Utilitarianism In Business Ethics

FAIR is an acronym for Facts, Access, Impacts and Respect. For Business Communication to be Ethical, it must pass the FAIR Test. The FAIR test helps you examine how well you have provided the facts how well you have granted access to your motives and how well you approach respect towards others and how it impacts them as well. According to Cardon (2013), and with the concept of the FAIR approach, it deals with how well and factual communication is, deals with how well facts are presented, how well presented the relevant facts are, and wants to know if any information is misleading. With access, it deals with how well or accessible are someones motives, reasoning, and information.

Unfortunately, there are may self-centered individuals who only care about themselves and how much they can benefit from a decision, regardless of how it will affect others. Some examples of this could be someone who takes part in insider trading and someone who take part in collusion where they solely receive financial

As described above, the main purpose for the article written by both authors is to introduce and makes further discussion and argument on how sustainable marketing create values and importance in the consumers perception and its society. According to this article, the writer argues that there is a new era which is emerging and he is referring to this era as Marketing 3.0 (Jones, Peter, et al. 125). In this era, marketing is a value driven process where people are not viewed as target consumers based on demographic factors. Instead, they are considered as intelligent and thoughtful partners who have emotions, spiritual values and feelings.

People choose their governments and they should operate the economy and practice its power to maintain a stable growth of business and balance the income between poor and rich. In conclusion, Friedman fights for the concepts of the soulless capitalism and shows that the benefit of the people is increasing the profits. In contrast, Colin disagrees with Friedman and argues that the arguments of Friedman do not reflect the reality how corporations act and their independence of the society is a huge logical mistake Friedman presents. Business ethics is a window dressing by corporations to advertise their brands and attract people to buy their products; a corporation can act ethically just to hide its real intentions of maximizing

Ethics is a moral principle or value that comes within our everyday life. It is the study of standard behavior, which promotes human welfare and “the good”. Business behavior is the most important concern for business ethics because unethical behaviors may damage a business’s status and name. Ethics is not based on our feelings or following the laws. Rather, it is based on standards at which we guide our behaviors and determine what should be done and what shouldn’t.

By using utilitarian moral principles we can argue the case from a different perspective. Utilitarianism holds that an action that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. As long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone. Utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion when holds a greater outcome for many. This theory creates controversy in business ethics in case of this corporation’s obligations to society.

ABSTRACT The long term success of the investors not only depends on the narrow financial performance of the companies of whom share they buy but also on their efficiency to manage the ethical questions that will result in image of the company. Many organizations and business investors take this responsible investment as an obligation but with the changing industry scenario and with many Gen Y employees and owners entering the market this responsible investment is actually becoming the core value of the company and also the key reason for the sustainability and brand building of the company. The purpose of this paper is to view the following points: • Statistics on shareholders and investors preferring ethical/responsible investment • Instances of organization’s who invested in unethical industries and there consequences • How can ethical investment contribute to organizational sustainability

In fact, denying climate change will only harm society and the Earth further; because by denying it, those who deny climate change are willingly aiding the damage and the danger climate change brings. Climate change is denied is due to the prioritization of business and the economy. Large corporations create their products with uncostly materials, in order to profit more, and those materials are more-often-than-not non-renewable resources or cause damage to the Earth. These corporations prefer to not be targeted with accusations of the unethical damage they are causing. Therefore, they create propaganda against climate change, they create doubt among their customers.

Actions delivers consequences Luck is a phenomenon present in our lives in very different ways, so much so that it is not easy to imagine a world without it. But, even so, it seems that when it comes to making moral judgments about the actions or beliefs of other people we want to find ways to neutralize it. Our main guide is the purpose of being fair to those we judge and, therefore, we want to set aside what does not strictly depend on them, aspiring to eliminate any possible distortion of this goal. However, the nature of luck is such that it makes it difficult to neutralize it in any sphere of human life.

Reflected in many of the most important policy decisions of today is the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral idea that “what is right (or a duty) is whatever maximizes the total amount of net utility.” Utilitarianism, at the time of its introduction, was a revolutionary moral philosophy. This is because utilitarianism underscores the idea that the consequences of a person’s actions are the most morally significant. So it is not the agent’s well-being that is morally significant, but instead the maximum well-being of others In terms of public policy, politicians often use utilitarianism in the form of “cost-benefit analysis” in order to make decisions.

With World War II leaving high tensions between the United States and the USSR, and both nations assuming a policy of mutual destruction the president was commonly forced to make powerful choices that could determine the fate of billions of lives. In Fall-Safe(1964) a group of pilots routinely fly out to their fail safe zones upon the US’s command base issuing an alert due to a off-course civilian jet. However, one group of pilots received a false go and traveled beyond their fail safe point to bomb Moscow, leaving it up to the president to stop a potential all-out war with the USSR. Analyzing the president’s actions with a utilitarian position, we can arrive at the conclusion that the president acted morally despite the unspeakable consequences of his actions.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes helpfulness. In this theory, punishment is warranted only if it promotes over-all happiness. C.S. Lewis refers to utilitarianism as humanitarian in his essay. Contrary to the general humanitarian viewpoint, which sees punishment as precautionary, Lewis believes that it denies criminals of their humanity. He states, "when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a 'case."

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory summed up by the phrase, the right action is one which creates the sum total amount of happiness for the greatest number. Therefore, utilitarians believe that morality’s purpose is to maximise the number of good things, such as happiness, and decrease the number of bad things, such as unhappiness, in the world. Critics of utilitarianism believe that this theory cannot accommodate moral rights since we go against our intuitions in moral dilemmas. However, utiltarians have a response to these criticisms which shows that utilitarianism is defensible. Utilitarianism was developed into an ethical theory by two philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

The problem with Utilitarianism is that it very easily justifies the oppression and abuse of minorities as long as the majority of people is better off because of it. Why would it be wrong to keep 10% of the population as slaves if 90% of the population never have to do hard or unpleasant work as a result? Why would it be wrong to simply kill people who aren't well liked by the majority if they all feel better as a result? The issue with a philosophy that bases whether something is good or evil purely on whether the majority or the minority are benefiting is simply a nightmare scenario for anyone who's part of a minority that is said to cause unhappiness for the majority. Like, the Empire in Star Wars is Utilitarian.