A principle is an essential truth, rule or theory while consequences are something that happens as a result of a deed. It is the result of an undertaking. Ethically, it is right to base one’s judgments on principles rather than on the consequences of a certain undertaking. The claim that one has the right to do something means that the person has the freedom to do what he/she wishes and no one can stand on his/her way. When a particular deed is considered as a right on, it means that there is nothing wrong in doing this. Enjoying the right to do something, one may harm the others. Meanwhile, the consequences of doing something that is right are positive. Social responsibility is a sort of principle that makes us to perform in a way that benefits the society. It, thus, dictates us which decisions we should take. Individual responsibility makes an emphasis on individualism, which states that the individual has a control over his life and doings. It appreciates the fact that every individual is capable of making the decisions concerning the affairs of his/her life. Individuals have a responsibility of ensuring that everything they undertake is of befit to the society since they themselves are a part of it, and the society should also ensure that whatever it does, it benefits an individual. Moral values come from our animal awareness of what is helpful and harmful. This is because everything that is helpful is good and brings benefit while things that are harmful are bad and are condemned by society. Thus, with our awareness of bad and good, we are able to act morally. Obedience can be viewed as both a virtue and as a sin. As a virtue, it implies that one devotes himself or herself to doing something that does not contravene the laws of the society; or not doing something that is of harm to anyone. Otherwise, obedience would be deemed sinful. When it comes to basic principles, compromise is not an option. Compromise is not acceptable in what concerns moral issues, matters of genuineness of facts, or convictions.
In a free market an individual dictates what he/she wants to do, what he/she prefers, and how, when and where to produce goods. The free market with its intentional teamwork between persons for mutual advantage is the embodiment of legitimate, accountable behavior. There are limits for operating on a free market if the dealings put the lives of the people at risk. Such limits need to be created by passing laws governing them and stipulating consequences that come as a result of going past the limits. Self-interest to some extent is the driving force behind business and politics. Self-interest is not the only one force behind politics and business. Passion and the need to serve a society are among other driving forces. In addition, the need to bring a change could be another factor that motivates people. Private property is not an absolute moral right because privatizing something means that other people are denied the right of accessing that thing. The private property could have been privatized for selfish gains. The process of corporate decision-making need to be a democratic one, since it implies that everyone in the corporation is involved in arriving at a conclusion. An employees’ inventions are their own property and not a property of a company. This is because employees are not hired to come up with inventions but rather to do specific duties. Thus, whatever inventions the workers make, they definitely own them. It is permissible to deceive in advertising if the information given does not put lives of customers at risk or goes against the set rules and regulations.
It would be wise to lift the legislative restrictions, which keep companies from Alaska’s petroleum production, under the condition that the companies or bodies responsible would be accountable for the conservation of the environment by avoiding the petroleum spills and ensuring the use of the proper machinery. Another one is that the extraction of petroleum must be of societal benefit and not individual. Hiring and acceptance should be based on individual considerations since in such a case the acceptance on the basis of one's race, gender or class is eliminated.
There are cases, when the employer aims to produce something unsafe or ignores the negative impacts the production has on the environment or he neglect the fact that the employees’ lives are put at risk. Then it would be necessary to sacrifice an employee’s own comfort and security within an organization.
An employee should claim moral ownership of the company message she or he delivers since she or he is the originator of the message and is the one with the skills of doing this while the company just uses the employee’s skills in crafting. If the employee does not claim the ownership, then the company claims it to be its property.