Ethical: Canaan, Red Lobster’s general manager, had to ire the waitress because removing the comment card from the locked box Is considered unethical. It Is against the restaurant rule to remove It from the box. The customer also felt violated because her card was taken away and felt that her complaint about the food and service had been ignored. This was good for the general manager because she remained consistent with the restaurant rule and had to fire the waitress. Legal: The restaurant provided a peer preview program as an alternative to filing suit.

The waitress felt that she had been flared unjustly. The point of view from all sides and come up with a fair conclusion. From reading the case it is obvious that the manager and the company had huge influences in shaping the restaurant. The manager took part in commenting how the food was and decided if the waitress is right or wrong. The case shows us that the manager decided to fire the waitress because the waitress was thought to go against restaurant policy which Is not to remove any property.

We think that the manager Is eight to view that taking away the comment card Is wrong, but firing the waitress Is just too harsh. The manager should have hear the waitress’s point of view first because it seemed like she had lost or misplaced the card accidentally and not purposely to hide an evidence. In the meanwhile, the company also had a big part in this case because they had adopted a peer review program that is very helpful in order to help solve company problems. It saves a lot of money because the company does not have to face lawsuits every time a problem rises.

We believe that the many had done the right thing to use the peer review program to hear from all point of views and find a solution that is fair to everyone. We recommend that the company focus on training their employees and make sure they know clearly of the compass policies and ethical guidance. This case explained that problems arises because the waitress don know that she’s actually going against the company’s policy when she was looking at the comment cards. Also, the hostess felt like giving the keys to everyone was no big deal.

This may cause major problems in the future because the company’s and customer’s privacy will be flawed. Right now: Red Lobster should fix their cooking equipment, so they could serve food with decent quality. They were found going against the policy in reheating leftover food because their cooking equipment was broken. Short-term: Red Lobster should train and Inform Its employees to Improve their knowledge with the company’s Long-term: Red Lobster should make a guide or handbook that lists their policies and give it to every employees, so there will be no surprises.

Red Lobster should also keep their peer preview program that was successful in helping solve a problem in a cheaper and fair way. As mentioned above, the company’s previous actions are mostly on point. Although, actions that could be fixed are: fixing the cooking equipment, encourage employees to improve their knowledge with the company’s policy, and also be ethical in serving customers such as providing fresh and not reheated food. The book mentioned that the key to an effective stakeholder management, in other rods to keep stakeholders happy, is in the company’s implementations.

Corporate social responsibility is made operable when companies translate their stakeholder dialogue into practice. In this case, Red Lobster should listen not only to its customer’s opinion but also their employee’s to best fulfill customer’s needs while remaining true to the company’s beliefs and values. “It should be noted that organizations develop learning processes over time in implementing their changing or evolving stakeholder orientations. ”

Explain the conditions of Kant for Moral Law? NAS. Kant states the following conditions for Moral Law: A. For a rule to me a moral rule, it must prescribe to us categorically and not hypothetically. A moral rule prescribes what we ought to do without reference to any purpose or consequences. A hypothetical prescription or imperative only tells us what we ought to do If we wish to achieve certain code ends.

So naturally, If we did not seek these ends, it will lose prescriptive force upon the ends a person seeks. Thus a moral rule is not contingent upon ends. Therefore a moral rule must prescribe to us Independently of our ends, that is categorical. B, For a rule Is moral rule, it must be consistent, universalism. Thus, such a rule can be prescribed as a guide to everyone’s conduct without involving a self-contradiction. Such a rule has a general applicability almost without exception.

If any exception at all Is to be made, then it is to be made exceptionally. The possibility of an exception should be extremely remotest. C. For a rule to be a moral rule, it must be such that, if all men were to follow it, they should treat each other as ends In themselves and never as means only. D. For a rule to be a moral rule, it must be a capable of being self- imposed by the will of each person when he is universally legislating.

His argument for the existence of God follows: We all have a sense of innate moral awareness – from this we are under obligation to be virtuous An ‘average’ level of virtue Is not enough. We are obliged to aim for the highest standard possible True virtue should be rewarded with happiness There is an ideal state where human virtue and happiness are united – this Kant called the ‘ Sum Bonus’ Moral statements are prescriptive -? ‘ought’ Implies ‘can’ Humans can achieve virtue In a bedtime but it is beyond us to ensure we are rewarded with happiness.

Therefore there must be a God who has the power to ensure that virtue and happiness coincide In an afterlife. Moral qualities exist as separate entities. We are contingent and flawed beings and cannot achieve sum bonus (HIGHEST MORAL GOOD) Sum bonus must be achievable Morally necessary to postulate God’s existence.

Thus, in the Kristin deer practices Overturn (Critique of Practical Reason) (1788), he proposed a “Table of the Categories of Freedom in Relation to the Concepts of Good and Evil,” using the familiar logical distinctions as the basis for a catalog of synthetic a priori Judgments that have bearing on the evaluation of human action, and declared that only two things inspire nine awe: “Deer bestir Hummel ;beer Mir undo dads moralistic Gusset in Mir” (“the starry sky above and the moral law within”). Kant used ordinary moral notions as the foundation for a derivation of this moral law in his Grueling cur Metaphysic deer Sixteen (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals) (1785). Morality and Peace: Cant’s interest in moral matters was not exclusively theoretical. In Die Metaphysic deer Sixteen(Metaphysics of Morals) (1797) he worked out the practical application of the categorical imperative in some detail, deriving a fairly comprehensive catalog of pacific rules for the governance of social and personal morality.