Arguments on the Theories of Consequentiality - Essay Example

? BUSINESS ETHICS By Shahbaz and 6th Nov, In this essay, the discussions were madeto judge who among the parties was wrong. This was based on the theories of consequentiality and non- consequentiality theory. The parties involved in this case included; Murdoch Corporation Newspaper, the editor, the two police officers, the two London police officers, the Prime Minister and the people. This argument ethically focused on the allegations towards each party. The argument involved the Utilitarianism Ethic and Ethic Duty. The action would be wrong if the result involved the suffering of the party and would be right if the outcome was good. This was based on the utilitarianism. The argument put the Newspaper Company on the safer side if its actions were for its good. The company paying various parties to prevent its economic figure from spoilage could make it right (Mill 1861). The action would be wrong if the result involved the suffering of the party and would be right if the outcome was good. This was based on the utilitarianism. The argument put the Newspaper Company on the safer side if its actions were for its good. The company paying various parties to prevent its economic figure from spoilage could make it right (Mill 1861). It is also argued that the measure of suffering may determine the claim the right of equality. This pointed out clearly by a philosopher of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham (Singer 1976). In the event of the company seeking to maintain its economic position, the scandal will lead to its economic sabotage. The editor causes the company to suffer socially and economically. Therefore, the argument gives the company a lot of strength to demand for its compensation for the lost trust from people and spoilage of its image worldwide. As a result, the editor is ethically wrong due to the inconveniences caused. On the other hand, the people whose affairs have been interfered with will want to enjoy their privacy. They have been denied their right. The argument of Jeremy Bentham becomes the basis on which the people will claim their rights. This will eventually make the company and the editor liable for the inconveniences they have caused to the people despite the payments made to them by this company. These may have caused the people to lose their trusted customers and will also be seen as those who have no proper security over their information system. This shows that all the parties have a right to privacy. The editor on the hand did the publishing of the information since it was part of his work as an employee. According to the ethic duty, the argument will be based on his moral behavior as an employee. His action was his duty to execute the duties as required by his employer and this was being obedient and being honest. He was expected to observe workplace ethics as argued in this theory. Therefore the editor was right in this case. In addition, Kamm, F.N. (1996) argues that if the motive of the action was to prevent suffering of parties, the action is ethically correct (Kamm 1996). The editor may have had an interest to know the limitations and some information about that would lead to the safety of others. The theory allows this if that is the motive. The editor is not punished for his action. The company wants to protect its employees and customers from the scandal by bribing the concerned parties that would interfere with their being. According to the argument, this is ethically allowed. Contrary to this, utilitarianism says ethics will on be good since these resulted in the bad end to the parties. The resigning of the editor form the work was the outcome. Also as the requirement of the human resource management, the company exercised the right to employ the workers, the editor in this case. This has an advantage to the company since it has the manpower, which is the pleasure it gets. The utilitarian ethic therefore argues that the company is right basing on the main intension of this party which has resulted in its satisfaction. Similarly, Adams, R.M. (1976) argues using the motive of consequentiality theory. He argues that the charges should not be directed against the person for doing something if the intention would lead to an outcome that is pleasing. The charges against the company are not given in this argument. The intension of the company to publish the affairs of the people was to yield a good outcome. This on the other hand is undermines the rights of the people. The other shareholders may also be exempted from the judgment if their core aim of their actions was to result into profitable results. On one other hand, this contradicts the virtues that are to exist (Adams 1976). The argument that an action, whether right or wrong, is done provided the end result is good may not be ethical. This leads to the suffering of other parties. However, if the action is against the human rights, then it is wrong. This argument is based on the Kantianism theory. This is in turn to benefits them economically. As a matter of fact, this is ethically correct so long as the outcome is beneficial to the party. The utilitarianism empowers this action. In contrast, this is against the state laws and the police officers are to be judged against bribery. Also, the fact the intention of the officers to take bribe was to protect the image of the company. However, this amounts to betrayal of the country and results in the loss of trust from them by the government. According the ethic of duty, this is against the norms of the society and such parties need to face the law. In the divine command theory (Wierenga1983), the argument is based on the fact that the occurrence of an event depends on the laws of God. Many philosophers support this since the laws are to govern the human conduct. The ethic critically examines the action of the officers which is against the norms of the society. Thus the officers are proved guilty for their action against the rights of the state and people (Wierenga 1983). Other philosophers argue differently that the actions depend on the outcomes. For instance, Philippa Foot (Scheffler, Samuel Ed 1988) argues that the outcome of an action does not have the importance own its own unless there are ethical values supporting it. The argument points out that the outcome has the moral value. This will make the utilitarianism invalid in some situations where the consequences do not matter but the morality contained in them. The fact that the company paid to officers to protect international image is an example. The outcome in this context is not supported by any moral value. Similar to this is the case of the officers receiving bribe with the view of satisfying the need of the company. This ethic now points out the fault the parties have committed (Scheffler& Samuel 1988). Also, one person resigning from the work after a scandal may allow the investigations to take place. Ethics states that this action is right since there is justice for all. The argument made by the philosophers in the twentieth century points outs that the judgment of a case is to be done basing on the nature of the outcome but not what follows after it. Mill based his argument on the fact the end of an action has to be mainly pleasure. Later on, he agrees with those who challenged his theory (Mill 1977). The argument requires that the parties are to avoid the concentration on the good end. They are also to examine the outcome and ensure it has the moral value attached to it. This argument therefore shows that the company which took part in bribing the other parties for it to the enjoy benefits is on the wrong side. The ethics consider this action having no moral values in its outcome (Mill 1977). The two police officers who accepted the bribe are also found guilty. Therefore they are to face the law. Similarly, the motive of the editor to publish the newspaper was to result into pleasure since it was his duty as an employee would have been achieved. Contrary, this was without moral consideration of the subsequent outcome. These are also faced with charges against their actions that have led to the suffering of the people involved. Another philosopher known as Hare argues that the rules have to be followed and failure to this may result into one suffering the consequences (Hare1972-1973). In addition, people’s negligence of following the rules may be of great to loss. Therefore in carrying out any action, one needs the knowledge of the rules that have been formed to regulate people’s moral conduct. In executing the duties as an employer, the editor must be knowledgeable about the moral rules. Consequently, the editor may be charged as a result of negligence. The other parties may also be charged against the same there are moral rules that are to be followed as seen from there actions. As a result the argument on ethics, there these parties should be punished for not observing the rules (Hare 1972-1973). Since the affairs of the people were disclosed to the public, they might feel betrayed if the decision made by the public is to mock them. On the other hand, the people have the right of privacy. As a result, they will want to be compensation for the party that has disadvantaged tem. This pointed out clearly in the rule of disclosure. The disadvantaged expresses their feelings if their affairs are broadcasted on media (Johnson 2008). In this rule, Trevino and Nelson argue that the decision made by the media is considered right if the disclosure can be treated with no mockery by the audience. Otherwise the action is against the rights of the people. The company is quilt since it disclosed the affairs of the people. However, the theory of utilitarian may pin this decision down if the motive was to yield good outcome. The company will not be fault and this will lead to suffering of the people. The theory points out that the company, Prime Minister and the two London police officers are the employers. Therefore they are to exercise their right as employers at the place of work. The employer ensures that the employees observe the rules governing the job to protect its economic position (Kuchinke 2005). Therefore, this should not be the ground for the parties to be judged for employing the editor. This argument it is the editor who will be judged for his action for not protecting the company’s image as expected. As a result he suffers the since he has defied the work ethics. The Kantian ethic on the hand seeks to defend the rights of people. He argues the human being can not be used by others as the ways but should use them to attain their objectives. He also considers respect for human beings important in the society. Eventually this would make people have respect for each other. Everyone has rights to enjoy by merely the virtue of his or her existence. These rights if gone against may lead to suffering of the one disadvantaged. The ethics provide a room for the formulation of the rule that should regulate persons in a particular set up. This is strongly argued by Kant in the ethic duty referred to Practical Imperative. This argument clearly shows that the decisions made by some parties are against this human right. In this context, people have been used as the means of the company and other parties rather than using them to attain the end. However, their air aims are judged by the rules which govern the morality of people. This is what should be exercised by all human beings in a particular society. On the other hand, the utilitarianism only focuses on the consequences of the action. This allows a room for the parties involved to be faultless as longs as the end of their action is good. In his theory of good-will, Kant argues that the occurrence of an event has a moral value only if it is acted from duty. In this case, the question of who is fault may seek to dwell much on the action performed from duty. The parties acted from duty which is right if there was an aspect of moral worth in their actions. Also the company releasing the newspaper had a moral value because it provides services to people. The theory agrees with this decision of the company thus the company has no fault. On the other hand, acted from duty but the motive did not have the moral worth. The editor is found fault in this case. In categorical Imperative, Kant argues that the occurrence of an event is based merely on the reason rather the outcome. He emphasizes by pointing out that people’s ability to make decisions cannot be controlled by themselves. This is an argument that may be related to the utilitarian ethic. The decision made in this case by various shareholders could be not be possible to control. In this case, the results tabulated in the table will help in the judgment. The table below shows the shareholders, their respective actions, consequences and their reasons. From the table, the seven shareholders are to be analyzed critically to judge who is fault in the case at hand. Looking at the company’s action and the consequences, it may be argued that the company aimed at publication of the newspaper for the people to read. Apart from this, selling of the newspapers is an income generating enterprise to the company. Therefore, the intention its action is to the profit which is the good side of it. The Utilitarian ethic discussed agrees with the analysis since the motive of the action if for the good of the company. Even though the company suffers in the end, the good was the core motive. According the argument, the company is found faultless. In the event of the company bribing the police officers and the people, the satisfaction is achieved when its public image is protected. The theory supports the analysis. In contrast, the company’s motive as a result of its action has no moral value. This also makes the two police officers become the victims of the action. Bribery is against the rules regulating the morals of the people. On the other hand this will be undermining the right of people disadvantaged. This exactly the case argued in the theories of ethics emphasized by Kant. Thus the company is held responsible for its action. The analysis shows that the editor’s motive of his action was to perform duty as an employee. In return, the editor earns through his or her creativity in the profession. The earning is the good end for the editor. The argument based on the utilitarianism has successfully been achieved. This would be the opposite of what is argued in the Kantian theory. The moral values have been compromised and the editor is judged against this. Although the editor is found guilty, the action he or she takes by resigning from work is for the good of the people and employer. Similarly, the two London police officers and the Prime Minister resign from work to allow investigations to be carried out. T he Kantian theory as argued confirms the analysis to be correct. The act of resigning shows that the parties are willing to do it because it is a moral requirement for them. This does not mean that they are on the wrong but is for the good of others. This shows that the parties have respect for persons. The people on the hand are the disadvantaged as a result of the action carried out by others. The embarrassment caused to them may make them develop fear for their affairs. This is also the undermining of their rights and is no respect of persons for them. The company and the two police officers have committed an offence by acting against the moral values. This argument makes the Kantianism suitable for this case where the rules governing people’s contacts are strictly followed. The actions of parties with valid reasons will help to in the judgment. The Kantianism theory argues that the reason of the action determines its occurrence. The reason for which the company publishes the newspaper is to serve people. If the reasons are valid, the shareholder will not be penalized. From the argument, the utilitarianism has a number of weaknesses. The theory focuses on the consequences of an action rather than the moral value of the motive. This also tends to overlook the existence of the rules and leading to more vices than virtues in the society. From the two theories, ethic is the tool used to determine the moral behavior of people. The judgment of individuals is based on these laws that regulate the conducts of people. Therefore, the member of the society should strictly follow these rules in all spheres of life. Otherwise punishment will be the administered to those who compromise. Also in business sector, like in any other sector, these laws should be followed to realize economic stability. Therefore, business ethics are essential for the success of any organization. Conclusion From the critical analysis of business ethics, it was found that collective responsibility is all we need to exercise. The law is so unforgiving. Therefore to avoid any legal processes in court, we should be law-abiding citizens. As much as we have our legal rights to do whatever we wish to, we must consider the impact of our actions on our neighbors, colleagues and also friends. Rights and responsibility must go together for any organization or society to prosper. Economic, social and political stability depend on how accountable we are. References Adams, RM 1976, Motive Utilitarianism, Journal of Philosophy, pp.467-81 Kamm, F M 2007, Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities and Permissible Harm, Oxford University Press, Oxford Wierenga, E 1983, A Defensible Divine Command Theory, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.387-407 Scheffler and Samuel, E 1988, Consequentialism and Its Critics, Oxford University Press, Oxford Mill, J S 1963-1991, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, gen edn, Vol. 17 p.1881 . University of Toronto Press, Toronto Hare, R M 1972-1973, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 73 p17 Johnson, R 2008, Kant’s Moral Philosophy, Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy Kuchinke, KP 2005, The self at work: theories of persons, meaning of work and their implications for HRD Elliott & Turnbull 2005, pp. 141–154 Read More