Application of Ethical Theory: Case Study - Essay Example

The primary stakeholders in this case are the women who complained and Mr. Handsome who harassed. The secondary stakeholders are the company and other staff in Great Builds. At first, the issue is analysed in the light of Consequentialism. According to this concept as propounded by Jeremy & Mill (2003, p.12), the morality of an act is determined by the consequences of that action. In other words, the best action in a given situation is the action that ensures the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

In the present case, if the tenets of consequentialism are taken into consideration as the basic guiding principle, one can argue that ignoring the complaints of the women will deny them their right to get the harassment stopped, and the number of beneficiaries in this case is small. However evidently, it was Mr. Handsome who, almost singlehandedly, managed to bring the company back into profit. Thus, firing Mr. Handsome will do justice to the few women who complained, and not firing him will do good to the whole company.

As Carlson (1995, p.35) states, this concept is very similar to allowing the slavery of some for the benefit the majority. A closer look into the issue proves that there are many more issues to be addressed here, and in fact, the application of consequentialism is not as simple as it appeared in the first instance (Mulgan, 2001, p.210). To illustrate, not firing Mr. Handsome will have much more negative effects, “ethical dilemma” than it would primarily seem (Trevino & Nelson, 2010, p. 48).

A tabloid newspaper has already reported the wayward life of Mr. Handsome. This is certainly going to have a negative impact on the company. Admittedly, the company has now become fully competitive and is capable of surging ahead. Now, even if Mr. Handsome is fired, it will be possible to find another suitable CEO to run the company. This will protect the rights of the women who complained, and will save the image of the company as a whole. The only aggrieved one will be Mr. Handsome. However, if Mr.

Handsome is not fired, he will be happy to have his actions continued, and this will do good only to him. This will damage the image of the company in public, will cause discomfort to the women subordinates, and the company will suffer in a short time. Now, it is necessary to look into the issue from another theoretical concept, that is, Libertarianism. In the opinion of Boaz (1997, p.14), as the name indicates, individual liberty is of utmost importance here. According to the tenets of this theory, the duty of authorities is to grant and protect this individual liberty and freedom to all individuals in a community (ibid).

That means, each individual possesses the right to decide and pursue ones own ends. The problem with libertarianism is that it believes in reducing coercion on people by others to the maximum extent possible. According to Machan & Duncan (2005, p.3) each one is restrained from interfering with the individual liberty of others. According to the Libertarianism, one is the owner of ones life and everyone has the right to act in accordance with ones own likes. Huebert (2010, p. 43) strongly argues that those actions should not interfere with the rights of others.

Under the tenets of this theory, as Shaw (2010, p. 102) claims, one can claim that Mr. Handsome has the right to be a womaniser, but only in such a way that it does not cause trouble to others. In other words, his womanising must not affect other employees in the