Moral Rights Model Nike
The topic of this essay would be the ethical dilemma faced by the manager of the sports apparel chain on the use of Nike merchandise based on the news of intimidation of workers using armed soldiers. (Roberts 2013) The factory in Indonesia is intimidating workers with military presence to sign a minimum wage exemption. The course of action that will be taken on the topic will be to use the Moral rights model (Waddell, Jones and George 2011, 184) over come this issue. I will cover the aspects of the Moral rights model in contrast with the Nike code of conduct and the implications to the sports apparel chain’s Nike merchandise. Firstly the three various models to determine if a decision is ethical are Utilitarian, Moral Rights and Justice model. (Waddell, Jones and George 2011, 184) These models would be discussed in relation to the case at hand and narrowed down to a specific model. The discussion of ethical decision-making that can be argued is rooted in us based our understanding of it, which is supported by Korsgaard (2012, 182) as rational beings we act in representations or conceptions of laws. Secondly the premise on which the moral rights model is based on will be dissected and analysed. People have the freedom to do with their lives as they wish which is supported by Velasquez et al. (1996, 2) What makes humans different from mere things is the dignity based on the ability to choose freely. The Moral rights model sets out to protect the people affected by it based on ethical decision making however Langlois (2002, 479) argues that human rights means different things to different people. Thirdly Nike’s code of conduct that is in alignment with the Moral rights model and states Freedom, Compensation and Healthy work environment (Nike Inc 2010) are to be abided with. The “Fair Trade” label requires a more collective implementation is required according to Low and Davenport (2009, 97). Leslie (2007, 52) states that leaders should embrace fair trade. The