Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical theories in Enron scandal
Ethical theories in Enron scandal
Ethical theories in Enron scandal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical theories in Enron scandal
form of consequentialism; meaning that when deciding if an action is right it is entirely based on the consequences that the action will produce, relative to the consequences of other “alternative actions” (Driver, 2012). One of the most persuasive normative approaches in the history of philosophy is Utilitarianism (The History of Utilitarianism, 2009). Utilitarianism attempts to identify the morally right decision by finding the one that creates the most “happiness” for all those affected (Shaw, 2011:53).
There are two forms of Utilitarianism namely Act utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism, the former being applied on a case-by-case basis and the latter by a utility of rules (Shaw, 2011:55). Act Utilitarianism is directly applied to each alternate act, and the right act is the one which consequences do more good than harm to those affected, directly or indirectly, by this act (Utilitarian Theories, 2002). In the case of the Million-Dollar Decision, we are applying Act utilitarianism: we will measure up the consequences of the decision that Tom Oswaldt (“Oswaldt”) has to make of whether he should or should not “bribe” the Chinese officials to get business, then we will weigh up the consequences and see which action “maximises the total well-being” (Bykvist, 2010:78).
Oswaldt has two alternative actions regarding his business, bribing Chinese authorities to get licenses or not to bribe the Chinese Authorities, and both these actions may have long-term and short-term affects ánd positive and negative consequences (Hackworth & Shanks, 2007).
If Oswaldt makes the decision to pay off the Chinese Authority to get a licence to do business in that country, it will have the following positive and negative consequences:
The positive sh...
... middle of paper ...
... for one, no one for more than one” therefore the one of the measures will be the amount of people affected (Bykvist, 2010:16). In Enron the employees strived to reach the short term goals at any cost, any this led to the detriment of the company (Brinkman, 2003). When a company follows a long term approach, it is more concerned with the various asepects of sustainability, and as seen before (Enron) there is a “correlation between short termism and the cutting of ethical corners” (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, 2010). The hedonic calculus was introduced by Bentham, for calculating the “pleasure and pain” caused by the consequences, they are distinguished from each other through quantitative differences (Shaw, 2011:54). However, this will not work as seen in the Ford Pinto case, human life doesn’t have a specific value attcahed to it (Shaw, 2011:83).
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
In this scenario, Jim’s morally thinking does follow the act utilitarianism theory. Jim weighs his options, of whom he should consider for the job. Jim is using the consequentialism formula to try and figure out what will be the best solution that he can live with morally. But does Jim practice all of the theories that go along with act utilitarianism? Just like in the case Jim believes that he should be acting impartially. Therefore, he is dismissing one of the most important part of the act utilitarian theory. Let’s first examine the formula for consequentialism and see if Jim has followed all of the steps.
As Stephen J. Freeman explains, consequentialism is the belief that "actions and/or rules are right as long as they produce the most favorable consequences for those affected by the actions or rules" (Freeman 63). Consequentialists view the morality of a consequence in two aspects. One aspect is what is called ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is "the idea that morality is defined as acting in one's own interest and in such a way as to maximize the consequences of good over bad" (Freeman 49). In contrast to ethical egoism is utilitarianism. Utilitarianists view morality as when an action promotes the greatest balance of good over bad for all people. "Utilitarianism is a teleological, goal-directed theory emphasizing happiness as the end result of human action" (Freeman 49).
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
The article also give snap shot of the foreign companies who misjudge the Chinese culture, competition, size the market, and some other factors, have been badly affected by investing in china.
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
A Utilitarian is a person that believes, if an action produces more good than harm, then that action is morally correct. Shkreli believes that if he raises the price Daraprim, Turing Pharmaceuticals will raise more profitable, and therefore is able to spend more money on research to help develop more drugs down the road. There are however, two types of Utilitarianism. There is Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism believes that any action that produces more good than harm, it is the moral thing to do. While Rule Utilitarianism believes that any action that does not breaking the law and produces more good than harm, is the moral thing to do.
We have our own moral codes but our decisions are solely based on the impact of our perspective on the people’s welfare and happiness. Although it is in our perspective as utilitarian to decide what actions to make, the theory of utilitarianism has strengths and weaknesses.
Over the last 30 years the world has seen drastic changes in the Chinese way of making business. Nowadays, China has opened its businesses to the rest of the world, especially America and Europe (Teagarden & Cai, 2009). As a result, their economy has increased and the evolution of the companies have changed to be from closed doors to be international and multinational (Teagarden & Cai, 2009). This essay will analyze, first of all, how some Chinese companies have had success abroad, looking at the strategy that they applied to expand and to improve their products. Furthermore, this essay will show examples of successful Chinese firms, such as Lenovo and TCL Group, and how they achieve it.
The Utilitarianism method is consequence-oriented. It is based on “The greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Again, there are more employees than executives. Making a couple times the amount that employees make, the executives could have spared something.
The Utilitarian Approach: the ethical decision should provides the greatest good for the greatest number;
China's development is praised by the whole world. Its developments are not only in the economic aspect, but as well in its foreign affairs. Compared with other developed countries, China is a relatively young country. It began constructing itself in 1949. After 30 years of growth, company ownership had experienced unprecedented changes. Entirely, non-state-owned companies can now be more involved in sectors that used to be monopolized by state-owned companies.
Morally right things by Utilitarianism would results the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. The most plausible ethical theory I think is Qualitative Hedonistic Utilitarianism derived by John Stuart Mill. Mill’s theory is basically same with Bentham’s Utilitarianism, however, added criterion of qualities between the pleasures. Intellectual thought, artistic feeling and knowledge has higher quality than physical pleasure like sexual intercourse, satiety. Aristotelian ethics claims intellectual action like deep thinking gives pleasure to human-being then the actual action comes after, however being good does not always make good result. As Utilitarian thinks about consequence first, more certain theory for the future is