In relation to the New Zealander, Kant would not have been proud of him based on his actions. The reason for this is that; even though he did a noble duty of bringing the nearly dead body to the camp where there was a doctor to help this person, he did not take the full responsibility of ensuring that this man was well attended. He was more concerned with achieving his goal than helping the person. This can be attested by the fact that he was angry for having carried the Sadhu.
After the author took his carotid pulse and ensuring that he was alive, he took off following the other porters that had gone before him. He later on inquired from the Swiss, the condition of the Sadhu to which the Swiss replied that he was fine. In this sense he was acting in relation to Aristotle’s moral ethics whereby he regarded that there were no absolute moral standards, and that; for any ethical theory it must be based on the understanding of psychology and on the realities of human nature. Therefore in the view of the author based on his understanding, he felt that he had conducted his duty, and that his achievement was his main purpose in this journey (Thomas Donaldson, 2002).
In this story, once Stephen completes his journey having achieved their feat, he tells the author that he has ‘killed’ the Sadhu. In this regard, he was using Kant’s theory whereby he felt that none of the people who had purpoted to help the Sadhu had done anything to help him because they had not fulfilled their duty to ensure that he was safe. They had all delegated that responsibility to another person until in the long-run there was no one to delegate these responsibilities to.
Stephen could not have taken care of the Sadhu alone because they would both have ended up dying bcause of Hypothermia issues. In regards to group ethics, what the author comes to learn is that it can change the personal ethics of an individual. Such that a person makes a questionable decision that he or she cannot make when he is reasoning as an individual.
In Cynthia Cooper’s case she had to decide first if it was in her best interest to blow the whistle. The reason behind this is that while having the right moral standards is what people want, in this situation people will be afraid to work with her because of her truthful nature. Therefore, she may have done a great thing and it negatively affects her such as in making her become unemployed and cannot find work (Joanne B. Ciulla, 2013).
In situations whereby after the whistleblower has alerted the public or the necessary stake-holders, he or she then becomes rude or adapts a destructive nature in order to ensure that the company’s misfortunes become greater. In other cases, when one releases classified …