A Focus on the Case of Sole Remaining supplier - Essay Example

? Using the Utilitarian Approach: A Focus on the Case of ‘Sole Remaining supplier’ The Sole Remaining Supplier Ethical Problem The evolution of the world has continuously led to the emergence of new approaches that have subjected most businesses to global competition and ethical demands. In some cases, the subject of upholding ethics has only resulted in dilemmas with far reaching implications. Such is a situation of the case ‘Sole Remaining Supplier’. The case describes a heart pacemaker technology; though it is a marvelous device, it also raises ethical questions. The device has the capability of making automatic adjustments depending on the deviations from normal heartbeats. The device has the ability of stimulating heartbeats in the cases of abnormal pulse rates. However, during its developmental course, the device was marred by certain limitations. Despite the fact that the incidences occurred several decades back, the device is subject to relevant ethical questions. This paper considers a scenario where the pacemaker technology is gaining momentum despite its inherent weaknesses and regular failures that cause death. Later, the technology raises concerns and prompts reconsideration. Additionally, the device also consists of delicate transistors, the delicacy of which increases the probability of the device becoming faulty. If the processes of supplying the transistors are halted, people are likely to miss the devices. On the other hand, if the supply process continues, people are likely to be victims of the failed devices. A decision has to be made eventually. The crucial question then is what course of action a transistor supplier should take. Utilitarian issues in the case Utilitarianism refers to the ethical theory which postulates that taking an appropriate course of action increases the chances of perfection. Its moral worthiness is based on the consequences of actions (Rawls, 2011). Proponents of this theory are J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism may be considered as an ethical approach that is quantitative and reductionistic. It considerably differs from other ethical theories such as deontological ethics, virtue ethics, pragmatic ethics and other consequantialist approaches. While deontological ethics differ from utilitarianism in their disregard for consequantialism, pragmatic, virtue and other consequantialist ethics differ from utilitarianism through their considerable regard of character as an aspect that determines the achievement of pleasurable ethical results. Utilitarianism is arguably the greatest principle that allows achieving happiness and felicity. Even so, the practicability of utilitarianism has not been without shortcomings, such as not accounting adequately for moral concepts such as promise and justice. This had prompted some changes in the theory to iron out the shortcomings. When an individual encounters a situation which requires him or her to make a choice, he or she should first hold back, weigh the situation in terms of appropriate choices, considering the consequences of each choice. On determining the choice that will yield the pleasurable outcomes, one can then proceed to take the course of action, and this could be applicable to the Sole Supplier case. Utilitarian elements that are presented in the case concern obligations, ethics for common good, action consequences, moral good and conflicting interests. For a business rising from scratches, some models of corporate social responsibility emphasize the primacy of the corporation’s economic responsibility to stick to survival while making profits. Other responsibilities, such as abiding by ethical activities that are discretionary, are not a priority (Sun, 2010). Other approaches hold that ethics should come first, so corporations should consider conforming to ethical and legal standards as the most important aspect. In this case, it does not matter whether a business is competitive or not; businesses could still maintain competitiveness or become competitive even while carrying out ethical, legal and discretionary social responsibilities. Manuel, Claire, Shanks and Meyer (2011) suggest that utilitarianism can resolve the dilemma. Here, various tests including common good and utility tests may be employed in resolving the dilemma. The Utility Test Utility test is one of the models employed in tackling problems of the utilitarian stand. The following are pivotal steps in tackling a problem in the utilitarian way (Brooke, 2009). Step A The first step entails identification of alternative actions and enlists consequences for people who are to be affected by the action. Step B The second step entails weighing the costs and benefits of the affected groups for each possible alternative. The prediction may base on probability of outcomes and give consideration to long-term and short-term consequences as well as relative results to various groups. Step C The third step entails selecting the option that is likely to result in the most desirable outcome, that is, the greatest benefit to all those who are likely to be affected by the situation. If the benefits are outweighed by the costs, there is always the need to reconsider the action. Step D The fourth step entails questioning oneself what the outcome would have been if this particular choice of action had been a policy for all subsequent courses of action in similar situations. Step E The last stage is drawing the conclusion and taking the course of action. Applying the Utility Test to the Case In regard to the business dilemma, the first step would entail identifying the alternative approaches to the dilemma. Here, one alternative is to desist from cooperating with the pacemaker technology company by refusing to supply transistors to them. The other alternative is to cooperate with the device manufacturing company by supplying them with transistors. The consequence of desisting from supplying transistors is that the business, considering that it is unstable, could collapse. The firm solely depends on transistors to make the pacemaker devices. In this regard, the owner of the business would be denied the pleasure. Additionally, business collapse is accompanied by the consequence that the business would no longer benefit those it intended to serve, and this includes the targeted society. On the other hand, cooperating by supplying transistors creates the allowance for the firms to grow fast, make quick profits, and even rectify the mistakes. This implies that the business would grow and continue to serve the intended population. In the long run, it guarantees success to the society and the owner of the business. Clearly, weighing the consequences should lead to the decision to continue supplying the firm with transistors. The Common Good Test The common good test is another approach employed in resolving ethical problems. Step A According to Brook (2012), the first step of this approach entails the specification of the parts of common good that are contested. It is always imperative to question oneself if institutions, social systems and the environment would be compromised by the course of actions to be undertaken. What actions will strengthen them and what actions will weaken them? Step B The second step entails revisiting the accounts and their premises for the obligation to uphold the common good. As such, one may ask the following questions. What is the obligation of upholding the common good? Will it be an obligation to uphold the common good or will it be done for the sake of not harming those to be affected by the action? Step C The third step would entail conducting an inquiry whether or not the proposed action conflicts with the obligation. Step D The last stage entails drawing conclusions and determining the course of action. Here, one may discard or embrace the choice of actions. Using the Common good test the case In regard to the business dilemma, in the first step, parts of the common good are as follows. On one hand, there is the desire to make profits and serve the society effectively in the future. On the other hand, there is the desire to live by societal expectation, both in terms of present and future expectations. In the subsequent stage, it is obvious that it is the obligation of business to adhere to ethics by ensuring that lives are not lost as a result of fault devices. The third stage would imply that the decision to continue cooperating and supplying the firms with transistors would conflict with the obligation. The last stage goes further to nullify this decision. The only choice left is to desist from supplying transistors to the firm as the ultimate course of action. Analysis of the Tests with Desirable Outcomes Clearly, the two tests give conflicting outcomes. Utility test clears a young business from the agony to exercise social responsibility and ethics in the beginning, and the common good test does not exempt it from the obligation. However, utility test is likely to lead to desirable outcomes. This is because it considers the outcomes. On the other hand, the decision to incline to obligations can be particularly limiting. In particular, utility tests may yield desirable outcomes because it strives to attain best outcomes rather than the common good (Brooke, 2009). In this case, the manager should continue supplying the pacemaker technology firm with transistors. References Brooke, H. (2009). Utility test: Are we minimizing harm and maximizing good for those affected? Retrieved from http://ebeni.wordpress.com/decisions/theories/consequences/the-utility-test/ Brook, H. (2012). Common good test: How to utilize the common good test. Retrieved from http://ethicsops.com/CommonGood.php Manuel V., Claire, A., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. (2011). The utilitarian approach to ethics: Calculating consequences. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier.html Rawls, J. (2011). Classical utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/RAWLSclassicUtil.pdf. Sun, W. (2010). Governing businesses so they serve the good: Theory for corporate governance. New York: Edwin Mellen. Thilmany, J. (2007). Supporting ethical employees. HR Magazine, 52(2), 105–110. Read More