Utilitarianism on Terminating Employees versus Truthful Environmental Reporting - Essay Example

Utilitarianism on Terminating Employees versus Truthful Environmental Reporting Diverse rules are important to the happiness of shareholders, employees, and communities. For instance, an environmental report should be truthful and reliable to satisfy the government and concerned communities; employees should have job security; and shareholders should attain the greatest level of profits. As a utilitarian manager, I want to meet these demands as much as possible to increase happiness for many people. I serve as the environmental compliance manager for a small plastics manufacturing company, and I have recently finished a report that predicts that the omission levels of my company will surpass the legal emissions limit next year. A new technology can reduce these emissions, but it is expensive and can result to terminating some employees. One of my staff members suggests not publishing the report until cheaper technological alternatives are available next year. A rule utilitarian might advise me to follow the rule of prioritizing the interests of shareholders, since they are my employers, which means that the right thing to do is to publish the report and lay off workers, so that the company can have the money to buy the latest technology. An act utilitarian might suggest to stop the reporting of the environmental report and to wait for a cheaper alternative because this will not result to laying off workers and will not increase the expenses of the company. A rule utilitarian might assert that the best rule is one that favors shareholder interests in the long run which entails following government policies about emission levels because doing so protects the latter’s long-term interest. A company cannot exist and will not stay long without shareholders, so their happiness matters the most in this scenario. Furthermore, thinking about their interests can also satisfy the interests of workers for having lasting jobs, so this rule is not entirely bad for the interest of the many. However, shareholder happiness must not be based on temporary goal fulfillment but on long-term interests. John Stuart Mill asserts that the quality of happiness matters in making the right decisions. He believes that humans are rational creatures who use “higher faculties” and “nobler feelings” to make the best decisions for their happiness (Mill 214). This case demands high-level thinking about the long-term good of shareholders which includes not breaking laws. If I will not publish the report and the environmental agency of the department finds out that the emission levels next year surpass the legal limits, the government will close factory operations which will detrimentally affect shareholders and employees alike. The decision to publish the report is important in ensuring that the company will follow policies on emissions levels and find the best technology to comply with them. A rule utilitarian might suggest going ahead and publishing the report, so that the company can prepare for buying the latest technology, even if it is expensive, because it will prevent future problems that will harm shareholder interest more. Besides following emission policies, a rule utilitarian might recommend buying the expensive technology and laying off workers in the process because it protects the company from further loss of profits and jobs if the government closes factory operations due to non-compliance with policies. The purchase of expensive technology follows the rule that leads to the greater number of happiness for the most people because it is the best for many people in the long term. It will maintain emissions within acceptable levels which will ensure the continuity of company operations. As a result, the company will not close factory work, shareholders will be happy, and employees will be happy too because they can keep their jobs. As for those who will lose their jobs, they will be a small sacrifice to pay compared to sacrificing the whole. Ursula Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” indicates how some people’s misery is essential to the greater happiness of the whole. Many people in Omelas will not choose to “exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement” (Le Guin 138). The same goes for this case. The company should not sacrifice shareholder interests and the happiness of more employees for the suffering of a few employees who will lose their jobs. A rule utilitarian might find buying the technology, despite the loss of jobs for some workers, as contributing to more happiness without violating the rule of prioritizing shareholder interests. An act utilitarian, on the opposite, does not follow any specific rule but considers the possible scenarios that can result to the greatest level of happiness for the most number of people wherein the best scenario is putting aside the report first until cheaper technological alternatives are developed next year. An act utilitarian might not see any point in publishing the report because it means more expenses for shareholders and lower morale and satisfaction for workers who will be terminated. The main goal of act utilitarianism is increasing the level of happiness for many people, and publishing the report can reduce the level of happiness for many people. The next best decision is to not publish the report because of the hope that a cheaper alternative to the needed technology will be available by next year. This decision will not terminate any employee and will not increase expenses yet. Not publishing the report is the best ethical decision because it does not harm shareholders and it does not endanger the job stability of most employees. Furthermore, an act utilitarian values the quality of happiness too. Mill asserts that the correctness of an act must be based on the quality of decision that values “feelings and imagination” and “moral sentiments” more than bodily pleasures (Mill 212). The best action does not emphasize shareholder concerns only, but the moral good of employees too. The feelings of as many stakeholders as possible are important to making ethical decisions. Thus, an act utilitarian might go for not publishing the report since it will not be good for many people’s happiness. One might argue, however, that this action borders acting illegally, which will also harm more people in the long run, but an act utilitarian might argue that the company will follow emission compliance in other ways while waiting for cheaper technology. The company will not lie about emission levels, since they will not increase until next year. An act utilitarian also wants long-term happiness for all, so it will not endanger this happiness through violating government policies. He/she might look for other options while waiting. These options can include implementing smaller system changes that do not cost much to bring emissions lower, or finding cost-effective measures that will save money for the technology needed next year. An act utilitarian does not want to breach policies but finds ways to follow them, by the time emission levels are increasing next year. The point is to save money and/or decrease emissions at present. An act utilitarian will not endanger the interests of many people by not following the law. In addition, an act utilitarian does not mean to not buy the new technology if that is the only option. He/she only wants to wait for cheaper options. The report, after all, is not legally required. It does not have to be publicized because of laws that demand it. Thus, it is not illegal to stop its publication or to not publish it, as long as the company finds ways to reduce emission levels by next year. A rule utilitarian might suggest publishing the report, buying the new technology, and firing several employees because it follows the rule of protecting shareholder interests. This rule can lead to greater happiness for many people because it protects the continuity of the company. An act utilitarian, on the contrary, does not care for any rules but thinks about different options that can lead to the greatest level of happiness for many people. He/she might recommend to not publish the report and to wait for a cheaper technological alternative next year because it can make shareholders happy for not dealing with high expenses and more employees happy because no one loses their jobs. He/she might add preparing for reducing emissions or saving money to buy the technology. Hence, a rule utilitarian and an act utilitarian both value making more people happy, but a rule utilitarian does so in accordance to the rule of maximizing shareholder interests, while an act utilitarian emphasizes the quality and quantity of happiness of the most number of people without considering any rules. Works Cited Le Guin, Ursula. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” 133-140. Print. Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” 211-215. Print. Read More