Part A
Utilitarianism
The choice of action you decide on taking will have both positive and negatives for the stakeholders involved in this situation. Under the utilitarian ethics, 5 stakeholders must be examined, and they are; Beth, Samantha, customers, Samantha’s family, and yourself. For the assumed effect below, the action is that you tell Samantha about Beth stealing from the shop.
Stakeholder Assumed effect Outcome
Nathan Samantha will almost certainly be annoyed that you have kept a big issue from her. This will cause tension between you and her, and make work uncomfortable. You may be also fired, if she decides she can’t trust you enough.
Negative
Beth She will most likely be fired. This will affect how she can tend for her …show more content…
The only people who would have a negative outcome if you didn’t tell, is Samantha and customers. Samantha would have to raise prices, thus leaving customers upset. It would be morally correct under utilitarianism, for you to keep this matter to yourself, as Beth’s overall happiness of keeping her job outweighs the unhappiness of unemployment and putting her child at risk. Kantian ethics
For you to take a Kantian approach, you must do what is morally right, regardless of the consequences. Kant believes that lying is always morally wrong, so the maxim must not be about lying.
The maxim: it is my duty to always tell the truth.
We must test this maxim against the categorical imperatives; universal acceptability, and respect (Kant, Wood & Schneewind, 2002).
Philosopher Benjamin Constant has pointed out the flaws in this style of maxim, explaining that “the moral principle stating that it is a duty to tell the truth would make any society impossible if that principle were taken singly and unconditionally” (Constant, 1797, p. 123). According to Constant, we should not make this a universal, as no society could function on pure truth. He also believes that no one has the right to the truth if it hurts others. Telling Samantha the truth would cause harm to Beth and many others, including …show more content…
Since the problem will always come back, it is actually more economical to fix it immediately, before it grows into an issue which the media can report about, which can cost time, money and jeopardise consumer respect (Davis, 1973, p. 317). Under this argument, you should immediately switch suppliers, before it becomes too much of an issue for the company.
Viability of FoodLi
For FoodLi to retain its social and business standing, it is essential that it responds to the issue immediately. Society would most likely boycott FoodLi, as they did for the other competitors. If responsibility is not accepted, other competitors will step in, present themselves as responsible, and gain competitive advantage, meaning FoodLi will fall back into shadows.
Not Adopting Corporate Social Responsibility
Profit
Utilitarianism
The choice of action you decide on taking will have both positive and negatives for the stakeholders involved in this situation. Under the utilitarian ethics, 5 stakeholders must be examined, and they are; Beth, Samantha, customers, Samantha’s family, and yourself. For the assumed effect below, the action is that you tell Samantha about Beth stealing from the shop.
Stakeholder Assumed effect Outcome
Nathan Samantha will almost certainly be annoyed that you have kept a big issue from her. This will cause tension between you and her, and make work uncomfortable. You may be also fired, if she decides she can’t trust you enough.
Negative
Beth She will most likely be fired. This will affect how she can tend for her …show more content…
The only people who would have a negative outcome if you didn’t tell, is Samantha and customers. Samantha would have to raise prices, thus leaving customers upset. It would be morally correct under utilitarianism, for you to keep this matter to yourself, as Beth’s overall happiness of keeping her job outweighs the unhappiness of unemployment and putting her child at risk. Kantian ethics
For you to take a Kantian approach, you must do what is morally right, regardless of the consequences. Kant believes that lying is always morally wrong, so the maxim must not be about lying.
The maxim: it is my duty to always tell the truth.
We must test this maxim against the categorical imperatives; universal acceptability, and respect (Kant, Wood & Schneewind, 2002).
Philosopher Benjamin Constant has pointed out the flaws in this style of maxim, explaining that “the moral principle stating that it is a duty to tell the truth would make any society impossible if that principle were taken singly and unconditionally” (Constant, 1797, p. 123). According to Constant, we should not make this a universal, as no society could function on pure truth. He also believes that no one has the right to the truth if it hurts others. Telling Samantha the truth would cause harm to Beth and many others, including …show more content…
Since the problem will always come back, it is actually more economical to fix it immediately, before it grows into an issue which the media can report about, which can cost time, money and jeopardise consumer respect (Davis, 1973, p. 317). Under this argument, you should immediately switch suppliers, before it becomes too much of an issue for the company.
Viability of FoodLi
For FoodLi to retain its social and business standing, it is essential that it responds to the issue immediately. Society would most likely boycott FoodLi, as they did for the other competitors. If responsibility is not accepted, other competitors will step in, present themselves as responsible, and gain competitive advantage, meaning FoodLi will fall back into shadows.
Not Adopting Corporate Social Responsibility
Profit