Utilitarianism
In order to fully comprehend the effects of the United States president on the Bill of Rights denial, it is imperative to understand the provisions of the utilitarianism and the significance of Bill of Rights to the people of the United States. The concept of utilitarianism was fostered by two people in the early 18th century; these people were John Mill and Jeremy Bentham.
In essence, the significance of utilitarianism aimed at defining the consequences of actions and their general impact on the people, whether bad or good. This clearly indicates that despite the values of a person, his or her actions will be judged based on the impact or the consequences of their actions to the people.
The theory of utilitarianism is thus a more consequential oriented concept proposed by Mill and Jeremy, its consequences in our society cannot be over-emphasized.
The underlying philosophy of utilitarianism is indispensible in the modern world because it sums up the aims of ethical consideration. Ethics are mainly aimed at mitigating propagation or escalation of any bad act or unprofessional actions that are potentially harmful to the public (Mill 35).
The Bill or Rights provides some restrictions that the executive arm of the government should not exceed. This means that there are fundamental rights that the every citizen of the United States should enjoy. Such rights includes; speech freedom, the right to move around the country and even the right to life (Mill 55).
With consideration of this case study, the president of the United States suspended the provisions of the Bill of Rights with an excuse of terrorist threats that was evident. According to the president, suspension of the Bill of Rights is temporary until the terrorism threat is handled.
When the fundamental principles of utilitarianism are considered, the resultant consequences of the president’s actions will be important in justifying if the actions of the president are justified (Mill 58). In this sense, the impact of suspending the Bill of Rights simply means that the government through its representative can intentionally restrict movement, deprive people of their freedom of expression and even their right to life.
The impact of the president’s actions is immense and with more negative consequences as compared to the reason for suspending these fundamental rights. Since the principles of utilitarianism judge the worth of an action based on its consequences, this executive action will ultimately defy the provisions of utilitarianism as a result of its consequences.
The perceived reason for violating fundamental rights of people in the name of preventing the same through cracking down on terrorists’ is unjustifiable. The president ought to use more intelligence unit in cracking down terrorist rather than violating the fundamental rights of every human being.
Conclusion
Based on the principles and provisions of utilitarianism, as a graduate student of Florida State University, I will advice the president against such actions. This is simply because of the consequences that result from such executive order. In the end, more lives may be lost through reckless handling and torture of innocent civilians.
In essence, the modern age technology can provide more accurate and harmless approach of handling such a problem. As discussed in this analysis, based on the principles provided by utilitarianism, the cumulative result of the president’s actions will not bring pleasure to the majority of the country’s citizens. In this perspective, the principle of utilitarianism will be violated.
Human Resource Management
The concept of human resource management and the ethical and legal implications in the workplace is an imperative consideration in this case. Understanding the ethical and legal implications as provided by the United States constitution is important in defining the relationships and the rights of employees and employers.
There are several actions that have been enacted by the senate in order to protect employees from employers’ discrimination. One of such acts is The Age Discrimination in Employment, this act was enacted in 1967 and it essentially shields all workers of the age above 40 years from potential discrimination from the employer.
Another act that is relevant in this case is the Civil Rights Act which was enacted in 1964; this act aims at protecting employees against any bias based on their race, gender, color and even religion.
On the other hand, ethics is generally defined as what is commonly referred as good or acceptable in a given society. In this sense, ethics varies with societies, religions and professions. It is however fundamental to understand that what is deemed right in the society is what is ethical according to that society or organization in this case. In this case, Jane Brown was discharged from her duties as she was in maternity leave.
There are several considerations that should be made in this case; the first one is the reason for her discharge. In essence, the human resource is mandated the task of recruiting and lying off with respect to the performance of the company (Mathis 34). In this case, there are a number of evident reason why Jane Brown was laid off and not Thomas Kelly and other workers who were working in the paint shop.
The employer (Kennedy Space Center) in this case study acted mischievously in laying off Jane Brown. As per her current circumstance such as current condition of health coupled with maternity leave and age (she is 42), it is evident that the employer in this case discriminated against her. According to the fundamentals of Civil Rights Acts of 1964, it is unlawful for an employer to dismiss a worker based on his/her status of health or race.
In this scenario, it is evident that Jane was dismissed because of her poor health condition and even to some extent her color. This act prohibits such actions on employers; Jane can therefore file a suit against Kennedy Space Center based on the provisions of this act. More so, the Age Discrimination act established in 1967 prevents discrimination of workers based on their age.
This case presents a possible discrimination based on the employees’ age; again Jane can sue her employer based on this act and seek compensation. It is unethical and illegal for an employer to discriminate on their employees based on their age and medical condition. Kennedy Space Center clearly discriminated against Jane in this case thus liable for the consequences that will be evident as a result of filing a suit.
Conclusion
In this analysis, it is evident that the employer has discriminated against Jane based on her medical condition and the age. It is imperative to acknowledge that there are acts enacted by the senate that oversees’ these discriminatory acts in the United States. These acts will thus be used as the basis of bringing justice to Jane who is in this case a victim of discrimination.
Works Cited
Mathis, Robert, and Jackson, John. Human Resource Management. Canton: Cengage Learning, 2008. PP. 33-66.
Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism: Easy read Large Edition. New York: ReadHowYouWant.com, 2006.PP.23-67.