For this assignment, create a PowerPoint presentation that describes the content and activities that are part of your hypothetical ethics workshop. In addition to submitting your PowerPoint presentation in this assignment, you will post it in a discussion for this unit so your fellow learners can provide feedback.
For the assignment in the next unit, you will revise your PowerPoint presentation in response to the feedback you receive from other learners and your instructor. In that assignment, you also will record an introduction to the workshop based on the content of the PowerPoint presentation.
Your PowerPoint presentation for this assignment must include at least one slide for each of the following elements:
The title of the workshop.
Target audience.
Goals of the workshop.
An outline of the content and activities for the workshop, including time frames.
A list of sources and references for further study.
An outline of facilitated small group discussions in which participants use case studies to:
Apply ethical expectations and models to decision making.
Evaluate the difference between the personal lens and the ethical obligations of the profession.
An examination of how the information presented will meet the goals of the workshop.
Use the PowerPoint Notes feature to include additional talking points you would use as a presenter speaking to the PowerPoint slides.
Assignment Requirements
Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.
APA formatting: Headings, references, and citations are formatted according to current APA style and formatting.
Length of PowerPoint presentation: 12-15 PowerPoint slides.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
1. Deontological Ethics – a philosophy that relies on duties and principles as bases for making ethical decisions also so called deontology
2. Deontological Ethics is a branch of ethical study that asserts that ethical choices arise from personal allegiance to principles that are relatively unchanging and on-going.
3. Immanuel Kant is a noted German Philosopher of the 18th century known for the principle of the “categorical imperative”. Kantians hold that moral laws are often internalized in the human conscience, providing access to ethical principles
4. The Categorical Imperative is the principle that an ethical decision applied to one person should be able to be applied equally to everyone, with few exceptions.
5. Additionally people should not be treated as means to an end. This suggests that a fundamental decision made about one member of a group ought to be “universalizable”. Nor should people decide moral questions on the bases of convenience or self-interest.
6. “Universalizable” means that the guiding principle is to be applied equally to all members of society.
7. Any deviations from this would need to be established as exceptions
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
What sorts of problems does violence pose for the study of ethics? what sorts of ethical theories condone violence? Is violence just a part of human nature? Draw upon philosophers we have studied ( Plato, Socrates or others) in answering these questions.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
Case Study in Primary care:
One hypothetical case study involves Jim a 54, year old patient who has recently diagnose with hypertension and his Creatinine and BUN laboratory results are elevated, if left untreated, will result in kidney failure. The patient refuses to take the medication because he said it will affect his sex life The NP must work with the patient to respect the fact that he doesn’t want the medication (autonomy), and needs to find a solution that would prevent him from going into kidney failure and other complications, which is in his best interest (beneficence). Although medications are the best choice, forcing the patient to accept the medication will result in probably patient leaving the care (non-maleficence). Finally, the NP needs to consider the impact that the patient’s choices might have on others if he starts to go into preventable kidney failure, he’ll need dialysis, which affects other people who need the same treatment (justice). So before making the final decision the NP must consider all four principles of health care ethics, which will help the NP make the choice that will have the best possible benefits for both the patient and society.
Questions?
1- What are the skills necessary for the provider to identify, address, and assess this clinical ethical issue?
2- What are the provider’s obligations when a patient discloses does he not intent to follow the treatment?
3- What are the ethical considerations in evaluating a patient’s failure to adhere to a prescribed therapy?
4- Will you terminate care for this patient? What are the implications?
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
1. Identify the profession you work in or aspire to work in, and explain why this field or occupation should or should not be viewed as a “profession”. 50 pts.
(Use this same profession to answer the questions below. If your field is NOT a profession, see my “Taco Bell clerk” explanation below.)
2. Does this profession/field have a universal standard or code of conduct? Is there more than one code? Is there a certifying agency or governing body that can discipline you for an ethical violation? As a professional in this field, where would you look to seek ethical guidance or advice if you faced a problem? 50 pts.
3. Suppose a person violates an ethical code. How are ethics in this field enforced? Is there a regulator/prosecutor/enforcer? A system of due process, court system or hearing process? Explain the process whether formal or informal. 50 pts.
4. What is your relationship with the public in this profession? Are you bound by any particular duties of care or confidentiality? Do you have duties that extend beyond your client to include public safety or environmental safety? Explain. 50 pts.
5. Other than the dilemma in question six (6) below, identify at least two ethical dilemmas/issues/protocols a professional in this field may experience or confront at some point during their career. Explain how to avoid the pitfalls or deal with the issues. 50 pts.
6. Your supervisor, boss, powerful client, OR governing authority (whatever is most applicable) orders, hires OR instructs (whatever applies) you to do something that you believe MIGHT be unethical (you’re not sure). Do you blindly follow the order/instructions? Suppose you check the code/rules and find the code/rule ITSELF to be unethical? Explain how you might deal with these problems. 50 pts.
You have six pages total to write your answer: 1 title page, 4 pages for the body, and 1 page for notes/references. The paper should follow the general format explained in the syllabus (the one we’ve been using over the six week term). Your answer should be supported by materials in the text, readings, and other sources you deem relevant or necessary.
As you should expect at this point, I probably did not give you enough space to answer all these questions. You are going to have to select the things you believe to be most important, and try to get the “most bang for your buck” (as the saying goes). Try to at least answer the core of each question prior to expanding your answer with support and details. You can’t hang branches unless you have a trunk and you cannot hang leaves without the branches. Try to organize your thoughts and back up your opinions and conclusions using authority.
If you are planning to be a clerk at Taco Bell after you graduate, that’s okay. I would suggest, however, that you not use that as your primary example for this final exam. Go ahead and use Taco Bell, but move your focus to a professional level, like business executive for Taco Bell Corporate. You can mingle in relationships with customers at the level of clerk, but I expect you to be able to utilize material that will make the questions above relevant. Contact me if you have any specific questions.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
Directions: Produce an original, cogent argument using any one of the choices below as your starting point. Impress us with your ability to locate and incorporate relevant ‘secondary sources’, i.e. reasonably current philosophy journal articles into your work.
A1. Green, “When is ‘Everyone’s Doing It’ a Moral Justification?”
A2. Davis, “Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing”
A3. Moore, “What is Really Unethical about Insider Trading?”
A4. Hoffman, “Business and Environmental Ethics”
Length: 6 – 8 double-spaced pages
Primary source: As indicated in the choice
Secondary sources: 4 – 6 (see Rule 2a)
Required method of citation: MLA style, but include a separate title page (see Rule 4b) Due:
24 Mar; Deadline: 26 Mar, 4.00p (see esp. Rule 8)
Lateness deduction: 10% per solar day, until both versions are in (see Rule 7)
The Rules
1. General. Develop an original, textually informed, and philosophical (vs. literary, historical, scientific, religious, etc.) response to any ONE of the choices indicated above. Your ‘assessment’ (see Rule 4a) should take the form of a cogent or sound argument. FYI, the premises in a sound argument guarantee the truth of their conclusion, but in a cogent one they establish only that their conclusion is likely.
2. Evidence. a) Two sorts are required: primary (= the author(s) and reading(s) indicated in the question) and secondary (= scholarship in related research literature). For 100-level courses, you are expected to include three to five secondary sources in addition to the primary one(s); for 200- level courses, it’s four to six. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, webpages (even those by university professors), newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, and the like are prohibited because they carry little to no weight, at least when compared to peer-reviewed articles written by experts in the particular field of research – and that’s why you’ll lose marks if you include them.
b) Many students get quite angry when they realize – inevitably too late to do anything about it – that if they’d only remembered this Rule 2 they could’ve avoided losing all those marks under the ‘quality of research’ parameter (see Rule 5 below). Your paper constitutes a research task whose leeway while considerable does not extend so far as to permit you to include in your supporting evidence what has here been categorically defined as out of bounds, or to exclude what has here been required. Think long and hard about this: It’s a big part of my job to make scholarly demands of you and an even bigger part of yours to do everything in your power to fulfil them. This rule in no way precludes you from surprising us with your inventiveness in fulfilling those expectations.
3. Length. For 100-level courses, four to six double-spaced pages in a no-nonsense font (e.g. Times New Roman 12) and 1″ margins all around; for 200-level, the page count is six to eight. (See illustration in Rule 4c below.)
4. Format. (a) First half of paper = analysis, description; all your ‘research’ is to be confined to this half, including explanations and/or examples of points expressed in the primary material; secondary sources are often quite helpful for this purpose. Second half of paper = assessment, evaluation; your own argument is restricted to this half. Because ‘your own argument’ = your point plus your reasons, if you agree with A’s argument then it falls to you to say why you think A’s reasons are such good ones. If the reporter’s job is to describe things accurately but the editor’s is to express a well-reasoned opinion about something that’s already been reported, then be a reporter in the first half and an editor in the second.
(b) Small but significant tweak. Steal a bit of space from the first half of your paper for a vitally important sub-section: the ‘Abstract’. Divide its 50-word limit into no more than two sentences, one expressing your point and the other expressing your supporting reasons. The abstract is a summary of your own argument (= your intellectual results) rather than about what you’ll be doing in the paper. (If you don’t know what an argument is, find out before you lose lots of marks under the ‘quality of own argument’ parameter just because you didn’t.) In this way, the abstract – in effect a ‘report’ on your own argument – naturally belongs in the first half of your paper. Note that MLA format reserves some space for name, course, title, etc. on the first page of the body; for our purposes, move that information to your title page and use the resulting freed- up space for your abstract. Papers lacking this two-sentence abstract will not earn a grade higher than B+ no matter how excellent they otherwise are; it’s hard work, but once you actually do it you’ll see why it was worth learning how to do.
Abstract
(goof example) In this paper I will argue that X. My main reason is that Y.
In this case, X and Y are statements, and as such it makes sense to ask whether or not they are true, but not whether or not they exist.
compare:
(Bad example) In this paper I will discuss X, which will be compared to Y.
Here, X and Y are subjects or topics but not statements, and as such it might make sense to ask whether or not they exist, but not whether or not they are true. This sort of paper uses words to say things (maybe interesting, maybe not) without ever actually arguing anything. Only an argument even attempts to make a point.
Warning: Any such paper will fail to meet the expectations of this course unless your ‘discussion’ is in fact an argument.
(Bad example) A thinks X. A’s main reason is Y.
This is a descriptive report on A’s argument rather than one of your own. The most that can be said, in this scenario, is that it’s true that something exists – namely that the author’s argument is in fact what you say it is.
Warning: Any such paper will fail to meet the expectations of this course because you are to invent an argument of your own rather than to present someone else’s.
5. Evaluation criteria. Major criterion: Quality of content (80%, divided equally between ‘quality of own argument’ and ‘quality of research’). Minor criterion: Quality of expression (20%), including such things as clarity, substance, conciseness, spelling/grammar, and eloquence; this parameter also covers lots of other things, for instance those pertinent to format (quality of Title page, Works Cited page, and section sub-titles) as well as style of referencing. Evaluation form included below; please attach a duly filled-in copy to the physical version you hand in for formal evaluation.
6. Deductions. Submission of work for credit in this course implies your acceptance of the following:
a) It loses some marks due to lateness. The lateness penalty is 10% per solar day (e.g. from Mon 8.31 a.m. to Tue 8.30 a.m.); note that the lateness clock doesn’t stop ticking just because the University is open when you’re ready to hand in your work: I or my designate (but not a department secretary) must also be physically available to receive it. So: If you miss me because I’m not on campus that day (e.g. Thursdays, Fridays), then you’ve just lost another 10% for each of them. The price clearly goes up very quickly.
b) It loses some marks due to unoriginality. A SafeAssign “matching score” above 25% often indicates that you’re relying too much on others and not enough on yourself. Each additional 5% block beyond the limit (26–30%, 31–35%, etc.) in the body of your paper is subject to an unoriginality penalty of 5%.
c) It loses all marks due to the particular sort of unoriginality known as plagiarism. The crime of ACADEMIC THEFT doesn’t distinguish between ‘not much’ on one hand and ‘too much’ on the other, so correct it before it’s too late to avoid sinking your ship – in this course if not also beyond. The consequences are severe and uncompromising (see FAHSS template for definition). Use your 48-hour penalty-free extension to make any needed adjustments given the feedback from SafeAssign’s “Matching Score” feature. It’s as easy to fix as giving credit where it belongs and thus explains why the penalty for not fixing it is so significant. The due date is preliminary and for a private informational purpose whereas the deadline is final and for a public declaratory one.
7. Completeness. Papers will remain unevaluated (while lateness penalties continue to accrue) until they are complete, and they are not ‘complete’ until they are submitted in two formats: (i) physical, directly to me – or, if for some good reason that is not possible, to my assistant – and (ii) electronic, directly via Blackboard (Resources > ‘Research assignment upload link’; to discover the “Matching” score for yours, upload your file, click ‘Submit’, and wait for your SafeAssign matching score to be returned; it takes a little while, so be patient). It is the later of these two dates/times (physical/electronic) that will count for official ‘submitted by’ purposes. You are advised to check for unoriginality and plagiarism well before the deadline, because after that although you’ll be able to submit your work you’ll not be able to make any needed adjustments to it; in order to check for unoriginality you will need to ensure that your file type (*.docx, *.pdf, etc.) can actually be processed by SafeAssign. Also, you’ll find that any reason along the lines of “But *&^%$#@!, I’ve never used SafeAssign before!” will go absolutely nowhere with me. Always upload your latest version in case of horrifying last-minute computer-related malfunctions, just to be sure you have something on file even if it’s not the final and best response you were able eventually to formulate. Note that physical papers will not be accepted unless they are stapled in the upper left-hand corner: no dog-ears, envelopes, ribbons, or paper clips.
8. Extensions. Everyone gets two no-questions-asked penalty-free days. Don’t confuse the DUE DATE
Page4of 6
and the DEADLINE; the due date/time does not include an extension sufficient to handle all emergencies whether computer-related or not (e.g. morbidity, mortality) that arise in the last two days. That’s why the the time budget stipulated in Rule 6 above includes your having set aside 48 hours to make any needed adjustments to your unoriginality score on SafeAssign. Get started, then, as soon as the choices are published so that you can absorb any delays imposed by the things beyond your control in those last two days – everyone knows they always happen at the worst possible time (the last day or two), so if you plan for them you won’t be devastated. On the plus side, if nothing terribly devastating happens, you’ll be able to improve your work even more given the windfall of two extra days.
If you need more than that, though, you have to pay the lateness fee. Lateness continues until you provide me with a copy of the documentary evidence in support of a compassionate-grounds claim (see FAHSS course outline template).
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
RESPOND IN ONE PAGE:
What are your reactions to Brittany’s choice?
Should this practice be legal?
Imagine if you were Brittany’s loved one. How would you respond? Would you support her decision or try to change her mind?
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
Reflective Log
the ethics of fallacious argumentation: What if we dis- covered that we could manipulate the voting public more effectively by the use of fallacious arguments than by the use of worthy arguments? Consider the political impact of the “death panels” issue described under the Straw Man Fallacy. The entire episode generated more heat than light. And, yet, it may have achieved its political pur- pose. Many who heard and believed that the proposed legislation envisioned a eugenics program akin to that advanced by Nazi Germany showed up at town meetings to vent their anger and voice their objections. If the goal was to delay or derail the Democratic legislative agenda,then the strategy succeeded. This is only one example of using one’s skills at argument making to achieve one’s goals. Defense attorneys who get juries to acquit crimi- nals is another, as are prosecuting attorneys who get juries to convict innocent people accused of crimes. The ethical question for all critical thinkers is: To what pur- poses ought I to put my powerful critical thinking skills? This question is analogous to the question: To what pur- poses ought I to put my college education? These are, in part, ethical questions and, in part, questions about one’s sense of how to make the meaning of one’s life. And what are your answers? Why?
Individual exercise
evaluate argument worthiness and explain—tests 2, 3, and 4: Assume that all the premises that are asserted are true. Apply the remaining three tests to evaluate each argument to see if it is worthy of acceptance. Remember, if the argument fails a test, you do not have to apply any fur- ther tests because at that point the argument is not worthy to be accepted. In each case, give a detailed explanation tosupport your evaluation. State in your own words why the argument is worthy of acceptance, or why it is not a good argument. M07_FACI9661_03_SE_C07.indd 154 12/24/14 2:34 PM 1. When I stop at a traffic light, I hear this funny rattling sound coming from under my car. It is sort of in the middle or maybe toward the back, but definitely toward the front. I only hear it when the car is idling, not when I’m driving along at a reasonable speed. My dad said once that the metal baffles inside a muffler can loosen up if the muffler is old and rusty. He said that a loose baffle makes a rattling sound when it vibrates, like when the engine is idling or when the tires are out of alignment. My muffler is at least nine years old. So, I’m thinking that probably the rattling sound is coming from the muffler. 2. In a perfect world, the government should investigate whether any laws were broken relating to the treatment of wartime detainees. But this is not a perfect world. So, it would be a mistake for the government to engage in such an investigation. 3. Having turned up some new information, a cold case homicide detective interviewed the victim’s husband some years after his wife’s death. The distraught husband said, “I have been praying all these years, asking God to send us something. My wife’s murder could not have been simply a random accident. God would not permit that.”13 4. If God intended marriage for the sole purpose of human reproduction, and if same-sex couples are entirely incapable of human reproduction, then it follows that God did not intend marriage for same- sex couples.
As you all know, there has been a successful Chinese experiment that used a single cell from a laboratory rat to generate a living chimera of that rat. In the chimera, which lived to adulthood, 95 percent of its genetic material was identical to the donor rat. Noted cell biologist Dr. Kastenzakis believes tinkering with nature is just what scientists do. Therefore the Chinese experiment raises no ethical questions and poses no ethical risks. 6. In the past whenever the TV news programs in Chicago ran headline stories featuring a sketch artist’s drawing of a fugitive, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) hotline received over 200 phone calls from people all over the city who said that they spotted the person. Tonight the Chicago TV news programs are going to feature a sketch artist’s drawing of a fugitive whom the police are trying to locate. This will probably yield hundreds of calls on the CPD hotline. 7. Suppose we imagine electricity flowing through wires in the way that water flows through pipes. With this analogy in mind, it would be reasonable to infer that wires that are larger in circumference should be capable of carrying greater electrical loads. 8. Former NFL quarterback James Harris tells a story about how he committed to throwing footballs until his arm hurt. Knowing that the NFL regardedthe down-and-out pass pattern as one of the more difficult passes for the quarterback, Harris visited the local park and, while nobody watched, he tested himself. He targeted a tree and threw at it blindfolded. He knew that if he missed, he would have to walk a long way downfield to pick up the football. And he did miss the first time. So he wondered whether it was a good idea to even try again. But he did try. And when he heard the ball hit the tree that sound gave Harris a ton of confidence.14 9. My client did not intend to use the weapon, and so he is not guilty of armed robbery. Yes, we agree with the prosecution that he committed the robbery. And, yes, we agree that he was carrying a weapon and that he brandished the weapon to intimidate the store clerk and the customers. We agree that the law reads, “Anyone who carries a weapon in the commission of a robbery shall be guilty of armed robbery.” And, yes we admit that he shouted, “Everyone down on the floor or I’ll shoot.” But, and here is the key fact, the weapon was not loaded. He did not have ammunition anyplace on his person or in his possessions. He never intended to use that weapon. And, therefore, the crime that he is guilty of is robbery, but not armed robbery. 10. Look, officer, you can’t arrest me on felony rape charges just because she’s 17 and I’m 21. Yes we had sex. But it was consensual. And anyway, in two weeks she’s going to be 18, and we plan to get married.I like the President’s approach to trade with China, and I haven’t heard anyone give any evidence that his approach is not going to be effective. So, it must be the right thing for our country to do at this time. 12. Not every argument is of equal quality. Therefore, at least one argument is better than at least one other argument. using all four tests, evaluate argument worthiness and explain: Evaluate the following arguments using all four tests, applied in their proper sequence. In each case, give a detailed explanation to support your evaluation. State in your own words why the argument is worthy of accep- tance, or why it is not a good argument. M07_FACI9661_03_SE_C07.indd 155 12/24/14 2:34 PM 1. Being a sports writer offers challenges that writing standard news stories do not. Here’s why. Unlike with standard news stories where the writer is telling the reader something that the reader does not yet know, most of the time the reader knows who won the game before reading your article. Readers probably watched the game on TV. This means a sports writer has to find some angle or some clever and captivating way of telling the story.The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Denver Rocky Mountain News are going to close unless they find a buyer. Same for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Miami Herald. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune may file for bankruptcy. The Los Angeles Times Sunday edition has shrunk to half its former size. And the list of newspapers in financial trouble goes on and on. I think it is safe to say that the newspaper business may be dying. 3. Torturing prisoners of war often results in poor- quality intelligence. Experience has shown that people in pain will say anything to get the pain to stop. The pain can be either physical or psychological—it does not matter. People crack under the pressure of an experienced interrogator using torture methods. So, we cannot trust the information that comes from that source. 4. Torturing prisoners is against the Geneva Conventions, but it can be a useful means of gathering potentially valuable intelligence. There have been cases where the information given to us by prisoners who have been repeatedly waterboarded, for example, has turned out to be correct. Therefore, we are justified in using torture on prisoners even if our laws explicitly prohibit such methods.More than transferring genes from one organism to another, biologists have successfully engineered synthetic chromosomes into yeast, replacing 16 original chromosomes.15 Our species now knows how to alter the DNA of living cells using synthetically manufactured chromosomes. Synthetic bio-engineering makes possible new biofuels, new medicines, and other genetic improvements.Therefore this landmark scientific achievement is a very good thing. 6. Morethantransferringgenesfromoneorganism to another, biologists have successfully engineered synthetic chromosomes into yeast, replacing 16 original chromosomes. Our species now knows how to alter the DNA of living cells using synthetically manufactured chromosomes. Synthetic bio-engineering is tampering with nature in a way that goes beyond all previous methods. Nobody knows what damage might be done to our species and to other animals and plants. Therefore this landmark scientific recklessness is a very bad thing.should duI homicide be prosecuted as murder? What do you think? A prosecuting attorney in New York is bringing charges of murder against individuals who have killed other people while driving under the influence. The attorney argues that everyone understands that driving while under the influence poses risks for the driver and for other people, including the risk of a fatal accident. The statutes provide for charges of “depraved indifference” when one’s behavior results in the unintended but fore- seeable death of another human being. Defense attorneys argue, among other things, that the laws pertaining to murder were never intended to be applied in this way. The debate was captured by CBS’s 60 Minutes in a segment that aired on August 2, 2009. Search “Should DUI Homicide be Prosecuted as Murder 60 Minutes” to locate and watch that segment. Map out the reasoning for both sides of this debate. Evaluate the reasoning using the four tests for evaluating arguments. After completing your evaluation, present your own reasoned views on the matter.
In 2014, The AICPA issued a revised Code of Professional Conduct which are standards that outline a certified public accountant’s ethical and professional responsibilities. Choose one of the general standards of the Code and discuss why it
is important for the accounting profession to uphold this standard.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
Because of recent financial disasters in the news, the board of directors of your company decided that they wanted to ascertain that the organization’s code of ethics was appropriate and in agreement with the Code of Professional Conduct (CPC) as adopted by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Therefore, you have been asked to provide this assurance with a report to the CFO of your organization.
Create a report of 3–5 pages including the following:
State what you assess to be the primary purpose of each of the 6 principles.
Analyze the codes of conduct of at least 3 major public U.S. companies.
Include citations for each of these companies’ codes of conduct.
Identify connections and relationships of the principles included.
Explain how the 6 principles relate to those identified in your analysis of the codes of conduct of the 3 chosen companies.
Prepare a recommended list of at least 7 essential elements that must be included in your organization’s code of conduct based on your analysis and assessment.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
