Business Ethics Case Study Analysis

This essay examines a business ethics case study involving Stephen and Ralph, focusing on the application of Act Utilitarianism. The analysis explores how Stephen's decision to improve his farm's sustainability, potentially leaving Ralph unemployed for six months, aligns with or deviates from the principles of Act Utilitarianism. The essay also considers alternative ethical frameworks, including natural law ethics, character ethics, situation ethics, and duty ethics, to provide a comprehensive evaluation of Stephen's actions and their moral implications. The conclusion summarizes the findings and highlights the complexities of applying Act Utilitarianism in real-world scenarios, emphasizing the importance of considering both individual consequences and the overall balance of good and bad outcomes.

Business Ethics a Global
Perspective

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Evaluation of the response and the way it applies act utilitarianism to the case.........................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION
In today’s business world, for surviving in the long run with sustainability, it is important
to use business ethics not just as a corporate code, but it should be in the line of business as a
corporate philosophy. With reference to the same, Act utilitarianism is there that is one of the
very important aspects of business ethics. It refers to the theory of ethics according to which a
person’s act is considered to be morally right if he/she has produced at least as much happiness
as the other person at same time could have conducted by performing some other act (Horty,
2011). In the present report, as per the given case where Stephen and Ralph are the imaginary
stakeholders, concept of act utilitarianism will be explained in detail.
Concept of Utilitarianism
The theory states about the good and bad actions that a person undertakes. It refers that
many times, people without having any intention hurt another intention by doing some wrong
act. Therefore, as per this ethical theory of morality, actions can be separated into good and bad
that are taken by the stakeholders associated with the act. Theory believes that a person should
always made actions in a way that can reduce the pain of others and provide them pleasure.
Under the utilitarian theories, the most common is Bentham's well-known phrase, that is, the
greatest good for the greatest number (Harris and Galvin, 2012). In addition to this, the act
utilitarianism also involves a famous quote given by Jeremy Bentham which states that there are
two sovereign masters under which nature has placed the mankind, that is, pain and pleasure.
Evaluation of the response and the way it applies act utilitarianism to the case
As per the given case of Stephen who is concerned about Ralph who has given his 20
years to work on and off the farm and now when he is in his fifties and require help, Stephen is
not able to do the same at least for six months and for that period, Ralph will be unemployed.
Therefore, according to the scenario, it can be said that act utilitarianism is being applied here as
even being not in the position of helping Ralph, Stephen is concerned about him. Major positive
outcome of the case is that with gaining development that is, having a farm to better cope with
drought, Stephen will have higher productivity. However, due to the same, for at least six
months, Ralph will not be having work over there which is the main negative outcome of same
(Sandler, 2010). Thus, it can be said that Stephen should think for an alternative according to act
utilitarianism so that greatest possible balance of good over bad for Ralph can be gained by his
1

actions made. Stephen should act in a morally neutral manner even when the consequences are
not in his control. It means that even in the situation when he received government grants to
fence off waters, put in tree lines and subdivide paddocks to improve the quality of water
running into the river and the sustainability of the pasture so that he would better survive
droughts and produce more grass with fewer weeds, he should have concern for Ralph
(Hursthouse, 2013). However, as per the case, as Stephen is planning to improve the
sustainability and productivity of rest of the farm, Ralph would not be able to work for at least
six months here. Thus, according to act utilitarianism, the actions performed by Stephen should
neither be blameworthy nor praiseworthy.
Different ethical theories based on the given case
Natural law ethics – As per this theory, one needs to respect the natural inclinations. As
per the same, universe is governed with the help of rationale thinking made by people. In
includes respecting and preserving the life and having a peaceful society by taking care of the
social environment. According to the case of Stephen and Ralph, this act of utilitarianism can be
applied because Stephen is thinking of Ralph at the time of taking action. This states that he is
concerned for him. So, it can be said that utilitarianism approach has been followed in the
scenario. Besides this, Stephen is carrying out the development which will help in improving the
ecological sustainability. From this, it can said that he is taking the decision for the benefit for
environment (Act-Utilitarianism, 2017).
Character ethics – As per the same, everything has a purpose and function as well as a
person should have self-realization that what he is doing in terms of good or bad. It says that
every action reflects the character of a person and thus, one should always realise first about
what he is actually going to do. It means the act conducted by him/her must not give pain to
other in any way. According to the same, it can be said that it is the responsibility of Stephen to
act in such a way that Ralph would not come in pain. However, it can also be seen here that
Stephen is concerned to act with moral worth as by developing the farm, he is helping in
improving the ecological sustainability of land. Apart from that, by getting concerned for the
Ralph as well, he is acting with moral worth (Horty, 2011). Therefore, it can be said that act
utilitarianism is applied here as Stephen is performing all his moral duties. But, it is also clear
from the case that with Ralph, justice is not being done. It is because; with developing the farm,
Ralph would remain unemployed at least for six months. Also, it can be said as per act
2

utilitarianism that it is believed that people should seek out pleasure and avoid pain if they are
having the chance to do same. Thus, in accordance with the same, it is clear that Stephen could
have adopt another alternative, that is, giving Ralph some other work to remain employed instead
of related to farm.
Situation ethics – As per this theory, one should love things and find a proper balance
between legalistic as well as antinomian. As per the same, it is the responsibility of an individual
to behave in an ethical manner even if the situation is not his/her favour. In accordance with the
act utilitarianism, Stephen should think for Ralph instead of his farm. It is because; according to
this act, one could produce more happiness in the world and keep people happy by the way of
doing charity instead of making efforts for own self-interest. Therefore, with respect to the same,
instead of developing the farm, Stephen should think of Ralph as because of him, he may remain
unemployed for six months that would be a difficult time for him to survive his livelihood
(Woodard, 2013). However, it can be said that Stephen is not doing anything bad with the Ralph
as he is having the chance to work with other farmers that may improve his earnings as he may
be paid with higher amount than what Stephen is providing to him. But, there is one negative
point too, that is, it might be possible that Ralph would not have a consistent pay pocket.
Duty ethics – It tells about one’s duties and responsibilities about that should be
performed in an ethical manner, that is, in a way that the other party would not get harm. As per
the same every duty performed by the person should be for a good cause and not just for the self-
interest. As Ralph is not the permanent employee so it can be witnessed that Stephen is not doing
harm to him because he any time can leave the farm as he only works for the part time (Morrow,
2014). According to the scenario, as Ralph always wanted to be free so, in that case, Stephen
does not have the liability of Ralph. If in case, he was the permanent employee and this situation
would be occurred then Stephen would have been responsible. There are some of the aspects
which are missing such as according to the utilitarianism approach, the action should be taken
which can remove the suffering. But in this case, it is not sure that Ralph would be suffering as if
he gets jobs in other farm, then no suffering will occur (Groves and LaRocca, 2011).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the above report that Act utilitarianism put high stress on the
specific context as well as under the same, there are many individual features with respect to the
situations by which moral problems are possessed. In addition to this, as per this act, a single
3

method is presented with the help of which individual cases are dealt. In the case given above,
with respect to Stephen, Act utilitarianism agrees on the fact that main determinant of what is
right or wrong is the major relationship in between what Stephen does and what form his moral
code takes. Along with that, case has shown the impact of moral perspective that Stephen has in
terms of concern towards Ralph as well as on the level of his well-being.
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Groves, K. S. and LaRocca, M. A., 2011. An empirical study of leader ethical values,
transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes toward corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. 103(4). pp.511-528.
Harris, J. R. and Galvin, R., 2012. ‘Pass the Cocoamone, Please’: Causal Impotence,
Opportunistic Vegetarianism and Act-Utilitarianism. Ethics, Policy &
Environment. 15(3). pp.368-383.
Horty, J. F., 2011. Perspectival act utilitarianism. In Dynamic Formal Epistemology (pp. 197-
221). Springer Netherlands.
Hursthouse, R., 2013. Normative virtue ethics. ETHICA. 645.
Morrow, D. R., 2014. Starting a flood to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation
management. Ethics, Policy & Environment. 17(2). pp.123-138.
Sandler, R., 2010. Ethical theory and the problem of inconsequentialism: Why environmental
ethicists should be virtue-oriented ethicists. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics. 23(1-2). p.167.
Woodard, C., 2013. The common structure of Kantianism and act-utilitarianism. Utilitas. 25(02).
pp.246-265.
Online
Act-Utilitarianism. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.utilitarianism.com/actutil.htm>. [Accessed on 24th April 2017].
5