They may account for this behavior by insisting that the queue is long and boring but the supermarket is only a shopping point. The remaining instances of the woman who ate almond nuts that were on display and the man who bought expensive tomatoes for a lower price are actions that cannot be accounted for ethically. Both of these actions are theft cases that one will involve themselves knowingly. They are theft cases that are just like shoplifting, there is no ethical justification for such immoral activities.
These are actions show lack of integrity and dishonesty. Is it ethical to sample the fruit, read the magazines etc.? As stated by Byrne (2014), there are several types of ethical frameworks. One of them is the framework that is based on consequences. It focuses on doing good things that will benefit the largest number of people. This is known as the framework of utilitarianism. There is also the framework that is based on rights. Another ethical framework is one that focuses on common good and duty.
This framework requires one to ensure that their actions will be of good to the whole society. Lastly, there is the ethical framework that is based on virtues. This framework relates differently depending on a person’s values. It requires a person to make decisions that will concur with their values. In this case study, the cases are looked into from the perspectives of utilitarian and rights based frameworks (Kamm, 2007). Utilitarian Framework The ethical framework of Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that is based on consequences.
It urges a person to choose an action that will be of greatest good to the largest group of people. This framework requires one to consider the benefit their action will have on others without any bias. On basis of utilitarianism, mothers who opt to give snacks and fruits to their children while shopping and pay at the counter are justified for that. It is possible that the children are too hungry and jumpy. Ethically, this will be right as long as the mothers finally pay for what their children consumed (Pojman 2006).
If the women will pay for the foods that their children consume, both the supermarket and the women will benefit. If this fact is considered, the action is ethically right according to the framework of utilitarianism. On the other hand, if after this action the mother does not pay for the food eaten by their children, it is ethically wrong. In the case of women opting to read magazines as they wait in the queue; the women benefit by reading as they wait to pay. This case does not benefit the supermarket because the supermarket hopes that the magazines will be bought so as to benefit them.
This is also a loss for the magazine producers. As they produced the magazine, they planned on selling and getting profits but reading the contents without paying shows disrespect for the owners (Sen et al., 1982). This is an ethical dilemma that is hard to judge but from the perspective of utilitarianism, it is wrong. This is due to the fact that in this situation it is only an individual that benefits. The supermarket and the magazine owners will have a loss. It is only the shoppers that will benefit and the benefit of a single shopper is not greater than that of the entire supermarket.
Lack of integrity and honesty is shown by the elderly woman who only wants to pay for the bananas without the bunch and the gentleman who removes tomato stalks so as to pay less. This reveals that there are consumers who are a liability to the supermarket. These are not cases that can be justified ethically as they only benefit individuals (Pojman et al 2006). From the utilitarian point of view, the only people benefiting from such actions are individuals and hence it is not accountable or justified.
In these cases, it is the supermarkets that encounter losses. Since this action does not benefit the larger group, it is not right. This sort of dishonesty is also a form of theft. This case has no advantage and is punishable by the law.
Read More