Moral Reasons behind Salary Differences
The essay centers on the movie “Inside Job” directed by Charles Ferguson whose key message is the portrayal of moral behaviours, as presented by the director, in relation to the real-life job scenario. The movie exposes the economic flaws that the US government had perpetrated (Ferguson, 2010). One of the quotes in the movie that relates to ethics is a quote from Andrew Sheng, “Why should a financial engineer be paid four times to 100 times more than real engineer? A Real engineer build(s) bridges. A financial engineer build(s) dreams. And, you know, when those dreams turn out to be nightmares, other people pay for it” (Ferguson, 2010). The answer to the question requires the consultation of the available ethical theories.
While justice and economic distribution theory concerns individuals and the social order by presenting ways through which people earn their living, economic justice, on the other hand, is attained when there is harmony between the output, input, and feedback. According to Shaw, Barry, and Sansbury (2010), distributive justice concerns “how the work that creates wealth is distributed and how the wealth that is created is distributed and considers on what basis such decisions may be made” (p. 234). The two theories carry various moral reasons why the statement on study might be ethically acceptable or objectionable for a “financial engineer” to be paid 100 times more than “real engineer” nurse, or teacher (Ferguson, 2010).
This may be held morally acceptable in the circumstances whereby the finance engineer is earning money based on his experiences and educational qualifications. The fact that both employees are workers and have academic qualifications in a related field does not mean that they should be treated equally. According to Kerwin (2011), “A person who acquires a holding in accord with the principle of justice in acquisition [that is, without violating anyone else’s Lockean rights] is entitled to that holding” (p. 25). Therefore, it will be unfair to treat the two engineers equally in terms of salary that they receive since they have different experiences and academic qualifications.
The second reason why this view is supported is that the professions that the two people studied are not similar. Finance engineer deals with issues to do with financial management while a real engineer is trained on real construction engineering such as construction of bridges and roads (Ferguson, 2010). These two distinguished field require different skills and knowledge. The ethics of the economic system theory comes in handy here. It requires the adoption of ethics in order to increase the level of trust/honesty for transactional costs to be reduced. The fact that the engineer does construction work does not warrant anyone to underrate the other field of engineering such as finance.
The differences for money that two earns may be due to many reasons such as status or leadership roles among many others. The disparity for salaries they receive is something that was happening even before the economic crisis happened in 2008 and is right in the capitalist society, “…people have a fundamental moral right to property and that our capitalist system is simply the outcome of this natural right” (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2010, p. 132). Therefore, this has been the trend, and as time goes by, the salary of the engineer will be increased systematically. The engineer should be contended with these differences in their salaries.
However, it is unethical for the government to treat its workers with similar academic qualifications unfairly. The justice and economic distribution theory of economics is violated as evidence in the movie (Ferguson, 2010). It is not ethical for such deviations to happen. To ensure that there is justice and fair distribution of resource, the amount of income provided for the two employees need to support the spirit of fairness and equality. According to Shaw, Barry and Sansbury, (2010), “justice is often used to mean fairness” (p. 235). They argue, “One way unfairness creates injustice occurs when like cases are not treated in the same fashion” (Shaw, Barry, & Sansbury, 2010, p. 235). The two engineers are not treated fairly hence, there is injustice. Such inequality is morally undesirable as Shaw, Barry and Sansbury, (2010) put it, “inequalities in income and ownership is morally undesirable” (p. 136). Furthermore, this does not comply with the social contract theory that requires the formation of agreements between parties based on moral and political ethics.
Organisations are not putting in place the social implications of their actions. People who designed the salaries of the two professionals did not factor into their decisions momentous things such as equality and fairness. People have equal needs. It is also difficult for people to step aside when their interests are conflicting with ours. Rachels and Rachels (2010) say, “There is equality of need as each of us needs the same basic things in order to survive” (p. 81). Furthermore, “there is limited altruism… even if people are not wholly selfish, they care most about themselves, and we cannot assume that they will step aside when their interests conflict with ours” (Rachels & Rachels, 2010, p. 81). It is the duty of business entities to participate in corporate social responsibility to remain competitiveness and innovative since “social responsibility arises from social power” (Shaw, Barry, and Sansbury, 2010, p. 30). In this context, it seems that everybody is trying to outwit or be ahead of another.
It is also unethical for the finance engineer to receive high amounts of salary than other employees even if the objectives, scope, and goals are not attained. The money paid to the officer comes from the local people who are taxed heavily. This contravenes the ethics theory of justice and economic distribution. Distributive justice is concerned with, “how work that creates wealth, and how the wealth that is created is distributed and considers on what basis such decisions may be made” (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2010, p. 234).The movie portrays economists and learned professors being ashamed of their evil deeds (Ferguson, 2010). There is a high rate of exploitation in the economy. Economy seems to protect and favour the rich, as opposed to the poor. Even if the rich are not adding value to the lives of the people in terms of triggering economic growth, they continue to get massive allowances and salaries. These practices in the economy are unethical since they violate the rights of others by being discriminative and unfair
It is therefore apparent that indeed there is a breach or violation of ethics in the operations of many businesses, as the movie portrays. The economic downfall that happened in late 2000s shows that, some parties, especially the rich people used the chance to steal money in a bid to amass wealth (Ferguson, 2010). There is no transparency in the system of the activities and programs of organisations, which continue to deter the smooth operation of businesses. The ethics of the economic system theory requires businesses to ensure that they remain sincere in their dealings to reduce on the costs of operation. “Justice is an important aspect of morality. Economic or distributive justice concerns the principles appropriate fro assessing society’s distribution of social benefits and burdens, particularly wealth, income, status and power” (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury, 2010, p. 259). This is not the case of this company since there is no rationale or efforts put in place to ensure that trust and openness is achieved. In fact, what the movie evidences is a lot of unethical acts such as bribery of scholars and other prominent people who take ‘speaking fees’ besides making fake appointments in a bid to misdirect future people on the subject of deregulation (Ferguson, 2010). In other scenarios, the input of an employee is not rewarded. For instance, some employees work hard still receiving low salaries while those who do not work continue to earn more. The system is unfair, a reason that contributed to the unfair wealth distribution and economic downtown.
Moral Limits: What People Acquire and how they Earn Money
There are moral limits that individuals may acquire. Morals are values that the society appreciates besides deeming them to be right. For instance, moral may include behaviours such as respect, faithfulness, and honesty among many others. The level of moral limits that people may acquire therefore depends on the level of understanding and appreciation of various moral values that have inculcated in somebody. It also depends on an individual him/herself. Therefore, people who have been raised in an environment that appreciates and cherishes moral values have a high sense of moral justice. They will always aspire to do good to their brothers and sisters, as opposed to those that have been brought up without any emphasis on such values. This moral limit may determine what an individual acquires and or gives.
A person with a negative moral perception is at the risk of falling victim of mob justice if found guilty of stealing people’s property in estates or any other place. On the other hand, an individual with positive moral values will be trustworthy and will always keep to the promise. The goal here is to fulfill the obligations bestowed upon such an individual. People earn money and survive through various means. The moral philosophy of people contributes substantially the amount of wealth an individual has. For instance, in this case study, different workers earn different amounts of money, as evidenced by the movie ‘Inside Job’ (Ferguson, 2010). These differences are based on moral backing and reasoning. A good scenario to illustrate this is when employees with similar qualifications but different responsibilities earn different amounts of salaries. Such differences are significant in people’s day-to-day association and interaction. Every person must work hard to realise or achieve a given objective.
Conclusion
In conclusion, from the quotation that has formed the basis of this discussion, it shows how people still have a long way to go to learn to appreciate other people’s efforts. Ethics dictates that people should appreciate what they have and work forward to achieving that which they do not have in a constructive manner. There is no need for businesses or individuals to engage in unscrupulous businesses while seeking greener pastures. Therefore, it is imperative that individuals learn and practice business ethics to allow a smooth transaction of businesses in a bid to boost the economy of the country.
Reference List
Ferguson, C. (Director). (2010). Inside Job Movie (Motion Picture). United States, Vic.: Video Education.
Kerwin, A. (2011). Distributive Justice Robert Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. Ethics Reading Pack. McGraw Hill: Boston.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2010). The elements of moral philosophy (6th ed). McGraw Hill: Boston.
Shaw, W., Barry, V., & Sansbury, G. (2010). Moral Issues in Business. (1st Asia Pacificed). Melbourne: Cengage.