Reference no: EM131276249
Answers for those comments
1) A utility ethic that is raised in the situation that Jim has created, is that of rule-utilitarianism. However, before beginning any discussion of Jim's actions as they relate to utilitarianism, we must acknowledge that the perceptions of utility and justice vary greatly from culture to culture to culture and from situation to situation. Utilitarianism asks people to look beyond self-interest and to consider the greater good, but a person's opinion of ‘good' will vary as not everybody agrees on the value of money, kindness, and happiness, disagreements that are only compounded across cultures and societies (Santa Clara University, 2014). However, for the sake of simplicity it is best to assume that Jim, his wife, and his company share Western values.
Jim is encountering issues related to utilitarianism. Rule-Utilitarianism focuses on codes of conduct that achieve the greatest utility if followed (Seven Oaks Philosophy, n.d.). Immediately however, an argument can be mounted in Jim's defense. The argument might go that, "by not following the rules (against stealing), Jim is providing a greater amount of utility for himself and for his family than would be provided to a large company if he hadn't stolen $15,000 worth a merchandise which might be a small amount for a company." A strong rebuttal might come from Immanuel Kant. Kant asks that people consider an act to be ethical only if it would be rational for everybody to commit this act (Johnson, 2016). As it would irrational to imagine a society wherein everybody is allowed to steal, Jim is clearly acting unethically. Along this line of thought is the entire idea of Utility Ethics which requires people to consider the well-being of the group and to balance the common good against self-interest (Nathanson, n.d.). So, while the argument for Jim says that by stealing $15,000 worth of items, he is achieving a greater amount of utility for his family than that amount would provide to a company, he does so at the cost to his own virtues and those of society (if everybody acted as he does). Therefore, rule-utilitarianism would suggest that following the rules against stealing would achieve the greatest utility for the greatest number of people.
References:
Johnson, R. (2016). Kant's Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp.
Nathanson, S. (n.d.) Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
Santa Clara University. (2014, August 1). Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/.
Seven Oaks Philosophy. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Retrieved from https://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ethics/consequentialism.html.
2) To fully understand the situation John has subjected himself and his family to, one must first examine the definition and meaning of utility ethics or utilitarianism as it relates to business organizations and peoples behaviors. Utility ethics as described by the Business Dictionary is "an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain). Since the link between actions and their happy or unhappy outcomes depends on the circumstances, no moral principle is absolute or necessary in itself under utilitarianism"(Business Dictionary, 2016).
Based on the example of John stealing high end televisions and re-selling them for his own personal profit or "bonus" is act utilitarianism. John believes that his act is producing the greatest good for the largest number of people-him and his family- as opposed to rule utilitarianism where the moral correctness of his act of stealing depends on the correctness of the rules that produces the greatest good. Working with a company for 10 years, receiving a promotion, and making 60K per year is not enough for John. Instead of bettering his education or speaking with management of how he can increase salary or job title, John took matters into his own hands. Stealing from a company not only breaks laws and trust between the employer and employee but it is also ethically wrong on every level. A utilitarian may view John's actions as justified as it was helping him and his family pay bills and meet living expenses but more people were put at a detriment than those prospering from his actions. Lets say John's family consisted of him, his wife, and two children totaling 4 people receiving the greatest good or happiness from his stealing. Now lets consider the company he is stealing from. Hundreds of employees will be effected via potential pay decreases and loss in jobs and benefits to cover the amount stolen. Another issue to consider is has John been doing this for a long period of time where the stealing started at small unnoticeable monetary amounts and he moved to large ticket items upon his promotion?
Business Dictionary. (2016). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html
Santa Clara University. (2014, August 1). Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/.
Business Ethics. (2005). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://ww2.it.nuigalway.ie/staff/h_melvin/prof_skill/L2_handout.pdf
3) We have been exploring the term ‘utilitarianism' for quite some time now. It is no secret that understanding utility ethics requires impartiality and objectivity. Moreover, utilitarianism calls for sensitivity on part of the researcher. What is perceived by Jess Galarza as right or wrong, might be far from what you believe as right or wrong, and the other way around. I dare to say that, to some degree, it is simple common civility.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines utilitarianism as ‘the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people'. In simple words, doing what is believed right in benefit of the majority. This week, the professor has given us the opportunity to analyze the courageous decision of AirXYZ jet mechanic--- I will call her Julia--- and the benefits and costs following her actions. For this task, I have decided to use the Best Outcome or Utility Test, presented by ethicsops.com.
Introduce the Test
By ways of this test, we will discover if Julia (and management) actions benefit or minimize harm to those affected.
Validity
Both the airline and customers count the same. Also, the investors and all other third parties. At the end of the day, they all want to be happy (by making a profit, or by arriving safely to their respective destinations). The right thing to do is what produces the best outcome for the majority.
Apply the Test
1. Alternative actions and those affected- The alternatives are to inform the FAA regarding the electrical problem, or not. Those affected are the airline (employees and owners/operators, etc.), customers, shareholders and any cities where this airline operates.
2. Benefits and costs of each alternative-
Alternative 1: Inform the FAA- If management decided to inform FAA and voluntarily ground an entire fleet of planes, a disastrous accident could be prevented and profit would increase in the long run. Furthermore, company will make sure ALL its planes are in top condition, increasing sales and greatly improving reputation. Stakeholders and cities of operations will also benefit from this outcome--more planes tickets equal more money equal happiness. Also, customers will be happy knowing there are flying and supporting a safe airline-- arriving at their destinations on time and in harmless ways. Lastly, employees will most likely work more (particularly those like Julia), however, safe and fully functional planes will generate a profitable company, consequently establishing steady and promising jobs for current and future staff.
Alternative 2: Not inform the FAA- If Julia and management decided NOT to inform the FAA all planes will continue to operate, making an immediate profit for company, stakeholders and cities. However, in the long run, those affected planes will collapse---obliging the company to spend money on needed repairs and maybe additional repairs and intensive maintenance. Customers will fly unsafe planes, hoping to arrive at destinations unharmed---limiting peace of mind and increasing stress. All this will affect the company reputation and sales, consequently affecting employees and their families.
3. Action with the greatest net benefit- Informing the FAA will provide the greatest benefit for all affected.
4. Action as policy for similar situations- Julia's actions of informing management and FAA is what we need as policy for all airline companies.
By implementing an "inform all issues, no matter what" policy, we promote better and safer air travel.
Conclusion
Management could argue alternative 2 is best alternative as it provides immediate profit and, to some degree, happiness to the company, stakeholders, and cities. However, it is very clear alternative 1 observes the greatest benefit for all involved parties, both in the short and long run.
I personally am very proud of Julia. She looked over the immediate issue and decided what she thought more beneficial to all affected parties, embracing utility ethics to its best. She is proved to be the perfect example of what the article "Calculating Consequences" (2014) refers as ‘selfless utilitarian'.
BZ Julia!
References
Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. (2014, August 1). Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/
Utilitarianism. (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2016, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilitarianism
4) Negative utilitarianism is defined in Wikipedia as "morally right and morally wrong actions depend solely on the consequences for overall well-being" (n.d). For this reason, John exhibits the negative utilitarianism as his actions do not benefit the greatest number of people. In this scenario it's not about the well-being of everyone. It's only about John and his family. Morally he knows it's wrong but has chosen to only focus on the profit he will make in stealing from his company. Despite the fact that his wife is not onboard with his actions he still continues to do what he feels is best. "Calculating Consequences," states "utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected" (2014). Although John and his customers who purchase the items from him at a lower price will benefit from the stolen property, the reality is no one else will. His actions will do much more harm than good. There are long term repercussions that he has negated to take into consideration. If he continues this behavior he will be hurting his family, the company, employees and the community. In the long run, if the company continues to lose revenue they may be force to mark up the merchandise to cover their ongoing loss or close the company doors which will hurt the community and employees. If he's caught stealing the owners will begin to have a lack of trust in their employees and John will lose his job. He may also have to face a potential jail sentence and the embarrassment of his actions will hurt his family. Therefore, John's inability to evaluate the greatest benefit for the majority of the limited few will cause a "greater number" of unhappiness rather than happiness (Seven Oaks Philosophy, n.d).
Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. (2014, August 1) Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Retrieved from: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/
Negative Utilitarianism. (n.d). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism
Seven Oaks Philosophy. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Retrieved from https://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ethics/consequentialism.html.
5) To fully understand the situation John has subjected himself and his family to, one must first examine the definition and meaning of utility ethics or utilitarianism as it relates to business organizations and peoples behaviors. Utility ethics as described by the Business Dictionary is "an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness (absence of pain), and wrong if it ends in unhappiness (pain). Since the link between actions and their happy or unhappy outcomes depends on the circumstances, no moral principle is absolute or necessary in itself under utilitarianism"(Business Dictionary, 2016).
Based on the example of John stealing high end televisions and re-selling them for his own personal profit or "bonus" is act utilitarianism. John believes that his act is producing the greatest good for the largest number of people-him and his family- as opposed to rule utilitarianism where the moral correctness of his act of stealing depends on the correctness of the rules that produces the greatest good. Working with a company for 10 years, receiving a promotion, and making 60K per year is not enough for John. Instead of bettering his education or speaking with management of how he can increase salary or job title, John took matters into his own hands. Stealing from a company not only breaks laws and trust between the employer and employee but it is also ethically wrong on every level. A utilitarian may view John's actions as justified as it was helping him and his family pay bills and meet living expenses but more people were put at a detriment than those prospering from his actions. Lets say John's family consisted of him, his wife, and two children totaling 4 people receiving the greatest good or happiness from his stealing. Now lets consider the company he is stealing from. Hundreds of employees will be effected via potential pay decreases and loss in jobs and benefits to cover the amount stolen. Another issue to consider is has John been doing this for a long period of time where the stealing started at small unnoticeable monetary amounts and he moved to large ticket items upon his promotion?
Business Dictionary. (2016). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html
Santa Clara University. (2014, August 1). Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/calculating-consequences-the-utilitarian-approach/.
Business Ethics. (2005). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://ww2.it.nuigalway.ie/staff/h_melvin/prof_skill/L2_handout.pdf
6) In my opinion, the utility ethics that John used is consequentialism that "whichever action leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" (Consequentialism, 2016). John acted to ensure his family is financially secured that leads to happiness for the entire family. Further, in the case of John, he is not concern about the moral implication and justifying his action for "compensation for all the stuff [he does]" at work (Module 3, Week 1 Discussion). Further, John does realize that his action of stealing from the company and shareholders is morally wrong, however, John uses the consequentialism to justify his actions to his wife and himself. A "normative system providing a standard by which an individual ought to act and by which the existing practices of society, including its moral code" can be applied to a type of utilitarianism which John did not take into consideration in making the decision to steal from the company (West, 2016). This is also dependent, in my opinion, on the account that no one has knowledge of his un-ethical actions. I would argue if the company has knowledge of his actions, a significant number of people will be un-happy. If this is factored into consideration, then in my opinion his action is not of utilitarianism if he applied this basic concept.
Secondly, in another perspective or angle, John "in any circumstances choose to do what maximizes utility and [he] will have done what is right" base on utilitarianism (Consequentialism, 2016). Specifically, the "only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce" as seen by John (Act and Rule Utilitarianism, 2016). As his job is identified as a low-level managerial possession, assuming that he does the same work as the other managers does makes sense regarding to his action to close the salary gap with his peers. Looking into the perspective of the company, applying utilitarianism, the company's action justified John's wage by affording John to prosper within the company even though he only has a high school degree. My assumption is that other Managers will have a bachelor's degree or higher education to fill these possessions warrant a higher wage. To conclude, not factoring the moral and ethical dilemma; John made his decision to secure his happiness and to maximize his wage in line with other manager by applying utilitarianism.
References:
Act and Rule of Utilitarianism. (2016). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
Consequentialism. (2016). Seven Oaks Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ethics/consequentialism.html
Utilitarianism. (2016). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from
https://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html