Utilitarianism - Basic Understanding

Adequate application of utilitarianism, but which displays only a basic understanding of the theory. This could be reflected in poor identification of stakeholders and/ or rudimentary analysis of the consequences for stakeholder happiness. An attempt is made at providing a conclusion regarding whether the action is moral, but the justification for this conclusion is unclear.

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
QUT Business School
School of Accountancy
BSB111 Business Law and Ethics
SEMESTER TWO 2016
ETHICS CASE STUDY
INDIVIDUAL REPORT
(Weighting Total – 25%)
Due: 24 August 2016
Time: 5pm
Submission: via Turnitin through Blackboard by 5pm on 24
August 2016
Type: Individual
Length: Maximum of 1250 words (no +10%)
This assessment item assesses the following unit objectives and learning outcomes:
Professional Communication (PC)
3.1 Use information literacy skills, and communicate effectively and professionally in written forms
and using media appropriate for diverse purposes and contexts
Social, Ethical and Global Understanding (SE)
5.1 Demonstrate and apply knowledge of ethical and legal principles and practices in analysing
and responding to business issues
The purpose of this assignment is to encourage you to explore some of the principal theories in ethics,
consider how these can be applied to real world business issues and communicate this knowledge
effectively.
BSB111 – Ethics Case Study Assignment, p.1

Case 1: The ‘diesel dupe’
Adapted from “Volkswagen: The Scandal Explained”, BBC News, 10 December 2015
(http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772)
It's been dubbed the "diesel dupe". In September 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
found that many Volkswagen cars being sold in America had a "defeat device" - or software - in diesel
engines that could detect when they were being tested, changing the performance accordingly to improve
results. The German car giant has since admitted cheating emissions tests in the US.
… the EPA has said that the engines had computer software that could sense test scenarios by monitoring
speed, engine operation, air pressure and even the position of the steering wheel.
When the cars were operating under controlled laboratory conditions - which typically involve putting
them on a stationary test rig - the device appears to have put the vehicle into a sort of safety mode in
which the engine ran below normal power and performance. Once on the road, the engines switched out
of this test mode.
The result? The engines emitted nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US.
The EPA's findings cover 482,000 cars in the US only … But VW has admitted that about 11 million cars
worldwide, including eight million in Europe, are fitted with the so-called "defeat device".
Imagine that you are a manager at Volkswagen before the EPA discovered the ‘defeat device’.
Determine whether installing the device in diesel engines is a moral action, using:
(a) a utilitarian analysis
(10 marks)
(b) a Kantian deontological analysis
(8 marks)
(Total = 18 marks)
BSB111 – Ethics Case Study Assignment, p.2

Case 2: The man who blew the whistle on CBA
Adapted from “The man who blew the whistle on CBA”, Australian Financial Review, 28 June 2014
(http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/the-man-who-blew-the-whistle-
on-cba-20140627-je1mp)
Jeff Morris first blew the whistle on misconduct in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s financial
planning arm in 2008, but the wounds from the experience are still raw. After spending “a couple of
thousand hours" and six years building a case against his former employer, Morris was vindicated by a
Senate inquiry this week, which delivered a scathing verdict on the bank’s and corporate regulator’s
handling of the systemic mis-selling of financial products to clients who lost millions.
But it is clear the process has taken a big toll. As he describes the impact that taking on CBA has had on his
family life, Morris pauses to wipe away tears welling in his eyes. “My family paid a price as a result of my
decision, and in many ways, I had no right to expect my family to pay that price," he told AFR Weekend on
Friday. “But just for myself, I didn’t feel I had any choice. I couldn’t have lived with myself if I hadn’t done
what I did."
In October 2008, Morris and other bank employees sent an anonymous fax to the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission citing fraud at Commonwealth Financial Planning and alleging a “high level"
cover-up within CBA. The culmination of that action was a damning report from the Senate economics
committee. It sensationally found that the bank repeatedly sought to keep the regulator and the public in
the dark, and its credibility was so tarnished that only a royal commission or judicial inquiry could get to
the bottom of what really went on.
For Morris, who has spent 30 years in financial services, the image of everyday people falling victim to bad
financial advice is all too common. “It’s almost like there’s this elephant in the room that nobody wants to
talk about, which is that these ordinary people keep turning up on the TV, and they’ve had their lives
ruined by financial planning," he says.
Morris told the committee that the financial planner at the centre of the scandal, Don Nguyen, and other
non-compliant advisers benefited from an “incredibly loose, non-compliant culture" at CFP. He described
an “aggressive sales-based culture wherein advisers pushed clients into inappropriately high-risk products
both to earn bonuses and ‘avoid getting the sack’," the report said.
In September 2008, as the global financial crisis revealed the extent of Nguyen’s bad advice, he was
suspended. But the following month, he returned to work and was promoted to the position of senior
planner. Two weeks later, on October 30, 2008, Morris and the other whistleblowers alleged in an
anonymous fax to ASIC that Nguyen’s promotion was part of a management conspiracy to avoid paying
client compensation.
“Nguyen just gave everybody more or less the same risk profile," Morris told the committee in April. “He
got to the point where he just photocopied them. [CBA] found this in 2008, and he should have been
dismissed at that point. But they brought him back for two reasons: one was to hose down the client
complaints, the other was to sanitise his files. They gave him a second assistant to help sanitise the files. I
saw him there, day after day, with ‘liquid paper’ going through changing things in the fact files."
Morris and the other whistleblowers alleged that while the compliance team at CFP had recommended
that Nguyen be sacked for his misconduct, “the team had evidently been warned to ‘back off’ by CFP/CBA
BSB111 – Ethics Case Study Assignment, p.3

management ‘on a sufficiently senior level’," the Senate report stated. It is evidence like this, the majority
report suggested, that pointed to signs of a cover up.
Describe how the following ethical theories can be applied to this case:
(a) Virtue ethics
(9 marks)
(b) Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
(5 marks)
(Total = 14 marks)
Written communication
 Spelling, accurate abbreviations, formatting, referencing
(3 marks)
 Reading difficulty, grammar, logic and flow of the argument, links between sentences
(5 marks)
(Total = 8 marks)
GRAND TOTAL = 40 MARKS
BSB111 – Ethics Case Study Assignment, p.4

BSB111 Business Law and Ethics: Criteria Sheet: Assessment Item 1 - Ethics Case Study (Weighting: 25%)
Criteria Grade
Marks
7 (85% and above) 6 (75%-84%) 5 (65%-74%) 4 (50%-64%) <4 (<50%)
Case 1
(a)
Application of
Utilitarianism
(SE5.1)
Excellent application of
utilitarianism. The answer
demonstrates that the theory is
well understood by identifying a
range of relevant stakeholders,
discussing the potential positive
and negative consequences for
each stakeholder’s happiness and
quantifying these consequences.
A clear conclusion regarding
whether the action is considered
ethical is provided and this is
consistent with the analysis and
discussion of consequences.
Overall, explanation of the
theory and application to the
case is strong and convincing.
A good application of
utilitarianism but with minor
flaws in identifying
stakeholders and/or analysing
and quantifying the
consequences for stakeholder
happiness. A conclusion is
provided regarding whether
the action is moral but due to
the minor errors this
conclusion is either not fully
justified or not entirely
convincing.
A sound application of
utilitarianism but which displays
a number of flaws in the
understanding of the theory.
This could be reflected in a
limited identification of
stakeholder and/or limited
analysis of the consequences for
stakeholder happiness (e.g. only
positive consequences
included). A conclusion is
provided regarding whether the
action is moral but due to the
flaws in application, this
conclusion is only somewhat
justified.
Adequate application of
utilitarianism, but which
displays only a basic
understanding of the theory.
This could be reflected in
poor identification of
stakeholders and/or
rudimentary analysis of the
consequences for stakeholder
happiness. An attempt is
made at providing a
conclusion regarding whether
the action is moral, but the
justification for this
conclusion is unclear.
Some attempt at applying the
theory but the answer shows a lack
of understanding of utilitarianism
and/or is substantially incorrect.
For example inadequate
identification of stakeholders, no
genuine discussion of the
consequences or the answer shows
confusion as to which theory is
being applied (using a
deontological approach rather than
a consequentialist approach). The
conclusion is unclear or not
justified or no conclusion
provided.
/10
(b)
Application of
Kantian ethics
(SE5.1)
Excellent application of Kantian
ethics. The answer demonstrates
that the theory is well
understood by correctly stating
the maxim, and providing a clear
and convincing analysis of how
the action complies with (or
breaches) both formulations of
the Categorical Imperative
(universal acceptability and
respect for humanity). The
regarding whether the action is
moral is clear and consistent
with the analysis. Overall,
explanation of the theory and
application to the case is strong
and convincing.
A good application of
Kantian ethics but with minor
flaws in examining the
proposed action with respect
to the two formulations of the
Categorical Imperative. This
could include minor
confusions or a lack of
clarity. A conclusion is
provided regarding whether
the action is moral but due to
the minor errors this
conclusion is either not fully
justified or not entirely
convincing.
A sound application of Kantian
ethics but which displays a
number of flaws in the
understanding of the theory.
This could be reflected in a
confused application of either of
the two formulations of the
Categorical Imperative, and/or
considering factors not related
to deontological ethics. A
conclusion is provided regarding
whether the action is moral but
due to the flaws in application,
this conclusion is only
somewhat justified.
Adequate application of
Kantian ethics, but which
displays only a basic
understanding of the theory.
This could be reflected in
poor articulation of a maxim,
and/or weak analysis in
relation to the two
formulations of the
Categorical Imperative. An
attempt is made at providing a
conclusion regarding whether
the action is moral, but the
justification for this
conclusion is unclear.
Some attempt at applying the
theory but the answer is
substantially incorrect showing a
lack of understanding of Kantian
ethics. For example, the answer
attempts to apply Kantian ethics
using a consequential approach or
no statement of the maxim or no
application of the formulations
relating to universal acceptability
and respect for humanity. The
conclusion is unclear and not
justified or no conclusion is
provided.
/8
BSB111 – Ethics Case Study Assignment, p.5

Case 2
(a)
Application of
Virtue ethics
(SE5.1)
Excellent application of virtue
ethics. Answer demonstrates the
theory is well understood by
correctly identifying and applying
relevant virtues and vices. The
answer also clearly indicates why
the virtues and vices are relevant to
the case. Other aspects of virtue
ethics (function, goals, flourishing
and how the virtues/vices develop)
are also clearly applied, using
information from the case where
appropriate. Overall the application
of the theory and the explanation to
support the answer is strong and
convincing.
A good application of Virtue
ethics but with minor flaws
in applying particular virtues
or vices to the case (e.g. the
facts provided in the case are
not used). This could also
include minor confusions or
a lack of clarity regarding
other aspects of virtue ethics
(function, goals, flourishing
and how the virtues/vices
develop).
A sound application of Virtue
ethics but which displays a
number of flaws in the
understanding of the theory. This
could be reflected in a confused
application of how particular
virtues and vices could be
applied to the case, and/or
limited consideration of other
aspects of virtue ethics (function,
goals, flourishing and how the
virtues/vices develop).
Adequate application of Virtue
ethics, but which displays only
a basic understanding of the
theory. This could be reflected
in a poor consideration of the
context (function, goals,
flourishing and how the
virtues/vices develop) and/or a
poor analysis of which virtues
and vices may be applicable to
this case.
Some attempt at applying the
theory but the answer is
substantially incorrect showing a
lack of understanding of Virtue
ethics. For example, the answer
includes deontological or
consequentialist analyses, or
neglects significant aspects of the
virtue ethics approach (e.g. it fails
to identify appropriate virtues or
vices).
/9
(b)
Kohlberg’s
Theory of Moral
Development
(SE5.1)
Excellent application of Kohlberg’s
theory. The answer demonstrates the
theory is well understood by
correctly identifying and applying
appropriate stages, and clearly
justifying these with reference to
facts in the case. Overall the
application of the theory and the
explanation to support the answer is
strong and convincing.
A good application of
Kohlberg’s theory but with
minor flaws in applying
particular stages to the case.
For example, while
appropriate stages are
chosen, they are not clearly
justified using the facts
provided in the case. This
could also reflect a lack of
clarity in explanation.
A sound application of
Kohlberg’s theory but which
displays a number of flaws in the
understanding. This could be
reflected in insufficient
justification for why a particular
stage is appropriate, and/or why
an alternative stage is not
considered.
Adequate application of
Kohlberg’s theory, but which
displays only a basic
understanding. This could be
reflected in confusion
regarding which stage(s) are
applicable and/or what the
stage(s) actually represent.
Some attempt at applying the
theory but the answer is
substantially incorrect showing a
lack of understanding of
Kohlberg’s theory. For example,
the answer does not clearly
identify an appropriate stage of
moral development, or the
application of a particular stage
reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of the theory.
/5
Written Communication
Written
Communication
(PC3.1)
The Ethics Case Study is written in
a clear, well-structured, and
convincing manner. The argument is
easy to follow and understand.
Spelling, punctuation, formatting
and/or referencing is appropriate
and accurate.
The Ethics Case Study is
well written. Any difficulties
related to grammar, structure
and the logic of the argument
are minor. There may be
some minor errors relating to
spelling, punctuation,
formatting and/or
referencing.
The Ethics Case Study is
reasonably well written,
although there may be
grammatical errors. The
structure of the case study and
logic of the argument are
adequate but may not always be
clear. There are some errors
relating to spelling, punctuation,
formatting and/or referencing.
Although the Ethics Case
Study is understandable, there
are limitations in grammar and
structure that make it difficult
to read. The logic of the
argument may also be hard to
follow. There are also a
number of errors relating to
spelling, punctuation,
formatting and/or referencing.
Due to poor grammar and
structure the Ethics Case Study is
difficult to read and the logic of
the argument is hard to follow.
There are also significant errors
relating to spelling, punctuation,
formatting and/or referencing.
/8
Total /40
BSB111 – Ethics Case Study Assignment, p.6