Introduction
Managers often come across ethical decisions that influence their organisation. The South American country has been affected by a mosquito borne virus. A virus by which causes serious birth defects. A manager is considering to either support the athlete or coach, by applying the three ethical theories to justify the decision and impacts according to the final decision. The three ethical models; utilitarian, moral and justice will determine the right decision to make (Waddell, Jones and George 2013). Utilitarianism moral produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Côté, Piff and Willer 2013). The athlete’s selfishness is detrimental to their team, the coach and team cannot attain better performance. Moral ethics …show more content…
When taking this into consideration, the best decision to make would be to impose a financial penalty on the athletes. It would be unfair to the coach and team members if they had to deal with all the consequences. The fairest way would be to distribute the burden across all parties meaning that the athletes would have to pay their financial penalty because they breached the contract agreements. NBA basketball player Draymond Green will not be playing even if he gets selected in the 12 man roster in the Rio Olympics (Marcus 2016). This is similar to the case study where the athletes have requested to withdraw. Withdrawal would be a disappointment to the coach and team. The performance of the athletes would not be performing as usually. But the fairest way would be to allow the athletes to withdraw and pay for their financial penalties. By allowing the athletes to withdraw it gives them what they deserve. Whereas the coach and team will have to accept respect their decision and find new athletes. A manager choosing to accept the agreement in return of posing a financial penalty on the athletes would distribute the benefit and harm in a fairway. Therefore, a manager would not use the Justice model because posing a penalty is not a benefit over harm in a fair way because athletes have the rights to make their decisions regarding to their health and safety …show more content…
In this case the athletes, coach and team as well as the external stakes holders such as the general public and government are affected. The utilitarianism moral produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Côté, Piff and Willer 2013). However, producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people does not necessarily always mean it’s the best way to benefit the most people. In this case the coach is wrong because to benefit the most people, a manager will put the athlete’s health at risk from safety. This is regarded as unethical. Justice distributes benefits and harm in a fair way (Waddell, Jones and George 2013) by giving what each person deserves. The athletes being able to withdraw but faced with a financial penalty is not considered as exponentially a benefit whereas you’re paying for the cost in order to withdraw and to compete in the competition is a harm to their safety of health. Relating to the case scenario the distribution of benefits and harm in a fair way does not solve the problem ethically. Moral ethics determine what is right and what is wrong (Snell 2000). Moral rights include protecting the basic rights such as health. The approval of the athletes to withdraw is ethical and respects their moral rights. In this situation, we take the position of helping the athletes because the moral rights model outweighs the
Managers often come across ethical decisions that influence their organisation. The South American country has been affected by a mosquito borne virus. A virus by which causes serious birth defects. A manager is considering to either support the athlete or coach, by applying the three ethical theories to justify the decision and impacts according to the final decision. The three ethical models; utilitarian, moral and justice will determine the right decision to make (Waddell, Jones and George 2013). Utilitarianism moral produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Côté, Piff and Willer 2013). The athlete’s selfishness is detrimental to their team, the coach and team cannot attain better performance. Moral ethics …show more content…
When taking this into consideration, the best decision to make would be to impose a financial penalty on the athletes. It would be unfair to the coach and team members if they had to deal with all the consequences. The fairest way would be to distribute the burden across all parties meaning that the athletes would have to pay their financial penalty because they breached the contract agreements. NBA basketball player Draymond Green will not be playing even if he gets selected in the 12 man roster in the Rio Olympics (Marcus 2016). This is similar to the case study where the athletes have requested to withdraw. Withdrawal would be a disappointment to the coach and team. The performance of the athletes would not be performing as usually. But the fairest way would be to allow the athletes to withdraw and pay for their financial penalties. By allowing the athletes to withdraw it gives them what they deserve. Whereas the coach and team will have to accept respect their decision and find new athletes. A manager choosing to accept the agreement in return of posing a financial penalty on the athletes would distribute the benefit and harm in a fairway. Therefore, a manager would not use the Justice model because posing a penalty is not a benefit over harm in a fair way because athletes have the rights to make their decisions regarding to their health and safety …show more content…
In this case the athletes, coach and team as well as the external stakes holders such as the general public and government are affected. The utilitarianism moral produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Côté, Piff and Willer 2013). However, producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people does not necessarily always mean it’s the best way to benefit the most people. In this case the coach is wrong because to benefit the most people, a manager will put the athlete’s health at risk from safety. This is regarded as unethical. Justice distributes benefits and harm in a fair way (Waddell, Jones and George 2013) by giving what each person deserves. The athletes being able to withdraw but faced with a financial penalty is not considered as exponentially a benefit whereas you’re paying for the cost in order to withdraw and to compete in the competition is a harm to their safety of health. Relating to the case scenario the distribution of benefits and harm in a fair way does not solve the problem ethically. Moral ethics determine what is right and what is wrong (Snell 2000). Moral rights include protecting the basic rights such as health. The approval of the athletes to withdraw is ethical and respects their moral rights. In this situation, we take the position of helping the athletes because the moral rights model outweighs the