political and social dimensions, business actors take any efforts to enhance ethical behaviour for granted and in turn use the tools to optimize their profits through any means possible. Considering lack of application of a paradigmatic model, any efforts that aim at re-embedding organizations into wider normative concept are employed by business managers as tools to achieve their economic aims.  

Ways of incorporating business organizations’ ethics into the society

Failure of use of socio-political concepts might be a significant contributor to lousy conduct of business actors. Hence, the enlightenment of socio-political issues and its relationship to their work is key to the actors so as they are able to conduct themselves accordingly within the concepts. Development of an international framework would enhance the understanding of business operations of not being mere economic entities, but instead, they are considered as entities that address socio-political and environmental issues. Business leaders require useful tools that enable them to connect the bridges between the societal contexts while incorporating economic elements in their decision processes as they influence their employees to follow in the footsteps (Treviño et al. 2006). Consequently, the business operations should be multi-faceted in the sense that the actors work in all the perspectives: moral, economic, social, legal, environmental, and political. There should be effective integration of the ecological, social, and ethical issues in the business operations. 

Dealing with organizational misconduct and unethical behaviour

These conducts represent those that violate the laws, values, and standards of an organization. Individuals working in a firm often end up involved in a manner that does not meet up to the standards of ethics. Some of these behaviours violate the legitimate concerns of a firm in one way or another (Treviño et al. 2006). In many circumstances, the norms in a firm tend to coincide with societal norms as the companies are easily impacted by the society they work in therefore adapting their behaviors and values. This results due to the role of the community in accepting or rejecting particular behaviours. If the business operators conduct themselves in a way that does not offend the society, then the action is taken to be acceptable. On the other hand, if the business managers and employees do something that is offensive to the community, then the response is termed as an unethical action. 

Some researchers define unethical organizational behaviour as intentional conduct by its members, that violates core societal and organizational norms (Treviño et al. 2006 and Gonin et al. 2012). This makes corporate values and standards interconnected with the societal norms. Also, individual behaviour has a role in defining his/her conduct. Therefore, issues like personality, characterization, and cognitive development of a person might influence them to act ethically or unethically. All these factors can be affected by the societal norms and believe in where they are brought up. Hence a society has an integral role in the reflection in either ethical or unethical conduct of the individual. The study by (Treviño et al. 2006). indicate that ethical or unethical conduct are also impacted by the organizational context including fair treatment, moral social norms, and ethical leadership. 

Creation of practices, policies and cultures

A critical way to avoiding unethical behaviour in a firm is design and implementation of processes and procedures that will enable in defining, reporting, and identifying ethics violation. Also, there should be rules set to determine the kind of punishment that such individuals will face. The policies can be articulated in the workers’ handbook, and protection should be given to individuals who report cases of unethical behaviour. However, the critical part is not developing the policies but putting them into practice. 

A firm can avoid unethical behaviour by the provision of an overview of the kind of behavioural conduct that it expects to its managers and employees. Such a code of conduct clearly defines the acceptable behaviours versus the unacceptable ones. As it turns out, often people are misguided by the desire for individual gains, and they end up forgetting the standard and acceptable behaviour. Hence, provision of a code of conduct will enable the business operators to be able to embrace proper behaviour as they have a guide. Also, the company should also state the actions and measures to be taken for the individuals who will violate the code of conduct so that the employees can take it with the seriousness it deserves.

Building a culture of openness, transparency, and communication will enable a firm to work towards cubing unethical conduct. A culture is defined as the integrated patterns of people’s behaviour, knowledge, and belief, that rely on the capacity to learn and to transmit knowledge (Gino & Margolis, 2011). Business culture is reflected in the practices of the managers and the employees. This behaviour plays a role in determining whether individual conduct themselves ethically or unethically. Business leaders can develop a proper culture for their businesses.

How business owners can develop an ethical culture in their firms

The first step in creating an ethical culture in an organization is to define a clear purpose of the business. This should entail a valuable purpose that is long-lasting. To create an active learning, the business owner should consider why there is a need for the operation and what does the business entails. The answer to the questions should be authentic, aspirational, and inspirational. Secondly, the business owners should define universal values, language, and standards. To ensure specificity of a business, all the people should have a common language and have a typical picture of the benefits desired by the organization. The common language, values, and standards should be understood by everyone in the company; from the leaders to the subordinates. The set values should be the principles under which the firm operates, and the common standards are the guidelines that measures how the policies are upheld (Greenberg, 2014). The cohesive culture has significant impact on the achievement of the end goals. However, the culture created should be malleable enough to accommodate different employees with their diversities and also accommodate the changes that come with changing time. 

The third step in developing a workable culture in an organization is to lead by example. The subordinates always look upon the leaders’ behaviours so that they can imitate it. Hence, if the leaders adopt the developed values and standards, the workers will easily adapt to them. Hence, the leaders need to behave in the reflection of the firm’s values while advocating for them. In addition to this, the leaders should exemplify what the company stands for rather than just reciting the mission statement. Leading by example causes the employees to have trust in their leaders, and that is very important. When workers trust their leaders, they are always willing to do as they are instructed because they believe it is for the good of the firm. 

The business leaders should then identify their cultural ambassadors. The ambassadors are the people who support their vision and embrace their cultures. These people are the employees. A business leader needs to know the individuals who support them in whatever they do because they advocate for them as they love the firm and its operations (Murphy & Dacin 2011). Such type of employees is precious to the business owners. The ambassadors have a role in helping the business leaders to gauge their cultures and determine whether they should stay at the course or they need to make some adjustments to the current culture as they give their opinions. 

To develop an effective business culture, the leaders ought to have excellent communication and truthfulness. By embracing integrity, they must always do good whether they are being watched or not. Then, they should influence the employees to be truthful too in their actions. The leaders should be candid about their weaknesses, strengths, as well as biases. Being able to identify and accept the characters openly makes it easier to adjust to being a better person as the individual confronts the weaknesses and preferences. On the other hand, business leaders must apply good communication skills as they run the business operations. This entails the communication of the firm’s values continuously and explicitly. All the workers must understand the culture well and why it is crucial to keep it, and this will enable them to preserve it. 

Ultimately, treating people right will encourage them to embrace the organization’s culture. When people are treated in the right way, they will eventually be willing to comply with the perception being defined. Hence, the business leaders should do the right thing to treat their employees well with respect and dignity if they want their cultures to withstand. 

Consequently, business culture has a direct relationship with the avoidance of unethical behaviours in a firm. A wise leader will develop a culture that fosters ethical behaviours rather than unethical conduct. The workers and managers in an organization need to be taught on the ethical practices. This begins by stating the required manner of the firm, followed by ensuring that the standards and values set are developed to the latter. Also, the leaders should ensure that they continually follow up the operations in the firm so as to identify either ethical or unethical conducts after which they take the appropriate actions. Ultimately, setting up a good business culture will prevent cases of unethical behaviours in a firm. Thus, business leaders should ensure that their companies operate within the good cultures.

Managers being on the front line in the fight against unethical behaviours

Leaders in an organization have significant influence to the subordinates. This for sure is reflected by the action of the employees to follow the directions and instructions given by the managers to the latter. Hence, the management team of an organization should use this to their advantage in the fight against unethical behaviour. The leaders can achieve this by making ethical decisions and monitor the individuals working in the top management to ensure they have the same values (O’Fallon & Butterfield 2012). Also, the managers can contribute to preventing unethical behaviours by taking appropriate actions to the employees who are identified having misconduct. For instance, if individual works against the set organization’s principals, the managers should intervene immediately so as to retain credibility with the other workers. 

Hiring for values

Most times, the considerations made by business owners when hiring individual are education qualifications and experience. It’s time for that to change if all unethical behaviours are to be successfully avoided. Employers ought to look for far beyond the education level and experience by evaluating the values of the people they hire. Business owners should ensure that their employee’s values working diligently and readily comply with the policies set in the firm. 

The business owners should ensure that there are consequences for unethical conduct. This is beneficial in enabling the other workers to work ethically as they will want to evade such witnessed consequences. To ensure the awareness of the employees, they should be well informed on the rules they are working under as well as the effects of breaking such laws and policies. If any of them conduct themselves unethically, steps should be taken to warn or terminate them. On the other hand, loyal workers should be shown appreciation so that they can continue with their excellent work (Greenberg, 2014). Recognition of the loyal employee will enhance their work towards the good of the organization as they will work devotedly. If the work means following the set policies by conducting themselves ethically, then they will rarely get involved in unethical conduct. The appreciation can be done by doing things like giving the workers some time off or giving them bonuses. 

Business leaders should cultivate the right culture that supports ethical behaviour while avoiding unethical conduct. The aspect of creating the right culture makes sense in the situation where workers feel free to decline to engage in unethical practices and also as they report unethical cases (Tang & Liu 2012). All the employees should feel practising ethical behaviour as the right thing to do. 

Enlightening the employees on the importance of ethical behaviours

Some individuals might lack knowledge on the importance of conducting themselves ethically or the negativities of behaving unethically. Hence, enhancing the understanding of business managers and the employees on the same is of great importance. Business owners can achieve this by creating time for this education (Umphress, Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010). They can invite ethicists to emphasize to people why they need to behave ethically. This will impact the business actors positively, and consequently, they will be very willing to do away with unethical conduct as they know the essence. 

Elimination of factors that increase the susceptibility of business operators to unethical behaviour

Employers can decide to do away with the factors that facilitate unethical practices in their companies by replacing them with workable alternatives. For instance, the business owners can replace the use of cash with using cashier’s checks so that it can be difficult for an individual to embezzle the firm’s money. Also, rather than allocating similar activities to one employee, the managers can develop a system of checks and balances. This will eliminate the opportunity for a worker to steal the firm’s time. It is also advisable for business leaders to conduct regular tests on the operations happening in their firms so that they can be able to identify any unethical behaviour that is going on. 

Focusing on the three essential dimensions of the organization

There are three critical dimensions of a firm which when focused on can help business managers to eliminate the unethical behaviours. They include: assigning decision rights in the company, structuring the systems that evaluate the performance of individuals as well as business units, and adoption of methods to reward individuals (Treviño et al. 2006). Value-enhancing decisions can be made in a firm by connecting decision-making rights with the required information. However, while assigning the rights to make decisions, business leaders should make sure that the firm’s systems of performance evaluation and reward give the decision makers the required incentives to come up with the necessary value-increasing decisions. The three concepts are interdependent whereby one cannot operate successfully without the other (Kaptein, 2011). Allocation of the rights to make decisions depends on effective performance evaluation system. On the other hand, effective performance evaluation system depends on assignment of power for decision making. 

Assignment of decision rights

In most organizations, the rights to make decisions is allocated in a centralized manner. It is majorly assigned to the individuals in the top management of the firm among the executive officers. However, firms can adopt another way of allocation of decision-making rights so that they are able to curb the unethical behaviour effectively. A decentralized system of distribution of these rights entails assignment of the responsibility widely in the organization so as many people are entitled to these rights. This way, even the employees in the lower ranks get the right to make decisions. The decentralization causes comfortable in controlling ethics in the organization (Umphress et al. 2010). As today’s organizations have been working under complex and dynamic extrinsic environment, there is need to adopt this system so that the employees can be equipped to have natural response to the customers and the increasingly changing competitive threats. 

The changes in the nature of decision making and the allocation of responsibilities has an effect on the ethical sensitivity and behaviour of the people working in an organization. The employers will most definitely behave more ethically as there is the development of incentives and pressures by performance evaluation and compensation practices (Treviño et al. 2006). The way the workers respond to such incentives is dependent on whether they have the rights to make decisions. In other words, this will help in eliminating any unethical behaviour existing in the individuals. The decentralized system will minimize the chances for business operators to work towards self-gains. Somewhat, it increases the likelihood that individuals with intentions to act unethically will be identified easily before they advance in practice. This is a result of ethical ramifications of the firm’s decisions and provision of opportunities for the workers at all levels to take part actively.

Organizational structure is seen capable of diffusing the responsibility for the impacts of the actions by enhancing the extrinsic definition of responsibility reflecting on a formal description of role, authority jurisdictions and hierarchy. Individuals with no rights to make decisions might avoid guilt by believing that they committed the unethical act for lack of choice, and therefore failing to take responsibility for their actions. Individuals who are denied decision-making rights may feel compelled to act as they do by their managers. They may give a reason of not having the freedom to choose ethical alternatives, thus ending up with unethical conducts (Ford & Richardson, 2013). However, allocating these rights to such individuals will make them take full responsibility for any unethical behaviour they conduct. This will reduce the unethical cases in the long run.

Structure of performance evaluation

Allocation of the decision-making rights to the employees broadens their scope of tasks. This develops the need for performance measures that enable for more discretion while creating the need to constrain the workers’ actions so as to prevent habits of personal benefits (Pendse, 2012). An aggregate performance measure can be employed to complement the choice of delegation by enabling discretion to the workers with information that is crucial for decision making. On the other hand, the aggregate performance measure provides the people without the decision making news with a tool that prevents pursuit of personal gains. 

The processes for performance monitory are fundamental determining factors that influence ethical sensitivity and behaviours of the workers. This is because they are perfect means of informing the employees on whatever is expected of them. Hence, the evaluation turns out to be an effective way of avoiding unethical conduct of the workers (Kaptein, 2011). Ethics concerns can be incorporated in a firm’s system for performance measurement evaluation. For this reason, the performance evaluation systems should be adequate enough to detect any unethical conduct in an organization. More prominent establishments should have even more sensitive ethically sensitive performance and evaluation procedures because the firm has complex activities. 

The business managers can effectively promote ethical conduct in their firms by making sure that there are active processes for monitory and evaluation of employees which do not raise tension relating to ethics in the company. Such tensions come to be when the business leaders, as well as the policies and standards set, create pressures on the employees to comply with any decisions made by the management team even though they are ethically questionable (Hill, Eckerd, Wilson, & Greer 2009). The performance evaluation processes of the workers must ensure that there is a reinforcement of efforts to avoid unethical behaviour. This happens when the managers state clear guidelines that point out the ways in which employees will attain the company’s goals, while their ethical or unethical behaviours are monitored by the leaders. 

Ultimately, ethics control programs can be created as a way of control programs based on propagating rules and employing behavioural monitory and discipline. Further, the management team can influence behaviour by rewarding the workers for regulation compliance and punishing them for noncompliance (Kaptein, 2008). For a firm to effectively implement values and ethics-oriented program, the processes of performance evaluation should entail concerns for fairness and ethics. With the incorporation of the performance evaluation system, most individuals in a firm likely conform to the needs and desires of the stakeholders in the organization. As human behaviour is based on norms and expectations constituted by the individual as well as by other people, setting proper patterns in an organization will booster ethical conduct of the employees. 

Reward systems

Employees are most likely to do something that rewards them while avoiding things that punishes them. It is essential for managers to include ethical considerations in the reward systems if they have the promotion of ethical conduct in minds. Provision of rewards for ethical behaviour is likely to promote the conduct. Rewards for ethical behavior might be given in the form of long-term awards including promotions (Gino & Pierce, 2009). Also, the awards might be presented in a symbolic way such as recognition so as the status of ethical conduct is not diminished in the minds of the individual employees being rewards. The main point in the whole reward concept is so that the other workers can feel motivated to behave ethically as they are shown that people of integrity get ahead in the firm. 

Rewards can sometimes increase unethical behaviour. Conflicts between the ethical values and the firm’s reward system can yield moral ambivalence, causing the tendency to undermine the business managers’ noble intentions (Treviño et al. 2006). An effective, ethical culture should comprise a reward system supporting ethical conduct while punishing unethical conduct. It turns out to be difficult to measure the extent of ethical behaviour of workers and reward them. This s because typically, ethical behaviour is represented by the absence of illegal conduct. However, firms can connect performance appraisals to the observance of the organization’s code of ethics. Some management teams may reward the employees acting ethically by identifying those who point out unethical conduct in the firm while others pay the workers who have significantly contributed to the community. Ultimately, the business leaders should reward individuals who act ethically in the form of compensation while applying for power and status proportionally in reflection of the goals attained. 

Conclusion

Organizations have had efforts to avoid unethical issues in their operations by promoting ethical conduct. Development of programs to perform such roles is useful as it helps the workers to know about legal requirements of the firm, provision of guidelines for the needed practice in the firm, and address of particular concerns. However, even after these efforts, there are still traces of unethical conduct of individuals. This kind of behaviour is majorly attributed to the need for selfish gains by the individual committing it. Hence, the individual ends up violating the norms, set standards, and policies within which they are supposed to operate. A firm can effectively work against unethical behaviour while promoting ethical behaviour. This can be achieved through active participation of the business managers as well as employees in adopting healthy norms that have been acquired through the creation of healthy business culture. Also, the firm’s management team can work towards development and adoption of policies that promote ethical behaviours. 

Business managers should be sure to employ the three critical dimensions in avoiding unethical conduct in the firm. Firstly, they should ensure that workers at all levels are presented with the chance to participate in decision-making process of the firm. This will boost their ethical conduct as they will feel responsible for every decision they make. Secondly, the firm should initiate procedures for performance evaluation. This will cause the employees to avoid unethical behaviour as they do not wish to be caught on the wrong side of conduct. Additionally, a firm should ensure that they create reward systems whereby the managers identify the employees who have ethical behaviours and reward them. This act motivates the other workers to embrace ethics. Also, there should be punishment for the workers who violate the set standards and policies. Further, the leaders in an organization should hire individuals who have ethical values rather than only focusing on educational qualification and experience. 

References

Baucus, M. S., Norton, W. I., Baucus, D. A., & Human, S. E. (2008). Fostering creativity and innovation without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 97-115.

Baucus, M. S., Norton, W. I., Baucus, D. A., & Human, S. E. (2008). Fostering creativity and innovation without encouraging unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 97-115.

De Cremer, D., Mayer, D. M., & Schminke, M. (2010). Guest Editors’ Introduction: On Understanding Ethical Behavior and Decision Making: A Behavioral Ethics Approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 1-6.

Duffy, M. (2009). Preventing workplace mobbing and bullying with effective organizational consultation, policies, and legislation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(3), 242.

Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer, Dordrecht.

Galperin, B. L., Bennett, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2011). Status differentiation and the protean self: A social-cognitive model of unethical behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(3), 407-424.

Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145-156.

Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142-155.

Gonin, M., Palazzo, G., & Hoffrage, U. (2012). Neither bad apple nor bad barrel: How the societal context impacts unethical behavior in organizations. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(1), 31-46.

Graham, K. A., Ziegert, J. C., & Capitano, J. (2015). The effect of leadership style, framing, and promotion regulatory focus on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of business ethics, 126(3), 423-436.

Greenberg, J. (2014). Behavior in Organizations: Global Edition. Pearson Higher Ed.

Hill, J. A., Eckerd, S., Wilson, D., & Greer, B. (2009). The effect of unethical behavior on trust in a buyer–supplier relationship: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Journal of Operations Management, 27(4), 281-293.

Kaptein, M. (2008). Developing a measure of unethical behavior in the workplace: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management, 34(5), 978-1008.

Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human relations, 64(6), 843-869.

Kulik, B. W., O’Fallon, M. J., & Salimath, M. S. (2008). Do competitive environments lead to the rise and spread of unethical behavior? Parallels from Enron. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 703-723.

Murphy, P. R., & Dacin, M. T. (2011). Psychological pathways to fraud: Understanding and preventing fraud in organizations. Journal of business ethics, 101(4), 601-618.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2012). The influence of unethical peer behavior on observers’ unethical behavior: A social cognitive perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 117-131.

Pendse, S. G. (2012). Ethical hazards: A motive, means, and opportunity approach to curbing corporate unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 265-279.

Pierce, J. R., Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Sivanathan, N. (2013). From glue to gasoline: How competition turns perspective takers unethical. Psychological science, 24(10), 1986-1994.

Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086-4091.

Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an authentic supervisor’s personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 295-312.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of management, 32(6), 951-990.

Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: the moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 95(4), 769.

Debates around Dignity In and At Work

Debates around Dignity In and At Work

Introduction

            Human dignity is defined as the inalienable and inherent human value that cannot be measured, taken away, or even destroyed. It is important to note that dignity can be dependent or conditional on any aspect or anything. It is as a result of being human, it can be used to refer to a group of people or individuals or groups as a species (Alzheimer,2018). Humans are emotional beings since time immemorial with dignity playing a big role in this aspect with even a greater role when it comes to the various aspects of work. Dignity can be viewed as the ability to create a sense of self-worth in a person as well as respect and also appreciating the respect other people accord one simultaneously. When a person has dignity within himself or herself, he or she feels that he is worth something; this, in turn, boosts an individual in very many aspects that are both emotionally or psychologically, and physically. Dignity is a terminology that has been used to raise concerns about different features of work.

The debate on dignity at work has been surrounded by a focus that is directed onto bullying with harassment in organizations. The dignity at work campaign is one that is of a high profile and draws attention to the daily behaviors of bullying which take place at places of work that serve to oppress and intimidate the workers. The bullying usually comes from the higher-ranking officials in the hierarchy of an organization, or by cultural consensus, or personal mal-intent, from fellow peers (Bolton, 2007).

The center of attention in the majority of the debates that surround dignity in and at work is entirely on the elements of dignity at the places of work, these elements are self-esteem, meaningful work, and also autonomy. This is an aspect of the debate on the dignity of work that has recently been focused on harassment and bullying at places of work. The campaign on dignity at work focuses on the bullying tendencies which are aimed at intimidating and undermining employees. The United Kingdom came up with the dignity of work act of 2001 which outlines that each worker has the right to dignity at his or her workplace. This campaign on dignity centers its attention on the denial of dignity that is brought about by working relationships that are poor with managers that are overzealous, competitive colleagues (Wolf, 2017). This makes the campaign miss out on the fact dignity at work does not just dwell on matters related to bullying only.

Dignity is not just a personal experience with regards to individual norms, behaviors, expectations, values as well as efforts, dignity can be also be explained in terms of the expectations and also the expectations of a specific social system, economic system, and also political system. Therefore, dignity at work contains two dimensions that are the subjective dimension and the objective dimension. Dignity is an inherent human feature that depends on how a person has connected as well as his or her social ties (KingsCollge, 2015). Therefore, intimidation plus harassment can be considered as an attack on the dignity of a person, in the same at dignity can be experienced in a job that gives support and care to other people. however, there are numerous material conditions that deter people from getting their dignity in their labor; that is the status of the organization, the type of work they do, the social hierarchies, the opportunities that are available, the extrinsic value which is put on the labor; all these add up to the concept of dignity at the place of work (KingsCollge, 2015).

Dignity at the workplace

            There is a wide category on matters concerning the denial of dignity in the contemporary workplace, this is evident since people are continuously presented with accounts of jobs that are demoralizing, jobs that are destructive, and those that are very demanding. There is little information when it comes to contemporary accounts for poor quality work yet people have been aware of the adverse effects and the repercussions of paid work in the free market. Management formulas have been modeled in attempting to come up with emotions that are positive, cultures that are compassionate as well as spiritual workplaces, thereby reinvigorating employees that are de-motivated and making a big leap towards appreciating and recognizing the fact that people are the most important asset of any organization (Kevin Bales, 2007). several models have been formulated in this line that captures the most efficient perspectives of management structures into a whole system that serves as a role model for best practice management or BPM companies can follow so that they transform into workplaces that give the best results.

Promoting dignity at the places of work appreciates the rights of the employees; it ensures that the employees are treated with respect, fairness, and with dignity. It makes sure that they are offered the best conditions that are safe for work, this makes the environment free from vices such as sexual harassment and bullying which defy dignity. Dignity helps in the reduction of stress among the workers, this, in turn, reduces any health-related issues and also absenteeism in an organization. Bullying in the workplace and harassment lead to increased turnover among employees, a workplace that is unhealthy as well as increased conflicts among the workforce. It can also damage the brand of the employer and result in litigation procedures that will cost the employer a lot of money and give the employer negative publicity.

It is essential for each employer to be aware that they have an obligation of ensuring that they have a work environment that is safe for the employees free from bullying and any form of harassment. The time that is spent on promoting dignity in an organization is normally better than the time that time is spent in handling the complaints that are reported by the employees on bullying and harassment. In today’s society defending dignity has become a serious hurdle to jump over with the prevailing economic conditions viewing work through the cost of production. This in line with the global economy has to be as lower as possible in order to be competitive in the tough economic times (Juan, 2015).

Here, the employees are viewed as consumers due to their lower wages that require them to be given credit so that they can boost their consumption and in the end, they end up with big debts. This is the reason why the international labor organization makes it clear that labor should not be viewed as a commodity by organizations (Juan, 2015). Therefore, employers should ensure that workers’ rights are respected, there is no discrimination, there is gender parity, social protection, and better salaries and wages which all amount to human dignity.

Importance of dignity at Work

Dignity is an idea that is normally related to the primary aspect of what being a human is. Nonetheless, unlike other ideologies that focus on the subjective aspects only on the experience of the workplace, it also captures material aspects of work. Dignity also queries the inherent tensions which are connected to the selling of labor for a wage plus the potential of exploitation of such a relationship. This argument aims at showing that linking the quality work of work with the flourishing of people along with dignity gives a path that is fruitful for assessing employees, their work, and the workplaces that are in support of a desirable image of a society that is fair, mutual and also constitutive. It also states that with an engagement that is real from the policymakers plus business, it can handle the needs of the global environment that is highly competitive (Kevin Bales, 2007).

The concept of dignity can be applied in organizations applied when referring to valuable features with regards to virtue in which people are said to have a dignity status. This is irrespective of their class, nationality, skin color, or race as well as other conventionally irrelevant features. Other features that are prominent to this notion are the valuable capacities of human beings for instance their reason, the ability of people to act in the spirit of solidarity, and the human conscience. The circumstances of dignity are concerned with the domain situations whereby the attainment of the norms of dignity is essential.

The necessary ingredients of dignity are the specific features of people that are hopeful and problematic ones in some contexts. In addition, they are inclusive of some difficulties as well as vulnerabilities that arise from the scarcity of materials, mental plus physical frailties as well as some features that are trouble. These troublesome features include the following features; greediness, laziness, and selfishness. On the other hand, there are those noble features like valuable human characteristics that form the foundation of dignity along with the prospects of deploying them in solving conflicts in the society and also deficiencies that are connected to dignitary respect and dignitary concern (Kevin Bales, 2007). The dignitary norms state how individuals should handle situations of dignity in different scenarios. The latter is, therefore, important for outlining the former because the two are feasible and desirable normatively.

Solidarity empowerment requests for persons to be ready to offer support to the growth and development of people. Solidarity Empowerment, the most proper response to the dignity of humans revolves around not only on avoiding the negative roles or avoiding harm as well. However, the positive duties that are of concern, which should be protected and facilitated (Elgar, 2011). The important capacities that form the basis of dignity cement the former as well as the latter. Dignity at work enables individuals to strengthen their defense when it comes to fighting for particular rights. Therefore, we observe how essential self-determination is for the dignity of people at work. It also enables us to see how important it is how one can choose a job freely rather than get forced into it. In the same way, we get to understand the essence of the worker’s unions and employee rights groups as well as other associations that fight for the interests of the workers.

Workers need to have the ability to take part in the active shaping of social progress that leads to better working conditions for them if they are going to be dynamic agents and not just employees that benefit from their employers. Human dignity being a status should be held equally by everyone, this will greatly help in criticizing discrimination. When the idea of dignity is appealed for, the depth, as well as our capacity of thinking, is increased on matters to do with workers’ rights at the places of work. Dignity enables us to understand labor rights, it also articulates the roles that are linked to the labor rights and also how they are related to other rights that are important (NHSFoundationTrust, 2012). It is also important to note that human dignity is a political idea and a resonant moral idea. It is seen as one of the principal ideas that are behind the laws of labor. The other ideas state that the inequality that exists when negotiating for a balance between the employers and the employees should be compensated for by empowerment of solidarity. It is interesting to note that the approach of dignity is able to capture the content and also to elaborate the force that is behind the extra ideas.

Conclusion

Dignity at work encompasses how people are treated at their places with respect to the idea of solidarity empowerment with regards to the employees’ life. This concept requires the generation of social schemes that are feasible and reasonable that support each other as individuals are in pursuit of development, and as they exercise their valuable abilities to provide personalized and communally in ways that are beneficial. The circle of dignity ranges from the basic human rights to proper and decent working conditions to the best rights that will succeed in the best working practices which are free from exploiting the workers, alienation, and domination as well. Therefore, dignity exists for everyone, however, the issue is that is the human dignity is tarnished by society by discrimination of employees, abuse and harassment of employees, and many more vices. Nonetheless, in spite of all the negativity that surrounds human dignity, as humans, we should not forget the positive side of dignity. When employees and their employers are able to work together, we should not overlook the fact that there is fair treatment. This makes the employees dignity at work, thereby making contributions to the success of the organization, hence its productivity which transgresses to making the world a better place.

References

Alzheimer Europe – Ethics – Definitions and approaches – Other ethical principles – Dignity. (2018). Alzheimer-europe.org. Retrieved 16 February 2018, from http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Ethics/Definitions-and-approaches/Other-ethical-principles/Dignity

Bolton, C. (2007). Dignity in and at work: why it matters. In: Dimensions. London: Dignity in and at work: why it matters. In: Dimensions.

Elgar, E. (2011). The Edward Elgar research handbook on. New York: Cheltenham .

Juan,S. (2015) Valuing the dignity of work | Human Development Reports. (2018). Hdr.undp.org. Retrieved 16 February 2018, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/valuing-dignity-work

Kevin Bales. (2007). Global Slavery. Westview: Westview Press.

KingsCollge. (2015). DIGNITY AT WORK: Statement of Commitment . London: KingsCollege.

NHSFoundationTrust. (2012). Dignity at work policy. NHC.

Wolf, A. (2017, October). State of the Debate: The Moral Meanings of Work. Retrieved from The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/state-debate-moral-meanings-work

Alzheimer Europe – Ethics – Definitions and approaches – Other ethical principles – Dignity. (2018). Alzheimer-europe.org. Retrieved 16 February 2018, from http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Ethics/Definitions-and-approaches/Other-ethical-principles/Dignity

 

Effects of a Normal Car Engine

Abstract

Car pollution which is caused by the gases that they emit to the environment is believed to have both long and short-term effects on human health and the environment at large. This study aims to show how the engine is affecting the environment through the emission of dangerous gases and other related chemical compounds and how they contribute to global warming. One of the solutions that will be mainly discussed is the use of hybrid cars because they emit a very minimum amount of gases to the surroundings. In the literature review, more examples will be discussed to show how these problem has been solved in other places that experiences a problem with car pollution especially the developed countries like U.S.A and China, just to mention a few. At the end of the discussion, the reader’s analysis of the effects and solutions will be provided to give the reader a clear understanding of the topic.

Introduction

 Early before industrialization, the earth still experienced high temperatures that were not destructive to the environment. The increase in temperature was brought by natural causes, but in the current world, it is due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which occurs due to human activities. These gases destroy the ozone layer that protects the earth against the U.V rays thus making the sun heat the surface directly. Where it not for the greenhouse gases, the land would be very cold and covered by ice, but excess fossil fuel such as gasoline and diesel has caused an abnormal increase in temperature. Car pollution is becoming a big problem that is affecting air, soil, water quality and also harming human health. The diesel engine is known to emit particulate matters which are airborne particles of soot and metal that are very dangerous in cause skin irritation, eyes and the long run can cause lungs problems.

Literature review

A diesel engine exhaust contains small carbonaceous particles and a large percentage of chemicals that are adsorbed onto those particles while others are just present as vapor. The engine is a public concern because these particles cause pollution that affects the environment and also human health at large. The most affected countries are the developed countries like Japan due to the high number of cars that are manufactured in that nation (Urbaniak et al., 2014). Studies have shown that the citizens of those countries are in great danger of suffering from global warming and related health effects which include: skin irritation, eye irritation, lung problem, and other chronic infection which are caused due to the inhalation of toxic gases which are released by the vehicles. According to UNHCR, if immediate actions are not taken by the government, the nation will suffer significant losses because the rate of global warming is increasing at a high rate affecting even the neighboring countries (Yilmaz & Krein, 2013). This means that more people will die due to infections while the economy will decline because the agricultural sector, industrial and other sectors are going to be affected in one way by the effects of engine emission.

Megacities such as Bangkok, Cairo, Delhi, and Mexico exceed those in other cities in the industrialized nations in the whole world.  Epidemiological studies which are done in these towns show that air pollution which is caused by the transport industry accounts for about 10% of the deaths in those countries. Studies show that these countries are losing a lot of billions in medical costs and also in the production industry because the sick people cannot be able to work any longer (Urbaniak et al., 2014). The conventional air pollutants which were reported from those cities include: Lead aerosol from the combustion of leaded gasoline and carbon monoxide from the gasoline vehicles. Photochemical smog is produced by the volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide in the presence of sunlight where the motor vehicle emissions were identified as the significant sources of nitrogen oxide and the volatile organic compounds. There were also other particles but the mentioned ones were the major ones in those cities. Gasoline vehicles have been reported to be the leading sources of lead aerosols and carbon monoxide while on the other hand, diesel vehicles are the primary sources of respirable particulate matter (Tolley, & Turton, 2014).

A recent study which was done by the students from the University of Toronto shows that 25% of the vehicles that they measured were producing more than 90% of the total traffic-related air pollution. According to those students, carbon IV oxide was the primary pollutant that is very much known to have a high impact on the current threat of climate change (Tolley, & Turton, 2014). Though, the car also emits other pollutants which are associated with lung cancer, respiratory infections, and heart disease. The researchers had focused on measuring this type of pollutants where they found out that only a quarter of all the cars in that area were producing fewer pollutants. The owners of the vehicles are very much aware of the pollution associated with the use of their cars, but they complained that they could not afford to purchase the cars which are environmentally friendly because they are expensive (Montazeri-Gh, & Mahmoud, 2015). The government of Toronto is also to be blamed for not taking immediate actions to remove the roadworthy vehicles from the road because they are the dominant emitters of greenhouse gases.

Wang was among the researcher, and he said that besides the use of the old vehicles, driving behavior could also have massive impacts on the pollution where the drivers or the owners of the cars are supposed to make sure that their vehicles are regularly maintained. Modifying the driving behaviors, keeping the vehicles with regular oil changes, and choosing to use newer cars that have good gas mileage all affect air quality. When you use a fuel-efficient car, it is friendly to the environment because it means that you will be cycling less gas through the engine which will also be emitting fewer gases (Montazeri-Gh, & Mahmoud, 2015). The best solution which the Toronto University students gave was the use of electric vehicles which will ultimately reduce emissions by a significant percentage. The main problem with this new technology is that the cars are costly and limited due to their high prices where only a few people can purchase them. Another limitation is that they cannot operate in remote areas where there is no electricity (Lin & Xie, 2014).

The world is aware of the current problem of global warming, and According to NASA, the temperatures have been increasing since 2000, and if something is not done urgently, the future generation will suffer much. Apart from engine emissions, there are also other causes of global warming where a small percentage is from the natural causes and the most significant percentage from human activities which are the primary causes of global warming (Lin & Xie, 2014). Deforestation has increased which means that the carbon IV oxide which is released to the environment cannot be used up by the trees through the process of photosynthesis and thus it is contained in the atmosphere. Agriculture has also contributed significantly to global warming because the livestock is known to produce methane gas which is a greenhouse gas and some of the fertilizers which are used in the farms contain nitrous oxide (Cook et al., 2013). Another primary cause is brought by the industries that release sulfur, hydrofluorocarbon, chlorofluorocarbon, and other greenhouse gases including the burning of fossil fuel which releases the most significant percentage of Co2 to the atmosphere.

Different solutions to the environmental effects of the standard car engine have been identified which includes: the use of hybrid cars, use of bicycles instead of cars, minimizing the use of public means for transport, use of electric cars, and turning off the engine when you are not using the car. Also, Proper maintenance of the car and using the public means of transport rather than the private to reduce the amount of the pollutants being emitted into the environment (Zhao et al., 2014). There are so many solutions that have been identified, but the problem is that people are still ignorant and that is the reason why we are having problems with global warming.

Discussion and analysis

From the literature review above, I have discussed the effects of the typical car engine and some of the solutions which can be employed to reduce these impacts (Zhao et al., 2014). We found that the use of a hybrid car is among the best solutions which I will analyze in this section. A hybrid car is a car that uses two or more engines such as an electric motor and a conventional engine where the electricity engine power the car at a lower speed while the other engine power it at high speed.  An example of a hybrid car is Toyota Prius, and civic where not only conserves the fuel but also produces minimum Co2. These cars were discovered in the 1900s, but they have recently started to become more popular, but just a few people can use them due to lack of knowledge. These types of vehicles are best defined as cars that have an engine that can switch between fossil fuel and alternative fuel sources. The main problem is that these cars can only be found in developed countries which means that the developing countries are left much behind when technology is concerned. There is clear evidence that the less developed nations do not pollute the environment as far as the advanced ones do, but there is a need for them to limit their pollution also.

These cars have several advantages, and the first one that I will talk about is that they are environmentally friendly. This has been reported to be the main advantage of hybrid cars as compared to gasoline cars because it runs cleaner and has a better gas mileage which makes them better than the others. This is because the emission of Co2 is reduced and also other particulate matters which are harmful to the environment and the health of the people. The fact that it uses the twin-powered engine is also a way of ensuring that speed is controlled and even it cuts the consumption of the fuel and saves energy at large. There are also financial and economic benefits that are derived from the use of this type of car. Even though they are expensive to purchase, the maintenance cost is meager because less amount of money is spent on fuel and car services. The whole country also benefits at large because the cases of pollution and health problems are reduced, and the government saves more money which could have been used for medicine. The production will also be high because the citizen is healthy and ready to work thus making high output (Yilmaz & Krein, 2013).

There is less dependency on fossil fuel where a hybrid car is cleaner and requires less fuel to run which means that there will be fewer emissions and minimum dependence on fossil fuels which are the primary pollutant in the transport industry. On the other hand, the industries will be forced to reduce the price of gasoline due to a low demand created by the new technology. These cars are also made from very light materials which means that less energy is required to run the cars because the engine is too small and lighter (Wong, 2016).

Despite having the above advantages, there are also a few disadvantages that are associated with the use of hybrid cars. There are very expensive to buy because they cost around$5000 and$ 10000 higher than the standard engine cars. To use these cards, you have to know how to drive them which requires some training also. They cannot just be used by regular drivers because they have been designed in an entirely different way compared to regular vehicles. They also require proper handling when using them because, in case of any damage, they cannot be repaired by the mechanics that fix the other cars. The last limitation that I will talk about is the presence of high voltage in batteries where in case of an accident, the high occurrence of the batteries which are found inside the car can be hazardous and cause more harm (Waag, Fleischer,  & Sauer, 2014).

Conclusion

Even though the earth has dramatically been destroyed by human activities, it is not too late to change. Countries like China and America are among the top pollutants due to the number of industries found in those countries and the high economic growth rate. Environmental organizations such as UNFCCC need to come up with new policies which could help in fighting against global warming before it is too late. If the solutions that I have provided could be strictly observed, this threat of global warming can reduce in a significant way though it will take time because a lot of ozone destruction has already occurred. The price of hybrid cars should be lowered to encourage more people to purchase them. The industries need to look for new ways of producing energy apart from the burning of fossil fuels which is the most significant contributor to global warming. The use of renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind energy can be introduced. The transport industry needs to present green transportation which will reduce the emission of carbon (Rezai et al., 2016).

References

Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., … & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental research letters, 8(2), 024024.

Reduction potential of CO 2 emissions in China׳ s transport industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 689-700.

Montazeri-Gh, M., & Mahmoodi-k, M. (2015). Development a new power management strategy for power split hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 37, 79-96.

Rezai, A., Foley, D. K., & Taylor, L. (2016). Global warming and economic externalities. In The Economics of the Global Environment (pp. 447-470). Springer International Publishing.

Tolley, R., & Turton, B. J. (2014). Transport systems, policy and planning: a geographical approach. Routledge.

Urbaniak, M., Kiedrzyńska, E., Kiedrzyński, M., Mendra, M., & Grochowalski, A. (2014). The impact of point sources of pollution on the transport of micropollutants along the river continuum. Hydrology Research, 45(3), 391-410.

Waag, W., Fleischer, C., & Sauer, D. U. (2014). Critical review of the methods for monitoring of lithium-ion batteries in electric and hybrid vehicles. Journal of Power Sources, 258, 321-339.

Wong, Y. S. (2016). Hybridization of energy sources for electric and hybrid vehicles. Energy Systems for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, 2, 97.

Yilmaz, M., & Krein, P. T. (2013). Review of battery charger topologies, charging power levels, and infrastructure for plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 28(5), 2151-2169.

Zhao, H. Y., Zhang, Q., Davis, S. J., Guan, D., Liu, Z., Huo, H., … & He, K. B. (2014). Assessment of China’s virtual air pollution transport embodied in trade by a consumption-based emission inventory. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics Discussions, 14(18).

Mercier and Sperbergs argumentative theory of human reasoning

What is reasoning?

Mercier, defined reason as the thinking process or the subjective procedure in which reasons are utilized to measure choices and legitimize convictions. In that capacity, thinking isn’t the overwhelming method of perception. Our ordinary mental action in everyday life is associated with natural or good judgment intuition such as when it gets dark, we put on the lights, when the weather is cold, we put the room heater on among others. This kind of quick deduction is differentiated to thinking, in which the connection between one idea and another is intermediated by no less than one deliberately held suggestion. This recommendation encourages the mental change from one conviction, or a bit of information, to a conclusion. As a rule, we can’t legitimize or prove the value of a final decision to ourselves, or the acknowledgment of a conclusion without the assistance of these mediators. Therefore, part of the importance and relevance of reason of reason is to discover viable recommendations, i.e., reasons, which will enable us to legitimize our convictions and choices (Hugo Mercier, 2010).

Thinking is for the most part observed as a way to enhance learning and settle on better choices. This is the obvious outcome expected after a process of sifting through alternatives in the reasoning process and finally settling on one. However, studies have shown that reasoning regularly prompts epistemic deviations and poor choices. As of such, it becomes paramount to rethink and re-invent the process of reasoning. The Mercier and Sperbergs theory is that the capacity of thinking is contentious. Reasoning is considered is versatile given the uncommon reliance of people on to communicate when they are wrong. Poor execution in standard reasoning process is explained as the absence of contentious setting where one is able to consider several arguments. Surprisingly, when individuals seek for solutions to their challenges in the argumentative setting individuals end up being gifted arguers. Skilled arguers are however not after the most appropriate decision or truth but simply want to win the arguments after contentions supporting their perspectives. This clarifies the infamous affirmation bias. This inclination is clear not just when individuals are really contending yet additionally when they are thinking proactively from the point of view of defending their sentiments. Reasoning so inspired can twist assessments and states of mind and enable incorrect convictions to continue. Proactively utilized reasoning additionally supports choices that are anything but difficult to legitimize even when they are not really true or beneficial. This means that people will go a long way to fight for their opinions even when they are not true. The feeling of being the best arguer in a group bring satisfaction as one feels they have just won a battle. This is more or less just a debate.

Confirmation bias

The inclination towards one’s opinions and viewing opposing arguments as wrong is the propensity to search for contentions that help our thoughts and theory. The established perspective of thinking proposes that our workforce of reason ought to test and review instinctive convictions, but not search for reasons to help in the conviction of such. Also, even savvy, receptive individuals who are exceptionally capable of finding the correct solution have this inclination which generally is bias. To our surprise, Mercier does a is fascinating thing when rather than opposing taking the standard view that affirmation predisposition is a hindrance in our psychological mechanical assembly, he suggests just the exact inverse. Bias in one’s arguments is portrayed as a means to an end. It is a manifestation of reason playing out its essential developed capacity, that is, searching for motivations to legitimize convictions and choices. Also, from this point of view reason works extremely well. That is, if the arguing process is seen as a component for get-together motivations to assemble contentions so as to legitimize convictions and choices, we would foresee that confirmation bias is a normal practice in reasoning (Minto, 2013).

 

However, bias inclination poses a great challenge in the classical hypothesis of reasoning where reasoning is used to reinforce instead of test instinct, regardless of whether it is correct or wrong, while displaying undesirable traits for example, conviction steadiness, polarization, and overconfidence. On the off chance that confined ratiocination is a setting in which we don’t satisfactorily move ourselves, maybe it isn’t the staff of motivation to fault, yet the setting in which thinking happens. The “classical hypothesis of argumentative reasoning” predicts that in social settings of thinking, specifically when there is contradiction amongst conversationalists and a basic dialog results, we can reason well.

Is it always necessary to argue?

Mercier clearly starts with a statement that effective communication between two or more individuals is a success when the message being conveyed is must proof to be of value to the group involved. On the off chance that it was not, at that point we would not watch correspondence, then communication would not be deemed of importance in the efficient co-existence of human life. Another interesting point to consider is that the sender of a message can profit by lying, swindling, and deluding the other individual (Albrechtsen J. S., 2009). As of such, the beneficiary must have a way to vet approaching data, and receive the mentality of epistemic watchfulness. Thirdly, is the perception that while instruments of epistemic watchfulness, for example, careful judgment of the situation and hence adjusting trust to according to the evaluation are compelling, they tend to dismiss excessive data and therefore, toss out some great data alongside the data labelled wrong. In this manner, there would should be an answer for the issue of unreasonable incredulity with respect to the receiver, given that senders can lie, and so forth., and that correspondence is in any case stable.

 

The arrangement is that senders can give reasons supporting the message with the end goal that the receiving individual can assess those reasons and afterward choose whether to acknowledge or dismiss the message in light of them. The factious hypothesis of argumentative reasoning hypothesizes that arguments enable individuals to impart by trading reasons, by means exchange. Presently, if a sender has an enthusiasm for convincing an epistemically cautious beneficiary to acknowledge a given snippet of data, we would foresee that senders would attempt to discover motivations to help their angle, and hence reasons that affirm their side of an issue. So, affirmation predisposition is extremely “my-side” inclination, and we would expect affirmation inclination of this sort if thinking is use to discover contentions for our own particular positions on issues. However, it would be a mix-up to consider affirmation inclination as a psychological constraint. To transform individuals into falsifiers, we simply need to have a different view of the issue. It is additionally a slip-up to consider inclination to one’s views as a symptom of individuals getting sincerely charged in a level-headed discussion over some quarrelsome subject. For reasons unknown affirmation predisposition is not any more common in discourses of legislative issues than it is in exchanges about something unremarkable like the right answer for the Wason selection experiment.

How to achieve effective reasoning

The hypothesis of argumentative reasoning predicts that in settings of single ratiocination, individuals tend not to challenge their own explanations behind convictions and choices. Utilizing our reflective eye is dismissed in light of the fact that individuals don’t generally mind if those reasons are great or terrible; the generation of reasons is planned only to persuade others, or give self-strengthening justifications to us. Then again, once questionable reasons are served up in a social setting, others may challenge. The contentious hypothesis predicts that affirmation inclination can be vanquished by helpful or community oriented request, and that thinking should work better when individuals are set in social circumstances where they are tested to assess contentions.

For instance, in one Wason selection experiment, it was discovered that 18% of the members found the correct solutions when chipping away at the issue in segregation, where they were alone. Things changed significantly when the members were then placed in a gathering of four or five, be that as it may. In this circumstance, one of the general population who made sense of the right arrangement persuaded others who had thought of different invalid arrangements that he had the correct answer. In the wake of talking about the different arrangements, some wrong, one right, around 80% of the members came around to acknowledge the right arrangement. Be that as it may, in a gathering of individuals who came up just with different invalid arrangements, bunch discourse did not obviously change the result.

In light of the hypothesis’ capacity to clarify assorted marvels, and in view of the meeting of exact outcomes from various territories of psychology such as social, formative, moral, culturally diverse among others. Mercier claims significant help for the hypothesis. Regardless of whether you acknowledge the Sperber-Mercier hypothesis or the transformative brain science whereupon part of its case depends, I think you need to concede that it is interesting and raises some genuine difficulties to regular suspicions about thinking and argumentation. Dan Sperber concocted the contentious hypothesis since he was assessing what was going on in the realm of psychology in general. It was at a prime time when many researchers set out to explain how mind is actively involved in reasoning and the reasons it seemed not to give reliable results. Reasoning in itself produces a great deal of mix-ups and we can’t see extremely fundamental coherent issues. We do all these silly things, and in spite of mounting comes about, individuals are not by any stretch of the imagination changing their essential supposition. They are not testing the fundamental thought that reasoning is for singular purposes. The start is that arguing out different views should enable us to settle on better choices, show signs of improvement convictions. Furthermore, on the off chance that you begin from this start, at that point it takes after that thinking should enable us to manage legitimate issues and it should enable us to comprehend measurements. In any case, thinking doesn’t do every one of these things, or it does every one of these things, ineffectively.

Argumentative theory

In any case, for reasons unknown, psychology experts can’t challenge this fundamental start that reasoning truly should help us. What’s more, that is the reason Dan Sperber thought of the possibility that arguing doesn’t have this capacity of helping us show signs of improvement convictions and settle on better choices. Rather, thinking is for argumentation. Dan’s fundamental thought is that the capacity of reasoning, the reason it advanced, is to enable us to persuade other individuals and to assess their contentions. Here we have a fundamentally extraordinary thought that stands separated from the normal shrewdness in brain research, psychological science, and even in logic. In Western idea, for in any event the last couple hundred years, individuals have believed that thinking was only for singular reasons. Be that as it may, Dan tested this thought and said that it was an absolutely social wonder and that the objective was factious, the objective was to persuade others and to be watchful when others attempt to persuade us. Furthermore, the magnificence of this hypothesis is that in addition to the fact that it is all the more developmentally conceivable, however it likewise represents an extensive variety of information in brain research. Perhaps the most striking of marvels that the argumentative reasoning hypothesis clarifies is the affirmation inclination. Analysts have demonstrated that individuals have an, extremely solid, powerful inclination to their own views. This means when they have a thought, and they begin to reason about that thought, they are going to for the most part discover contentions for their own thought. They will concoct reasons why they’re correct, they will think of legitimizations for their choices. They’re not going to allow being challenged or welcome different opinions (Brockman, 2011).

Yet, even in our own lives it’s very imperative to remember that when we’re reasoning without anyone else, it’s very conceivable that we will most likely have false conclusions and deceiving choices. In the event that you take an exceptionally natural illustration, suppose you have a fight with your accomplice and you go to brood over what occurred in your room. What’s more, you continue thinking regarding why it was all his or her blame, and why you did everything that was conceivable to influence things to right, and you know it truly has nothing to do with you. You find numerous, many reasons why you didn’t do anything incorrectly, and it’s the various individual’s blame (Morendil, 2010). Then again, on the off chance that you had examined a similar thing with somebody who may have been more impartial, at that point that individual may have possessed the capacity to disclose to you that maybe you accomplished something that wasn’t exactly right, and possibly there your accomplice was really right. In our lives, it is vital to remember the entanglements that individual thinking can lead us to, and this can prevent us from settling on poor choices since we’ve been caught by our affirmation inclination.

In the hypothesis, what’s essential to remember is that reasoning is utilized as a part of an exceptionally careful sense. By differentiate, the way we utilize the expression “thinking” is certain. Furthermore, we’re just alluding to what thinking should mean in any case, when you’re really handling reasons. The majority of the choices we make, a large portion of the deductions we make, we make without handling reasons. For example, on the off chance that you will cross the road and you see a speeding vehicle coming your way, it is only sensible to avoid crossing at that given moment. Or, on the other hand to take another illustration, when you’re looking for grains at the grocery store, and buy several vegetables you are used to, not on account of you’ve contemplated through every one of the choices, but rather in light of the fact that it’s the one you generally purchase. What’s more, you’re simply doing likewise. There is no thinking associated with that choice (YÁÑEZ, 2012).

Contrary, you can reason about similar decisions. For example, if by and by you’re back in the grocery store, and you need to settle on a similar decision, however this time you need to get some paste and you never purchased paste before, you will take a gander at the distinctive brands, you will take a gander at the costs, you will take a gander at their calorie substance, and after that you will reason through the trade-offs, and so on. Also, all things considered, you’re thinking about reasons why you should get either one chocolate spread and not the other flavours available. What’s more, here you’re utilizing reason. It’s just when you’re thinking about reasons, motivations to accomplish something, motivations to trust, that you’re reasoning. In case you’re simply thinking of thoughts without purposes behind these thoughts, at that point you’re utilizing your instincts. What’s more, the issue with the affirmation inclination is that it drives individuals to settle on terrible choices and to land at insane convictions. What’s more, it’s strange, when you consider it, that people ought to be blessed with an affirmation inclination. On the off chance that the objective of thinking was to enable us to touch base at better convictions and settle on better choices, at that point there ought to be no predisposition. The affirmation inclination should not exist by any means. We have an extremely solid clash here between the perceptions of experimental analysts from one viewpoint and our presumption about thinking on the other. Be that as it may, in the event that you take the perspective of the contentious hypothesis, having an affirmation predisposition bodes well. When you’re endeavouring to persuade somebody, you would prefer not to discover contentions for the opposite side, you need to discover contentions for your side. What’s more, that is the thing that the affirmation predisposition encourages you do. The thought here is that the affirmation predisposition isn’t an imperfection of reasoning, it’s really an element. It is something that is incorporated with arguments when reasoning and not on the grounds that thinking is defective or in light of the fact that individuals are imbecilic, but since really individuals are great at reasoners yet they’re great at thinking for by way of arguments. Not exclusively does the factious hypothesis clarify the inclination, it can likewise give us thoughts regarding how to get away from the terrible outcomes of the affirmation predisposition.

Individuals for the most part have an issue with the affirmation predisposition when they reason without anyone else, when nobody is there to contend against their perspective. What has been watched is that in many cases, when individuals reason without anyone else, they’re not able touch base at a decent arrangement, at a decent conviction, or to settle on a decent choice since they will just affirm their underlying instinct. Then again, when individuals can examine their thoughts with other individuals who can’t help contradicting them, at that point the affirmation inclinations of the diverse members will adjust each other out, and the gathering will have the capacity to concentrate on the best arrangement. In this manner, thinking works much better in gatherings. At the point when individuals reason without anyone else, it’s imaginable that they will go down a wrong way. In any case, when they’re really ready to reason together, they are considerably more prone to achieve a right arrangement. The affirmation inclination is one of the principle marvels that the factious hypothesis can clarify. Another rapidly is the thing that clinicians call ‘reason-based decision.’ When we settle on a choice, individuals attempt to reason about their choice. They attempt to check whether they are settling on the correct decision. However, while they are attempting to settle on the correct decision, the impact their reasoning has on their choice isn’t really to drive them towards a decent choice, yet basically to drive them towards a choice that they can legitimize.

Since thinking is simply a way of discovering new contentions, it will discover contentions for the distinctive choices. Also, the choice that is the best bolstered will be the one that wins, regardless of whether it’s not really the best choice.  In politics, the hypothesis fits in exceptionally well with the possibility of deliberative popular government. In deliberative majority rule government, the thought is that individuals should argue with each other all the more regularly, and that rather than basically utilizing voting as a method for accumulating feeling, individuals ought to rather be pondering with each other, they ought to talk about their thoughts, they ought to share their purposes of perspectives and condemning each other’s perspective.

Conclusion

Reasoning by way of arguments misses the mark concerning dependability in conveying sane convictions and reasonable choices, may even be, in an assortment of cases, impeding to sanity. In any case, it isn’t all awful news. The critical asymmetry is between generation of contentions, and their assessment. In bunches with an enthusiasm for finding right answers, the logic should always take the upper hand. In the event that we sum up to issues that don’t have a provable arrangement, we ought to expect, if not really truth, at any rate great contentions to win. Individuals are very fit for reasoning in an unprejudiced way in any event when they are assessing contentions instead of delivering them and when they are after reality as opposed to subsequent to winning a verbal confrontation. Ending up independently more grounded at sound thinking is conceivable, Mercier and Sperber call attention to, however uncommon. The best accomplishments of thinking, in science or profound quality, are aggregate. In the event that this perspective of thinking is right, a site committed to “refining the craft of human levelheadedness” ought to perceive this asymmetry between creating contentions and assessing contentions and endeavour to structure the “work” being done here in like manner. It ought to urge singular members to help their perspectives, and maybe take a less embittered perspective of biasness. However, it ought to likewise energize the separating of contentions into little, distinguishable pieces, so they can be assessed and sifted independently; that lines up with the plan behind “level headed discussion apparatuses”, regardless of whether their execution at present fails to impress anyone. It should push the significance of finding the correct solution rather than just winning the argument. This, specifically, might lead us to take a more basic perspective of some regular voting designs

References

Albrechtsen J. S., M. C. A. &. S. K. J., 2009. Can intuition improve deception detection performance?. Experimental Psychology, 45(4), p. 1052–1055..

Brockman, J., 2011. The Argumentative Theory. A Conversation with Hugo Mercier .

Hugo Mercier, D. S., 2010. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory, Philadelphia,: Cambridge University Press.

Minto, W. R., 2013. Effective Thinking. An Argumentative Theory of Reasoning.

Morendil, 2010. Reasoning isn’t about logic (it’s about arguing).

YÁÑEZ, C. S., 2012. Mercier and Sperber’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. From the Psychology of Reasoning to Argumentation Studies , 32(1).

 

How to Cite and Reference in Chicago Style

Chicago Reference Style

The Chicago Manual of Style is a style guide published in 1906 by the University of Press. The Chicago Manual of Style contains 17 editions that prescribe writing and citation styles. It is one of the most used style guides within the United States. This writing and citation style is used in the disciplines of history, philosophy, religion and arts. In writing, there are various steps that one needs to follow in formatting their research paper. These steps will lead to a correctly Chicago formatted research paper.

General formatting

  • Use a standard font, for example, the 12pt. Times New Roman.
  • Double-space the text.
  • Use an inch margin on the sides, the top and bottom.
  • Indent new paragraphs by ½ inch.

Cover Page

  • The Chicago Manual of Style does not require a title page. It is more sufficient to have the title at the top of the first page.
  • All the text on the title page should be aligned at the centre, double –spaced and written in the same font as the other parts of the text.
  • The title ought to be 1/3 of the way down the page. It should be capitalized and in bold.
  • If you have a subtitle, the main title should end with a colon while the subtitle appears on the following line.
  • The subtitle should also be in bold and the same font as the title.
  • Number the pages in the top right corner of the paper or the bottom centre.
  • The Text should be left-aligned and not justified.
  • The title page should not have a page number but ought to be included in the page count. The page numbering should begin on page two.

Headings

  • All the headings should be capitalized.
  • The different levels of headings should be presented similarly, while the higher-level titles stand out more.
  • It would help if you differentiated the different levels of headings.

Numbers and acronyms

  • Numerals are most preferred instead of words, especially for numbers below 100. For example, Twenty three children left with the school bus.
  • However, numerals can be used when referring to a specific measurement. For example, 2.5m.
  • You can use
  • It would help if you introduced acronyms the first time they are used. After which, you can use the acronyms alone. You can include the acronyms in parentheses after the full name—for example, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  • A sentence should begin with neither numerals nor acronyms. However, one can rewrite the sentence for acronyms or numerals to appear at other parts of a sentence.

1000 brochures were stamped by the County Officer. (Wrong statement)

The County Officer stamped the 1000 brochures. (Right statement)            

 Notes and Bibliography

It is essential to use notes after using a source. A source may include a direct quote or paraphrase. The notes are either endnotes or footnotes. Citations appear in footnotes and endnotes, and they use superscript numbers within the text.  Footnotes are added at the end of the page where the source is referenced.

Footnotes ought to be separated from the text through a short rule. They ought to be of the same font size as the main text or relatively more minor.  The Word contains the footnote function, which operates automatically and creates footnotes.

Endnotes are compiled at the end of each chapter or the end of an entire document. Endnotes appear before the bibliography. The endnotes should be in Times New Roman 10pt font.

You should place note number at the end of the sentence where a reference occurs even though a cited material is mentioned at the beginning of a sentence. It is set after all punctuations at the end of the sentence. Arabic numerals such as 1,2,3, and Roman ones such as i, ii, iii should be used in the notes.

Each reference should have a new number. Therefore you should not reuse a number. The first line of each note ought to be indented. You should separate multiple sources within a single note with a semicolon. You should not use two note numbers at the end of a sentence.

The format of the notes is:

  • First Name Last Name of Author, ‘Title of Page,” Title of Website, Month Day, date published or accessed.

Bibliography

  • The bibliography should be on a separate page with the Bibliography word at the centre of the page and bolded in Times New Roman 12pt font.
  • The heading should not be of a larger size font or in bold.
  • Use a hanging indent where the first line of the citation begins at the margin while the subsequent lines are indented.
  • In case a source has no author, alphabetize by title within the authors.
  • You should not separate the primary sources from the secondary sources.
  • The bibliography is used in the notes and bibliography style, while a reference list is used in the author-date.

There are two types of Chicago Manual of Style documentation styles. First, there are the Notes-Bibliography System and the Author-Date System. The Notes-Bibliography System is commonly used in literature, history, humanities and the arts. The system uses numbered endnotes and footnotes to cite resources and a corresponding bibliography at the end of the paper. The author-date references system uses in-text parenthetical references and a corresponding Reference List. The parenthetical references are used within the text of a document which leads a reader to the reference list. The parenthetical reference will consist of the author’s last name and the publication date of the article being cited.

In-text citations

The Chicago Manual of Style provides the author-dates and notes and bibliography in-text citations. In the author-date style, sources are placed in the text in parentheses. For example, Linus (2017) argues that health tech has its disadvantages. However, health tech has significantly contributed to the healthcare systems (Lee et al., 2017; John 2018).

In notes and bibliography style, citations appear in footnotes and endnotes, and the reader is referred to them by superscript numbers in the text. Footnote and endnote numbers appear at the end of a relevant sentence and after any punctuation except a dash. –

Endnotes appear on a different page before the bibliography page, while footnotes appear at the bottom of each page.

 Watch out for these common Errors in Chicago Style

  • Reuse of numbers in the notes.

Each citation should get a new number.

  • Lack of using indents, especially with the bibliography and reference list.

Notes use the first-line indent, while a bibliography uses a hanging indent.

  • It would be best if you did not put cited work on top of the bibliography. This is an MLA style of writing.
  • A bibliography goes in alphabetical order by author. Notes are numbered and listed in the order in which the sources are used.