Criminal Justice

“The Invitation”

Joe’s response to Bill’s invitation

The response should be in accordance with the right action depending on the situation. The response will therefore, depend on the intentions of Bill with an obvious focus on obligations, duties and rules. As long as the interests of both individuals do not contradict each other, then they are bound to agree on the terms of the invitation. If the principle or moral rule is kept constant, then the action or invitation is termed as right (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1994).

Ethical theory to support Joe’s response

The ethical theory that best suits Joe’s response is the deontology theory (Fraedrich, Thorne & Ferrell, 1994). This is because of the belief that morality is always the responsibility and duty of everyone. If Bill’s invitation is justified as a means to an end, then the theory is the most appropriate for the response to the invitation. The invitation is bound to bring good business and in the end promote ethical values for all parties involved and also in the environment.

Why the theory

The theory is based on rights as well as duties and respects individuals or parties as ends. Intentions are more valuable rather than the outcome of actions and focuses on the duties, obligations and rules (Fraedrich, Thorne & Ferrell, 1994). It has a belief that when faced with life choices, one should operate according to the obligations and responsibility. If Bill’s invitation will be the means to good business, then the responsibility and obligation lies with Joe to either accept or not. It involves doing what reason requires as long as the policies involved are consistent and not self-contradicting.  Sometimes people act the way they do because of the responsibilities and obligations bestowed upon them.

Different views

People have different views that oppose the opinion mentioned. Some would say that every individual has the responsibility to do the right thing no matter the situation they find themselves in. Some think that the right ways should be followed no matter how good the deal may be (Freeman, 1999). In some situations, conflicts of interest may occur between the parties involved, which can be very hard to resolve.

How to refute the opposing perspectives

Refuting the opposing perspectives will be using the explanation and providing a justification of the use of the theory. What the opposing side should know is the fact that the theory is based on action. Its virtue is that of positive attitude toward doing one’s moral obligation and duty (Whetstone, 2001).

If there is a compromise or creative solution to this problem

There is a compromise rather than a creative solution to the problem. There is a compromise because the outcomes of the actions chosen are not considered or do not have any value. Every action has a consequence. There should be a consequence of every action and every correct moral response should produce a good result. A correct moral response should be related to a good outcome and the vice versa should be true.

Why it is feasible

Intentions of individuals are diverse and objective to serve the purpose of existence in a competing business world. Two individuals can have contradicting intentions, which could lead to conflicts that may be impossible to resolve. Outcomes of actions should therefore, be put into consideration. By so doing, every individual will be careful to choose those actions that will have a positive result. As much as one adheres to obligations and duties, ethical considerations as well as outcomes should also be considered.


Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of management review, 19(2), 252-284.

Fraedrich, J., Thorne, D. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1994). Assessing the application of cognitive moral development theory to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 13 (10), 829-838.

Freeman, H. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233-236.

Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 101-114.