You said more interesting!!!!!!!!!!
I give you an Ethical dilemma ....That You can ponder.....
Ok Doctor P ....Let see what you have to say .
INTRODUCTION
Although many men may believe otherwise, man, by himself, cannot fix a woman’s problem. He can lend advice and suggestion, make strong comment, he can take the problem upon himself, but he cannot actually fix a woman’s problems!
There are several ethical pitfalls when dealing with such problems. Would it not be easier for mankind (or simply “man†from this point forward) to just deceive his way out of these situations when called upon? But then one’s moral virtue would be in question. Is there a way to perceive this dilemma and save face at the same time? I say yes there is!
One such problem is,†The disgruntle co-worker syndrome,†and woman’s inability to deal with her own shortcomings without involving Man for guidance. This is a double edged sword which has sliced man to pieces time and time again. His inability to deal with these situations in an ethical manner has failed him miserably when it comes to dealing with a woman’s problems.
In this synopsis, a co-worker has questioned a “woman’s (W),†authority in making a business transaction that has failed. The woman views this as an attack on her personal character, and argues her point to the bitter end, seeking the approval of her mate in her decision to argue the point. Although she will ask for mans’ opinion and she will listen, she will not accept his opinion but only hers! This is where man must exercise his knowledge of ethics.
It is mans (M) Prima Facie Duty to exercise extreme caution when venturing into this uncharted territory of dealing with a woman’s dispute. (e.g. pg 540 AE) Man must realize that he must take an Ethical Relativism approach to the situation. (E.g. 539 AE) as bold as it may sound, man must think of his eudaimonia. He has to approach her request of him with an Ethical tact of knowledge about his words and most of all Good Sound Reasoning.
Man must recognize that woman is not seeking an opinion, but approvable of her own. It is when man disregards this sound reasoning. (Pg 47, applying ethics) that he ends up as being the center of a woman’s problem. It was not his intentions to do so, but with little knowledge of his words and lack of Good Sound Reasoning, this is what exactly happens.
Let’s explore the disgruntled co-worker syndrome, involving two women who work together. “ Co-worker (A) decides that Woman (W) has not performed the proper duties when addressing a customer’s request for services, and therefore when customer (C) decides to take his business else where, co-worker (A) blames this lose of revenue on (W) woman. In turn she (W) approaches (M) man with her dilemma.
Man (M) must be aware that such issues some such as being (1) (Red Herrings) e.g. pg. 64 AE, (2) Post Hoc e.g. 64 AE and (3) the Straw Man scenario (e.g. pg. 65)
It makes no differents that co-worker (A) was not part of the transactions, nor has any knowledge of the facts of the transaction, it is co-worker (A) way of CYA their way around the fact that the business has lost revenue and therefore does not want to be blamed for this loss.
Co-workers (A) solution to this quagmire is to introduce a Red Herring (e.g. pg. 64 AE). This is done by focusing on woman’s insecurities. Did she not look presentable to the client, or was it in her way of handling the customer? These facts could have a bearing on the issues, but it also could be that the client was offered a better deal elsewhere. Co-worker (A) is not going to make mention of these facts and will rely on an attack of her insecurities to save face.
Second, Post Hoc is another fallacy that co-worker (A) will introduce. Co-worker (A) may make claim that the customer was her client first and when woman (W) entered into the picture, customer(C) took offense and looked elsewhere for services. In doing so, co-worker (A) has cast doubt on (W’s) abilities to perform the same duties as co-worker (A) and thus the customer looked elsewhere.
Had the customer entered into the contract and the business received the new client, co-worker (A) would have played Straw Man (e.g. pg. 65) praising woman (W) for a job well done but really holding a grudge. In this scenario, lets remember the customer (C) was co-workers (A’s) first. Whether she just lacked knowledge or just was not prepared to perform the duties requested of her has little bearing on the facts. (W) Woman got the customer and co-worker (A) did not. Resentment will simmer below the surface, causing all of the problems that I have outlined in this synopsis.
A fight erupted between these two colleagues; battle lines were drawn, and man will have to wade into the fight under the assumption that it a just cause. What man does at this point will determine his outcome in the whole affair?
The saying, “Fools rush in where angels dare to tread,†is ringing loud and clear. So what is man to do? Is he to lend Sound reasoning or should he just deceive his way out of this mess? I say neither!
It is not mans intention to deceive his mate, but man must critically think about each of his answers before making them. As in all relationships, woman seeks man for his approval of her opinion, not because she is really interested in what man has to say, but more as a buffer zone to shore up her opinion. This is where the knowledge of ethical body language comes into play
Man must learn not to speak, but to agree with what his companion is complaining (bitching) about. Never, and I repeat, never say to her, “Why, what, or how come,†It is better to just nod up and down with a quick downward motion of the head. (Never shake the head side to side, for this will expose woman to man’s doubt of the situation.)
Man also must refrain from making derogatory comments about the woman’s co-worker. This is one of those pitfalls that I mentioned earlier. If woman wants to make comments such as, “Oh she just does this because I am pretty and she’s not,†it is wrong, but for man to agree is ethically wrong. It will come back to haunt man time and time again.
When giving good sound reasoning, man must not stoop to this tactic. He must think back to his Ethics class and relate to possibly Stuart Mills or Aristotle. The truth is a combination of both philosophical views. Man must seek both his happy medium, and his utilitarianism perspectives, not hers. Let me state once again, “Man cannot fix a woman’s problems, he can only agree!
Utilitarianism is defined as being a theory that action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or Aristotle’s greatest happiness possible in dealing with the greatest number of tribulations that man has to overcome.
Conclusion
My argument is not the fight between two co-workers, but how man can give sound reasoning and not end up in the doghouse when it is all said and done. Let us review the facts.
1) Woman is not seeking an ethical solution but only assurance to her own argument.
2) Woman will listen to Man but will not take his advice.
3) Everything Man says will be scrutinized later by both parties involved. This is why man should never use derogatory terms about the co-worker when interjecting his philosophical views.
4) Woman is reading Man’s body language, and man had better be aware of this fact. No shaking of the head side to side, only up and down.
5) Finally, man cannot fix a woman’s problems and he better come to this realization now!
If woman is not listening then why is Man going to such extremes to inject his views. He has to take control of the situation. To do that, Man must take a Utilitarianism Egoistical view. In doing so, Man will be saved from this ethical dilemma time and time again.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Calendar
An analytic proposition is one in which the predicate is contained in the subject, as in the statement “Black houses are houses.†The truth of this type of proposition is evident, because to state the reverse would be to make the proposition self-contradictory. 
