violations occurring in the past year. If the full significance of being relevant is that the
code responds to last years violations, then the department head must assume that those
violations will be representative of all the kinds of ethics problems that concern the
department. This is unlikely; in addition, thinking so produces an oddly short-sighted
idea of relevance.
Such a narrow conception of the relevance of an ethics code points up its
weakness. The strength of an ethics code lies in its capacity to cover many different
instances of the general kinds of behavior thought to be unethical to cover not only last
years specific violations, but those of previous years and years to come. Yet this author
explicitly rejects a comprehensive code, preferring the existing code because it is
relevant and not in abstract anticipation of potential violations.
In sum, this argument is naive, vague and poorly reasoned. The department head
has not given careful thought to the connection between rules and their enforcement, to
what makes an ethics code relevant, or to how comprehensiveness strengthens a code.
In the final analysis, he adopts a backwards view that a history of violations should
【GMAT考试写作指导:Argument范文七二】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02