Ethics Case Study Essay

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism would non qualify tomcat falsifying data as un estimable, as it would assume the grandest benefits to the large quantity of stakeholders whilst just bringing a limited amount of misemploy. This domiciliate be seen through the stakeholders who benefit from tomcat gaining full-time employment much(prenominal) as his parents, the child receiving the life-saving sponsorship, the charity and the government, as Tom could start paying(a) his HECS debt. One stakeholder who would be harmed by Toms dilemma is the small accounting satisfying in Milton. Ultimately the risk of this actually harming the business due to his deprivation of experience would be minimised due to Tom be tightly administrate for the first year of work. self-confidence alike maintains that the agent should do any(prenominal) they ought to do if it benefits themselves. In Toms moral dilemma, if he falsifies his CV in auberge to achieve full time work, he is acting on the vivi d instinct of self promotion that egoism sees as ethical.Kantian moralityKantian ethics maintains that there are near things that are deemed defile in themselves, apart from their consequences. This means that Tom should regard the act of lying as wrong regardless whether it brings about smashing results. Kants categorical lordly states I should neer act except in such a right smart that I can also will that my maxim should gravel a universal good (Kant, 1996). In universalising a law that is non in relation to specific circumstances, it allows moral issues to be solved by pure rationality. When applying Toms situation to Kants universalisation theory, a maxim for Toms situation could be matchless should falsify data if it benefits them. This could not be accepted as a law universally as falsifying data could not be consistent, as eventually all data would be deemed tainted and whence unusable, leading to the act of giving information to its own demise.If itwere ethical f or Tom to falsify data, Tom would capture to accept that it would and then be ethical for everyone to do so. If everyone was free to fake data, universal lying would weaken think in communication. Kant also states act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own mortal or in the person of another, always at the identical time as an end and never simply means (Kant, 1996). If Tom falsified his CV, it would result in disrespect as the owners of the accounting firm are basing crucial business decisions on wide data, which is unethical.Virtue ethicsApplying moral excellence ethics is based on evaluating how guiltless Tom is, not just the actions or consequences of his moral situation. A fairness that can be applied from Aristotles Doctrine of the Mean is tranquillity meaning good deeds are dupee for their own pastime and not for personal recognition. The two vices of indifference are false taciturnity (deficiency) and careerist(excess). Assuming Tom decided to fake his CV he would viewing characteristics in the vice of excess meaning he is a careerist and would not be classified as virtuous, and therefore unethical.Ranking of Ethical Theories1. Utilitarianism/EgoismUtilitarianism is in line with many fundamental morals that party intends for us to bear. For example, two fundamental ethical principles are that we must avoid doing harm to others and aim to do good. When I consider certain actions or decisions, I usually evaluate them in terms of their consequences. Although it disregards the ethical element of an action, it looks at the benefits it can cause in solving my moral dilemmas. Egoism alsousually takes part in most of my moral decision making. I usually base many of my decisions on the consequences I can achieve, therefore find this most useful.2. Virtue EthicsI use virtue ethics to solve some moral issues due to the benefit of gaining incursion into emotional and personal values in relation to the action. I reckon people ar e emotionally involved in ethical conclude making virtue ethics a better way to task whether an action is ethical or not. I find this theory some useful as I believe every situation cannot be branded under absolute rules, as in Kantian Ethics.3. Kantian EthicsAlthough Kantian seems like the right moral structure to borrow it is extremely idealistic and would not necessarily result in good outcomes for me or the greater good of everyone. I think due to it being a rigid system, in certain situations for my moral dilemmas, it could not be used as Kantian ethics does not factor the immensity of character and motivation in making ethical judgements. Therefore I dont believe I would assess the ethics of a dilemma accurately, finding this least useful.PART BSocially amenable organisations should aim to minimise their negative impacts, but the degenerate nutriment industriousness faces extreme public criticism due to the effects it is having on some main stakeholders consumers and c ommunities. Fast food consumption is potentially harmful and if businesses adopt Friedmans shareholder theory by only focusing on short profit goals, the long-term welfare of customers is compromised. For example, Bowman, Gortmaker & Ebbeling (2004), indicate that energy derived from speedyfood is10% of a childs average recommended daily intake, 5 times more than the 1970s. This highlights the need for somebody to not only take responsibility but action. Advertisers spend 100s of billions of dollars a year oecumenical encouraging, persuading and manipulating children into a consumer lifestyle (Beder, 1998), leading to devastating consequences.The narrow view by Friedman, where businesses adopt the let the government do it theory is criticised as society now has a greater concern for a better tonus of life which businesses could help achieve. Supporters of Freeman maintain that fast food corporations have a responsibility to their stakeholders and should acknowledge potential hea lth risks associated with consuming fast food. Highly advertised food corporations should have responsibilities beyond enhancing their profits, because they have great social and economic power in society. This undeniable power discounts Friedmans theory that the business cant handle it. If corporations have such power, they should also take responsibility for its actions in these areas.Nature Neuroscience published a study linking effects of fast food to those of addictive substances such as cocaine, heroin and nicotine (Klein, 2010). If tobacco packaging in many countries legally have to display health warnings due to smoking being addictive, why does fast food packaging not have responsibility to do the same? Businesses who adopt a narrow view on CSR compromise stakeholders welfare. For example, on January 1954 in the US main tobacco companies published a rehearsal named A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers reaching an estimated 43,245,000 Americans (Cummings, 2002).The advert isement promised consumers that cigarettes were untroubled and denied all health risks to consumers. This resulted in millions of people dying due to wanting(p) concern stemming from the companies understating health effects in a blind essay to create profit. This scenario could almost determine the future of fast food industries being irresponsible aboutmarketing to addicted consumers. If major food corporations dont undertake measures to outweigh unhealthy promotion to children and society, they might in addition face the same consequences.