Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism. Answer: The values and the morals on which an individual works, and through which they undertake the different actions, are known as ethics. Basically, the ethics are the governing factor behind the acts done by the people, which include individuals, companies, and the different entities (Mizzoni, 2009). In business atmosphere, the role of ethics is enhanced, particularly due to different ethical dilemmas being faced by the individuals. Again, this happens when the choice is to be made between two right and two wrong choices, which affect the different stakeholders in different manners (Smith, 2008). When such happens, the leading ethical theories help the individuals in making the choice between the different available options. Each ethical theory has a different focus stakeholder group (Ferrell Fraedrich, 2015). In the following parts, the given case study has been analysed in context of the ethical theory of utilitarianism, in order to decide upon the acts undertaken by the geologists as ethical or not. Stakeholders, for any company, are such groups, for which the entire business is conducted and hold more significance then the profit motive. Based on the situation present, the varied stakeholder groups are affected in different manner. The given case study also has a number of stakeholders, and these stakeholders include the company, its employees, the geologists, and the family of the geologists, taxation department and the consumers. Each of these stakeholder groups were being affected in a unique manner due to the actions undertaken by the geologists. The very first stakeholder group which was affected due to the actions undertaken by the geologists was the company itself. This is because the geologists used a manner to take money from the company, but not use it for the purpose it was meant for. They used alternative way to save money. This money could have stayed with the company, which could have been then used by the company for its different operations or in carrying out it s objectives. The company thus had to bear higher cost, and then they had to, which resulted in the company being affected in a negative manner due to the funds being used in a minimalistic manner by the geologists. The next stakeholder group which was affected here was the employees of the company. The employees of the company are given allowances in a uniform manner, based on their profile. But when the geologists used the funds of the company in a different manner in comparison to the purpose of those funds being granted to the geologists, the other employees of the company were put in a disadvantageous position as they were not able to save more money as could be done by the geologists. More importantly, where they do so, the company would again be put at a disadvantageous position as discussed in the previous segment, owing to the possibility of costs being saved. The geologists were also a stakeholder group in this case study. This is primarily due to their misuse or misappropriation of the company funds, which was an ethical breach on their part. It not only impacts them, but also the future geologists, who would be working for the company, and would possibly, adopt the same unethical approach as the geologists. The family members of the geologists are also impacted due to the wave of unethical decisions. The geologists, who do not follow this approach, would not only be able to save less, but their families would again get less income to spend. Due to the lack of receipts, the taxation department would not be able to do justice to their job and there could be a possibility of tax evasion due to receipts not being a requirement to claim allowances in the company. The last stakeholder group is the consumers. Every action of the company directly affects it consumers. Where the company has lesser profits and higher costs, it would not be able t o pass on the benefit to the consumers, for which the work of the company is done ultimately. Overall, the actions undertaken by the geologists have a negative impact over the different stakeholder groups identified above. However, when it comes to the applicability of the leading ethical theories, in particular utilitarianism, this is not the case. Utilitarianism, as an ethical theory, presents that those actions have to be taken as ethical, through which the utility of an action is maximized (Bykvist, 2010). Thus, where the majority of people are happy due to the making of a decision, that particular decision is to be deemed as an ethical decision (Albee, 2014). Based on this theory, the sum of happiness of an action, without sufferings being present in the actions which are undertaken, is the best act. The theme of this theory is to focus on the consequence of the action and the result of such actions is what determines the rightness and the wrongness of any action (Mill, 2017). There is a need to apply the theory of utilitarianism now in the given case study for deciding upon the actions of the geologists being ethical or not ethical. The geologists in this case had found a way of minimizing their travel costs in order to maximize their take home income. This action was such that the utility for the geologists and their families was maximized. So, as the two stakeholder groups, the actions could be deemed as ethical. This is particularly because the geologists and their families got a higher sum of saved money, which can be used by them for their own good and for their future endeavours. Even in the context of the company, these actions have to be deemed as ethical. The reason for this is that these actions of geologists have given the company the manner in which they could bring the costs down for the future geologists. Even when this is not done by the company, the geologists are giving the best standard of work, due to which the work quality is not hampered. Again, the company is not losing the geologists as a result of this to the rival company. This would continue to be in favour of the company and not only would maximize the happiness of the company but also for all the stakeholders of the company. This is because the company would continue to have qualified geologists who have quality work standards. Again, where the company adopts a process of invoices to acquit the payments of the geologists, not only would it take a lot of time, but also would require additional staff to process all the invoices. Even then, the genuineness of such receipts cannot be guarant eed. Where the overall utility of this action is seen, it would create hassle and would increase the requirement for time and resources, which is not in favour of the majority. Due to these reasons, for the company as a stakeholder, the theory of utilitarianism would justify the actions of the geologists and would deem it as ethical. When the employees of the company are deemed as ethical group in this context, the actions of the geologists would again be ethical. This is because the employees would be given a way of saving their income, which in turn would allow the company to get to know the manner in which the costs can be brought down and in turn the utility of the actions could be maximized. As is done by the geologists, the employees would be able to save money. In this context, an environment of brainstorming would be cultivated in the company, through which the company could learn about the different manners of cost cutting. Possibly the most important stakeholder group, in context of absence of receipts is the taxation department. As and when the taxation is to be taxed, a manner could be devised to show that the allowance requires invoices. The taxation department may themselves present a way of putting in the costs. Till this is done, the utility of the present action cannot be denied. For the last stakeholder group, i.e., for the consumers, due to the utility being maximized for the company, the consumers would be benefitted. Thus, it can be concluded that the case study presents one of the scenarios where the actions undertaken by a particular set of individuals, in the business environment, could be deemed as ethical or unethical. The initial analysis of the case study, for the different stakeholders, demonstrated that the actions of the geologists had been majorly unethical. However, when the help of the ethical theory of utilitarianism was undertaken, the actions undertaken by the geologists were proved to be ethical, due to the utility of the actions being maximized for the majority. This application of the utilitarianism theory highlights the significance of ethical theories in order to judge the actions and even for the purpose of making the business decisions, particularly where an ethical dilemma is involved. References Albee, E. (2014).A history of English utilitarianism. Oxon: Routledge. Bykvist, K. (2010). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J. (2015).Business ethics: Ethical decision making cases. Scarborough: Nelson Education. Mill, J.S. (2017). Utilitarianism. Dublin, OH: Coventry House Publishing. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. West Sussex: John Wiley Sons. Smith, J.D. (2008). Normative Theory and Business Ethics. Plymouth, UK: Rowman Littlefield Publishers.