Moral Codes and Consequences

The case studies discussed in this assignment highlight various ethical issues faced by corporations, including Wal-Mart's exploitation of low employee wages, shipbreakers' disregard for environmental and worker safety, and Plasma International's profiteering from blood donations. Utilitarianism, a moral theory that prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, is applied to these cases to evaluate their ethics. It suggests that corporations should prioritize the well-being of both employees and the environment, rather than solely focusing on profits. While utilitarianism can be an effective tool for evaluating ethical decisions, it also has its drawbacks, such as ignoring individual human experiences and prioritizing social acceptability over moral principles.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is defined as the right plan of action which will lead to the greatest good for the
greatest number of people and that the consequences lead to happiness According to
utilitarianism, an action is right if and only if it brings about at least as much happiness as any
other action the agent could have performed. Otherwise, the action is wrong. In other words, it
takes happiness as its standard and uses it to assess the morality of the actions we perform. . As
mentioned in the utilitarianism lecture, when assessing actions, we must take into consideration
not only their consequences for us, but also their consequences for others. We are to consider the
happiness or unhappiness of everyone affected by our actions, with no person’s happiness or
unhappiness being given more value than another’s. Utilitarianism wants us to maximize
happiness and to reduce pain. First of all, human beings are not manipulated by happiness or
pain. There are a lot of other things matters in our lives. Utilitarianism is simple, bold, and direct
ethical theory. When we are deciding how to act in a given situation, utilitarianism instructs us to
assess the consequences of each of the various actions we could perform.
“The Parable of the Sadhu” revolves around an almost naked sadhu that is clearly in distress
and what is right in assuring the sadhu survives.
It is a real life incident that happened to Mccoy and his hikers. The multinational group
encountered a sadhu throughout the 60 days trip to Himalaya. An Indian Sadhu who was
suffering from Hypothermia and was shivering in the snow, was found by one of New Zealander.
Although each person from the group did their part taking care of the Sadhu, no one from the
group took accountability of Sadhu’s well being. Since this case took place in Himalaya, where
there are limited resources, these groups of people faced a dilemma whether to put effort on the
survival of the sadhu or to save their energy to fulfill their initial plan on climbing the Himalaya.

Each hiker was willing to do his bit to help the Sadhu as long as it was not too inconvenient, but
the group was not organized enough to take ultimate responsibility for a life. Though many
people supported him in different ways. The New Zealander carried him down below the snow
line, Mccoy took his pulse and treated him for hypothermia, Stephen and the Swiss gave him
clothing, the Sherpas carried him down to the sun and pointed out the hut, and Japanese people
gave him food and water. Everyone was helping him but no one would be willing to take whole
responsibility because their priority was in climbing the mountain rather than carrying the Sadhu
to the village where other people could help him out. They all knew that once they went down to
the village, they might not have been able to come back up and each group could only risk so
much before their own safety was in jeopardy. There are moral issues happening once they
found the Sadhu on the state he was in. Everybody prioritize more on their objective before the
ice melts rather than helping other people on the verge of death. The phenomenon of ethics of
care is highly used here as revolved around the moral responsibility one human has towards
another in a life threatening situation during a fatiguing and time critical adventure. Stephen tried
to take on the role of leadership but the others were not having it mainly because they did not
share the same values and ethics. In any given circumstance, not sharing values, ethics, or goals
in a group can surely make things difficult which is exactly what occurred with the Sadhu and
the different approaches or paths that each group took.There is an ethical dilemma between
individual ethics and group ethics. Though everyone did their bit to take care of the Sadhu,
Stephen was angered with McCoy’s action, believing that leaving the sadhu behind without
additional assistance down the road was a breakdown of ethics, “that everyone just ‘passed the
buck.’” And such action is a typical ‘western’ approach to a problem, simply toss some material
wealth at it and forget about it. McCoy in a broader context asks, do we prepare our

organizations and institutions so they will respond appropriately to ethical crises? A corporate
tradition that "encourages questions, supports individuals, and gives direction where needed can
combine individuality with the success of a group". An application of Ethics in workplace is also
procured here as some questions arise that how reaching consensus and selecting a leader in a
crush situation. Though according to the applicability of rule based theories Utilitarianism is
analyzed in this case. As in this case no one was harmed, maximum benefits from maximum
number of people and the sadhu benefited from their actions. However the final result was
unsatisfactory.
The case study article "Nestle and Advertising" was mainly about the Nestle Corporation, a
company that has been making baby formula product that was boycotted of advertising
campaigns promoting the formula in third world countries. Nestle manipulated underprivileged
and desperate mothers using promotional workers acting as "milk nurses" to convince mothers to
feed their infants with the formula they were selling. By doing so, Nestle had violated the World
Health Organization's- International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. Nestle’s
infant formula was involved with the danger of bottle feeding, however, the details of the causes
of deaths of the infants are not directly related to the use of Nestle, but the misuse of Nestle.
Some parents mixed the formula with contaminated water, some parents diluted their formula in
order to make the supply lasts, and some parents used the formula as a replacement of
breastfeeding. Nestle infant formula is a supplement to breastfeeding and Nestle had never
advertised that bottle feeding should be be the replacement of breastfeeding. In this case study,
Nestle has done unethical business practices. They failed to inform the customer about the
impact of misusing the baby formula, causing “baby bottle disease.”. Nestle has taken actions
that are most typically associated with large multinational corporations. Nestle has done

something which every company would do to earn profits and create the most revenue but
without mentioning the drawbacks of the product. In my opinion every company should provide
clear instructions when selling a product. Nestle earned huge profits by selling the milk formula
but at the same time it took away the happiness of the mothers who lost their children. This
means that the net happiness would most likely be less than it would be if the formula were not
market and sold to these families. Nestle’s advertisement was unethical because they did not
disclose or relay information to potential consumers that could be harmful to babies. This
directly contradicts with many of the utilitarian ideals discussed in this unit. Utilitarianism
stresses the importance of happiness caused by actions, and everyone directly effected should be
viewed as equally valuable. Another unethical tactic that Nestle used which does not exercise the
Utilitarianism theory is the fact that Nestle was providing free samples to hospitals and maternity
wards. New mothers would use the product but by the time they were able to go home, they were
not able to lactate properly in order to begin the breastfeeding process which, in turn, forced the
mother to seek an alternative method or continue to use the formula. Nestle did not consider the
greatest good for the consumers and instead was more concerned with the greatest good of the
organization. Knowing that Nestle products are known almost worldwide, they should take more
precautions and understand the market better before they advertise their product to the world.
rom an act utilitarianism perspective, we must also consider the deaths of the infants as it was an
indirect repercussion of the extensive advertising. We can undoubtedly say that the deaths
brought a greater degree of unhappiness than profits or the formula brought happiness. As for
how rule utilitarianism could be applied, Nestle should've considered that through their extensive
advertising campaign they would not only motivate customers to feed infants but that the act of
feeding Nestle products would become more imperative than the infant's health.

The case study “Walmart” talks about Walmart which is one of the world largest retail
corporation. While many people love Walmart due to its efficiency in production and low prices,
others remain skeptical about their true influences on the market and on human lives. Robert
Nozick considers the issue of Walmart as a big business wiping out small business as not an
ethical issue. Wal-Mart today is the world’s largest retailer, the company’s key focus is selling
goods at the lowest price possible. Although this business strategy may appear to be very
appealing in a consumer’s point of view, Wal-Mart has faced significant criticism for the way it
operates. Over the years, Wal-Mart has appeared to favor one group of stakeholders: its
consumers. Wal-Mart has placed so much emphasis on satisfying one group of stakeholders that
it has neglected the other groups of stakeholders, like employees, or other businesses. Wal-Mart
has affected communities and businesses both nationwide and worldwide. By providing
customers with low price product, Walmart suppress local business out of business. Failing to
provide health insurance for more than 60%of its employees, Walmart downwards pressure on
wages and benefits. Employees from Walmart get paid 20% lower than those of unionized
supermarkets. Not only Walmart is paying the amount lower than the employees deserve,
Walmart is also accused of discrimination, where the female store managers get paid less than
males in the same position. Nozick doesn't believe that this is an ethical issue because Walmart is
simply conducting business better than it's competitors. Walmart isn't violating any moral codes
by having a larger selection of products at lower prices. As a matter of fact, this is specifically
why it's the world's largest retailer. Wal-mart is focused on making money for themselves as well
as providing the lowest prices for there consumers. It just depends if a person gets caught in the
middle working for them because they would have the lowest pay and no health benefits. The
store does not look to close down smaller stores, they follow a business strategy that helps them

be more suitable for customers rather than the smaller markets. This ethical theory of
Utilitarianism can be effectively applied to Wal-Mart’s current pay scale for its workers, in order
to address what the company should be paying their workers according to act utilitarianism. So
in this case, this would mean that employees would have to be paid in a way that would allow
them to prosper above poverty, while Wal-Mart is successful in operations as well. This theory
factors in not only benefits, but harm as well. Following act utilitarianism, Wal-Mart’s decision
to exploit low employee wages is morally wrong because it does not maximize utility for both
parties. Although Wal-Mart is able to substantially gain from this decision to pay their workers
this way, many of its employees are being forced to live in poverty as a result.
In the case study “Shipbreakers”, it talks about the ethical issue is the working condition
and the environmental impacts of shipbreakers in Bangladesh, the largest shipbreaking site in the
world. Shipbreaker is just another case that looks much more profits than human ethics.
According to this case, business is looking for money but ignoring the environmental issues that
workers work with. Shipbreaking can cause environmental pollution where huge amounts of oil
and paints get into the ocean. Other than that, workers are at high risk of death and injury by tank
explosions and falling steel plates. The numbers of workplace accidents resulting in casualties
and injuries are linked to a lack of safety rule. Therefore, business should provide a safe, clean,
healthy and sustainable environment for workers. Staff members are exposed to toxic fumes,
which overtime risks the potential possibility for cancerous cell to develop. It is without a doubt,
extremely wrongful and inconsiderate of the company to disregard the people who work there,
and not provide them with a clean environment. The shipbreaking also leads to putting marine
life at risk in circumstances which toxic product split on the sea. It puts not only the marine life
but the people and the environment at large at a risk of death and disease. Humans are not being

treated fairly and their suffering is a consequence of the corporations trying to increase profits.
From a Utilitarian perspective, the employees are being not being treated with respect, and they
are being used as means to a profitable end. However, in accordance to utilitarianism concept,
better safety and sanitation, could save more lives. Also this is unethical and according to
utilitarianism rules, this is not bringing the greatest net happiness. It is bringing happiness to the
company as it is making revenue, but it is causing a lot of sadness and sorrow to the friends and
family of the labourers.
The case “Blood for sale” involves Plasma International buying blood from rural West
African tribes at a low price and selling them in the U.S higher. Their first mistake came early on
when they would purchase blood from people addicted to drugs and alcohol. Later on, they had
the bright idea of increasing profits by going to African Tribes and purchasing blood for a mere
15 cents and selling it for $25 in the United States and South America. the donating blood is a
noble action that should not be calculated in how much cents of the amount, because it should be
priceless. Using the money to exchange with blood is the immorality of the actions. People
should take benefits of blood donation organization, instead of collecting blood as a money tool.
The blood donation is opposed to helping those who suffer in the emergency, but not for a
money-making tool. Since the company looks forward to more profitable business rather than
human ethics, they may do even more unethical things. The companies like Plasma are hard to
gain any trust from people. This also has backslashes, as the blood diffusion is causing the
recipients to have hepatitis and due to this lot of people are getting dying. According to
Utilitarianism we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for
everyone affected by our actions. Based on utilitarianism, the blood donors have helped people
in need of blood even saving their lives, though donors are being paid money and companies are

making profit. Still they are doing it for good cause for great number of people. This is the
greatest number of happiness to all those people in need of blood and their families.
After reading all the cases, I feel In Utilitarianism, only consequences matter where right and
wrong depend on one’s actions for everyone who might be affected by the person’s decision. We
need to figure out which action will produce the most happiness with causing less distress.
I think utilitarianism can not be applied to every situation, as utilitarianism has its own
drawback. Utilitarianism wants us to maximize happiness and to reduce pain. First of all, human
beings are not manipulated by happiness or pain. Utilitarianism also focuses on the resonating
effects that your decision has made. Utilitarianism demonstrates that sometimes the right
decision will not be the socially acceptable one. If the net resulting happiness is greater from
withholding this information than making it available to the public.