代写论文：迈克尔案例理论
第一个适用于迈克尔案例的理论是康德的伦理学，特别是“绝对命令”。按照绝对的必要性，康德说，人们应该只根据一种格言行事，在这种格言下人们可以同时将行为变成普遍规律。将这一理论运用到迈克尔的案例中，可以看出他不应该更深入地评估他的老板给出的文件，因为他的行为不适合成为普遍的法律。如果这种偷窃未经许可并利用机密和私人信息为自己的进步而采取的行动成为普遍法律，道德可能会在业务中过时（Donaldson，Werhane和Van Zandt，2008）。整个商业世界都可能通过盗用私人信息的不道德行为来破坏自己。因此，运用康德伦理学的理论，似乎迈克尔不应该进一步服从他的上司的命令，因为这种行为并不适合成为普遍的法律。
代写论文：迈克尔案例理论
适用于迈克尔案例的第二个理论是功利主义。按照这个理论，人们必须采取行动，以便行动的结果最终成为大多数人的最佳选择。这一理论最大化了幸福和所有人的总体利益，不论人们应该采取什么样的行为（Whetstone，2007）。做大多数人的最好的事情必须是所有众生行为的唯一目标。将这个理论运用到迈克尔的案例中，可以看出他不能服从他的老板的命令，因为他的服从不利于竞争对手，其文件被老板偷走。未经合法所有者许可的情况下窃取私人信息和机密信息并不会产生更多人。因为避免不道德的行为以及可以保留其机密和隐私信息的竞争对手，因此对行为的反思可以证明迈克尔的快乐，因为他可以通过避免不道德行为而感到内疚。因此，按照功利主义，这种行为没有被接受，因为行为本身不应该让更多人开心，相反却使得竞争对手，迈克尔，甚至是他的老板都不高兴（菲利普斯，2003年）。
代写论文：迈克尔案例理论
The first theory to be applied to Michael’s case is Kantian ethics, in particular the “categorical imperative”. As per the categorical imperative, Kant says that one should act only according to a maxim by which one can at the same time will that the action become a universal law. Applying this theory to Michael’s case, it is seen that he must not indulge further into assessing the documents given by his boss, since his act is not suitable to become a universal law. If such actions of stealing without permission and using confidential and private information for one’s own progress become a universal law, ethics could become obsolete in business (Donaldson, Werhane and Van Zandt, 2008). The whole business world could destroy itself by unethical acts of stealing private information. Hence, applying the theory of Kantian ethics, it seems that Michael should not indulge further in obeying the orders of his boss, because the act is not remotely suitable to become a universal law.
代写论文：迈克尔案例理论
The second theory to be applied to Michael’s case is Utilitarianism. As per this theory, one must act in such a way that the results of the actions culminate into the most good for most number of people. This theory maximises happiness and the general good of all, irrespective of the conditions under which one is supposed to act (Whetstone, 2007). Doing most good of most people must be the sole aim of all acts of sentient beings. Applying this theory to Michael’s case, it is seen that he must not obey the orders of his boss because his obeying will not do good to the competitor, the documents of which is stolen by his boss. Stealing something private and confidential without permission of the legitimate owner does not produce well of more number of people. Refraining from the act can prove Michael’s happiness owing to less guilt he would feel by avoiding the unethical act and also of the competitor who can retain its confidential and private information. Hence, as per Utilitarianism, such acts do not find any acceptance because the act itself is not supposed to make more people happy but on the contrary make the competitor and Michael and perhaps even his boss a little unhappy (Phillips, 2003).
