Business Ethics and Consequentialism - Essay Example

? Business Ethics and Consequentialism Assignment: and Number of the December 14, Introduction Ethics entails doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. The research scrutinizes the consequentalism ethics issues. The electronics company must decide whether to continue selling the electronic parts to the pacemaker manufacturers or not. The research will focus on picking the better of the two alternative solutions. The research uses the utility test and the common good test to prove the recommend solution to the case is correct. Ethics compliance includes implementing acts that serve the common good for the greater number of recipients. 1.Utilitarian ethics issues in this Case. There are utilitarian ethics issues in the case of the pacemaker case. The electronics company can generate the greater good to the greatest number of people. The principle of consequentialism or utilitiarian ethics states that the end justifies the means. The correct action is that action that brings out the greatest good to the entire community or population (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen). For example, it is a common good to kill a convicted felon to prevent individuals from committing the same illegal acts (Portmore, 2011). Jeremy Bentham insisted that correct actions are those that bring about or increase happiness, and reduce pain (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen). Applying the above consequentialism theory to the case, producing the electronic parts of the pacemaker produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier.html). The purpose of the pacemaker is to prolong the life of the dying person. Without a heart, the person will die. The pacemaker helps the heart beat. Without the pacemaker, the person would die a natural death. Consequently, the pacemaker prolongs the life of the pacemaker recipient for several years. By focusing on helping the pacemaker manufacturer improve the functional quality of the pacemakers, the electronics company helps increase the success of the pacemakers. Consequently, there is an increase in the pacemaker’s capacity to keep the failing human heart from stopping its continuous beating motion (http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier_comments.html). 2) Jeremy Bentham Concept on the Case. Jeremy Bentham, father of utilitarianism, will rightly approve the decision to continue producing the electronic parts of the pacemakers. By helping the pacemaker manufacturers improve the functional quality of the pacemakers, the electronics company increases the functional quality of the pacemakers. Consequently, the pacemaker adds more years to the dying patients’ lives. For the dying person, adding more years to one’s earthly life is a greater good when compared to just letting the patient die a natural death (Bentham, 2009). The popularity of the pacemaker is its capacity to prolong the dying person’s life by stimulating the non-beating heart to beat. Without the pacemakers’ stimulating motion, the patient would have died instantly. The improved pacemakers will increase the patients’ and their families’ pleasure of having their dying relative live additional years on earth and avoiding the pain of losing their dying relative at an earlier date. 3. Utility test. Step A. There are three alternatives. The first alternative is to stop supplying the electronic parts of the pacemakers. Second, the electronics company will continue producing the electronic parts of the pacemakers and coordinate with the pacemaker company to improve the success rate of the pacemakers (Mandal, 2010). Step B. The are consequences and costs of each alternative. In terms of alternative 1, the short term and long term benefits (consequences) include removing the possible of future medical suits from the pacemaker patients and being wrongly blamed for the pacemaker’s faulty pacemaker production. The cost to stop producing the electronic parts of the pacemaker products is zero. The relative outcome includes eliminating pacemaker-related medical suits. In terms of alternative 2, the short term and longer benefits (consequences) include more revenues and more profits. The cost of helping the pacemaker company improve the functional quality of the current pacemaker products zero. The relative outcome includes reducing the pacemaker-related medical suits. Step C. the company correctly implements the second alternative. The benefits of the first alternative far outweigh the benefits of the first alternative. Based on the cost analysis, the reduced costs of functionally high quality pacemakers will reduce the cost of medical lawsuits to manageable levels. Since the electronics company can prove that electronics is the culprit in the patients’ death, the electronics company will definitely win its medical lawsuit cases. Lastly, the benefits far outweigh the cost of implementing the second alternative. Step D. The implementation of the second alternative will serve as guides for the company’s other electronics sales. The company will help its electronics customers produce functionally better electronics-based customer products. The electronics company can help the computer manufacturers improve their electronics-based products. The same company can help the microwave oven manufacturers enhance the functional quality of each electronics-based microwave oven (http://ebeni.wordpress.com/decisions/theories/consequences/the-utility-test). 4. Common Good Test. Step A. the electronics company can help usher the common good of affected parties (Bishop, 2000). The continued production of the electronic parts of the pacemaker will maximize good and minimize harm for all affected parties (chosen alternative). The electronics company will significantly monitor and help improve the quality of the pacemaker company’s products and services. By requiring the pacemaker company to improve the quality of the pacemakers, the electronics company consequently helps increase the functional success rate of the pacemakers. With the increased success rate of the pacemakers, the electronics company increases the life-prolonging benefits of the pacemakers, a greater good. With the better functioning pacemakers, more pacemaker patients and their families are happy, a greater good. Consequently, the pacemaker manufacturer’s pacemaker product sales will increase the electronics company’s electronic parts sales and electronic parts net profits. Step B. The electronics company has the responsibility to contribute to the common good. By implementing the chosen alternative, the electronics company adds more earthly years to the dying patients. Consequently, the patients’ family will feel happy that the electronics-based pacemakers prolong their dying relatives’ lives. Likewise, the pacemaker company will be more than happy to receive the required electronics parts that are needed in to production of the pacemakers. Setp C. The implementation of the chosen alternative does not conflict with the company’s obligation to sell electronic parts. The company’s obligation is to sell the electronic parts to manufacturers. The appliance manufacturers need the electronic parts. Selling the electronic parts to the pacemaker manufacturers augments the company’s overall electronics sales figures (http://www.ethicsops.com/CommonGood.php). 5. Similarities and Differences between the two ethics tests. There are similarities between the common good test and the utility test. Both tests focus on determining whether the alternative focuses on contributing to the greater good and lesser pain. Next, both test focus on analyzing the basis for compliance with the greater good and lesser pain concept. Both tests have a similar realistic, implementing the second alternative will contribute to the greater good, when compared to first alternative. Further, there are differences between the common good test and the utility test. The common good test has three steps while the utility test has four steps. The common good test focuses on the reasons for focusing on the common good while the utility test does not focus on the reasons for complying with the common good. Evidently, the utility test is more informative because it has more informative steps compared to the common good test. Summarizing the important points of the above discussion, ethics includes implementing what is right and refusing to do what is morally unacceptable. Consequentialism dictates that the preferred action or decision must serve the common good of the majority. The pacemaker company needs the electronics parts to produce the life-saving pacemakers. Evidently, ethics compliance incorporates the action that serves the common good of the greater number of recipients, implementing the second alternative. References: Bentham, J. (2009). Utilitarianism. New York: BiblioLife. Bishop, J. (2000). Ethics and Capitalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ebeni. Utility Test. Retrieved December 14, 2012 from . Ethicsops. Common Good Test. Retrieved December 14, 2012 from Mandal, S. (2010). Ethics in Business. New York: McGrawHill Press. Plato. Consequentialism. Retrieved December 14, 2012 from Portmore, D. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism. Oxford : Oxford University Press. SCU. The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier. Retrieved December 14, 2012 from < http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier.html> SCU. Commentary on the Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier. Retrieved December 14, 2012 From Read More