We are here with you hands in hands to facilitate your learning & don't appreciate the idea of copying or replicating solutions. Read More>>
+ Link For Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution
+ Link For Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More
Dear Students! Share your Assignments / GDBs / Quizzes files as you receive in your LMS, So it can be discussed/solved timely. Add Discussion
How to Add New Discussion in Study Group ? Step By Step Guide Click Here.
For the past few months, wearing hijab at the public place had been forbidden by some countries. These countries are considering this thing as “ethnic” and some scholars of that particular thought were overstating this issue as “racism”. On the other hand, people who are in favor of wearing hijab, or in other words they are pro-hijab were continuously relating this issue with “individual freedom” and democracy of personal rights, especially related to the wearing of an individual.
Being the student of Business ethics, how do you see this matter? Discuss in the light of specific theory related to ethics and cultural impediments.
.+ http://bit.ly/vucodes (Link for Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution)
+ http://bit.ly/papersvu (Link for Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More)+ Click Here to Search (Looking For something at vustudents.ning.com?) + Click Here To Join (Our facebook study Group)
Please Discuss here about this GDB.Thanks
Our main purpose here discussion not just Solution
We are here with you hands in hands to facilitate your learning and do not appreciate the idea of copying or replicating solutions. Read More>>
plzz discuss about it
WHEN Jack Straw, a British Labour politician, said a few years ago that he would prefer Muslim women to uncover their faces during appointments with him, because he “felt uncomfortable about talking to someone ‘face-to-face' who [he] could not see”, liberal opinion was scandalised. He had no more right to request this than he did to ask a teenager to take out a tongue-stud or anything else that might offend middle-aged men: indeed, arguably less because the covering was for reasons of faith, not fashion. Today, however, some European governments are going further than Mr Straw ever wanted to. Starting with Belgium and France, they plan to ban the face-covering niqab or burqa altogether (see article).
Europeans' hostility to the burqa is understandable. It doesn't just deprive them of the beauty of women's faces; it offends the secularism that goes deep in European—and especially French—culture. Its spread goes hand in hand with the growth of a fundamentalist version of Islam some of whose proponents have attacked the secular societies they live in; and, at a time when those societies feel under threat, the burqa makes it harder for police to identify security risks.
For people raised outside the Gulf or Afghanistan, dealing with somebody whose facial expressions are hidden is uncomfortable. Unlike the headscarf, the burqa appears, in itself, to be a restraint on female freedom, and also symbolises what many Europeans see as the repression that women can suffer in Islam. And although many, and probably most, Muslim women wear the headscarf out of choice, some tell the police that they were forced to wear the burqa against their will.
Nor do democracies give absolute rights to citizens to wear what they like. The consensus about what is tolerated and what deemed offensive or dangerous varies. People cannot, in most countries, walk the streets naked. And Europeans clearly favour a ban. A recent poll found that a majority backed one in France (70%), Spain (65%), Italy (63%), Britain (57%) and Germany (50%). In America, with its stronger culture of religious freedom, only a minority (33%) was in favour.
Yet the very values which Europeans feel are threatened by the burqa demand that they oppose a ban. Liberal societies should let people wear what they want unless there is a strong argument otherwise. And, in this case, the three arguments for a ban—security, sexual equality and secularism—do not stand up. On security, women can be required to lift their veils if necessary. On sexual equality, women would be better protected by the enforcement of existing laws against domestic violence than by the enactment of new laws forcing them to dress in a way that may be against their will. On secularism, even if Europeans would prefer not to have others' religiosity paraded on the streets, the tolerance that Westerners claim to value requires them to put up with it.
European governments are entitled to limit women's rights to wear the burqa. In schools, for instance, pupils should be able to see teachers' faces, as should judges and juries in court. But Europeans should accept that, however much they dislike the burqa, banning it altogether would be an infringement on the individual rights which their culture normally struggles to protect. The French, of all people, should know that. As Voltaire might have said, “I disapprove of your dress, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.”
mujhy to gdb samjh hi nahi arahii k kia kiya likhna hey or ye koi idea betai ky gdb me ye general question hy to konsy chapter sy related hy jismy countries k bary me mention hey q k wesy mjhy dusry cities k bary me nahi patta
iska matlab hai kai bohat mulko mei hijab ban kiya ja raha hai jisko ethinic samjha ja raha hai or kuch scholers toh isse racism bhi keh rahe hai lekin jo log hijab key favor mei hai woh keh rahe hai kay yeh individualistic freedom hai apni merzi hai now being a business ethics student we have to tell how we see this matter in the light of specific theory related to ethics and cultural impediments.
please do needful on urgent basis
well i think the GDB is about the ethical relativism which states that, because different societies have different ethical beliefs, there is no rational way of determining whether an action is morally right or wrong other than by asking whether the people of this or that society believe it to be right or wrong by asking whether people of a particular society believe that it is. In fact, the multiplicity of moral codes demonstrates that there is no one "right" answer to ethical questions. The best a company can do is follow the old adage, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." In other words, there are no absolute moral standards.
We use convergent elements of major ethical theories to create a typology of corporate
stakeholder cultures—the aspects of organizational culture consisting of the beliefs,
values, and practices that have evolved for solving problems and otherwise managing stakeholder relationships. We describe five stakeholder cultures—agency, corporate egoist, instrumentalist, moralist, and altruist—and explain how these cultures lie
on a continuum, ranging from individually self-interested (agency culture) to fully
other-regarding (altruist culture). We demonstrate the utility of our framework by
showing how it can refine stakeholder salience theory.