Business Ethics of Mackenzie VS Miller Brewing Company - Essay Example

The two theories in question are utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism theory states that an action is ethically right on the basis that it encourages the best consequences. Accounting on the Mackenzie VS Miller Brewing Company with consideration of the utilitarianism theory, Smith, the supervisor of Mackenzie can be spared the convictions because his action of assuring Mackenzie that his salary and grade status level 14 would not be affected was esteemed to promote the best consequences. Smith’s assurance to Mackenzie meant to avert the plaintiff any stress and unrest.

Thus, Smith in this case should not be convicted on the grounds of intentional misrepresentation. Best on other hand, was eligible to be convicted on the grounds of intentional misrepresentation and torturous interference with prospective contract because her accusation of Mackenzie was not meant to promote best consequences. In that case, it was therefore right to award the plaintiff compensatory damage, as the claims were sensitive to the continuation of Mackenzie’s services and punitive damage to bring to an end such false and intentional misrepresentation.

Viewing the case from a deontological theory angle, which considers as an action as right only if it accords to the moral principles and norms, Best’s accusation against Mackenzie was questionable considering the fact that Mackenzie had not expressed any sexual intentions in his speech. Thus Best’s verdict against Mackenzie equals tom intentional misrepresentation, which worth the bail of punitive damage against Best. Smith on the other hand and with consideration to the deontological theory, responded to Mackenzie out of good faith just to ensure that Mackenzie’s emotional uprightness is maintained.

Therefore, he was not eligible for any fines for the upheld moral principles of business. Miller on the other extreme, as can be viewed from deontological theory deserved the conviction and the bails altogether. His actions against Mackenzie with regard to the claims of Best did not reflect the moral judgment and thus interpreted to intentional misrepresentation and torturous interference with the contract.