Prague College Business Law and Ethics Report: Ethical Analysis

This report analyzes an ethical dilemma faced by a company regarding the controversial song "Cop Killer." The core issue revolves around whether the lyrics, perceived as promoting violence, should be banned or considered protected expression. The report employs utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks to assess the situation. It explores the moral issues, including the potential impact on society and the conflict between freedom of expression and the promotion of harmful content. The analysis considers the perspectives of the company, the artist, and the public. The utilitarian framework evaluates the impact of the song on overall happiness, while deontology focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of the actions involved. The report examines the ethical responsibilities of businesses in the context of artistic expression and its potential societal consequences. It provides a detailed evaluation of the ethical dimensions of the business's decision-making process, considering the impact on various stakeholders and the application of ethical theories to resolve the dilemma.

Running head- BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS
Business Law and Ethics
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Business Law and Ethics
Introduction
An ethical dilemma is stated as the complicated situation that any organization faces
in coming to a decision that might be very complex. The nature is complex as it includes
some decisions that might be right for the business or to induce the profit in business but is
against the ethical and moral structures of the society. So it becomes essential for any
organization in order to understand the complexity and need of the situation and make the
decision through in-depth analysis so that the decision benefits the more significant part of
the society and the well being in the society could be maximized. In the case scenario
provided the ethical dilemma was to decide whether the lyrics of the song “ CopKiller” that
was alleged as abusive and against the morals of the society shall be banned as it was against
the morals of a person or it was a right thing to do as it was was just an expression of the
singer so it shall not be held abusive. So for the analysis of this problem, The Utilitarian
theory is used as the basic structure that to be followed supported by the deontology to
understand the effect ts it imposed upon the stakeholders positively as well as in a negative
way (Xu and Ma 2016). Further, the report shows the application of these two theories upon
the decision making of the ethical dilemma that arises due to the song.
Moral Issues
The moral and the ethical issues that were noticed in the case study is that whether the
lyrics of the song “Cop Killer” was against the ethical and the moral standards of a human. It
was described as a moral issue as the lyrics of the song signified killing a person. Moreover,
killing a person can never be morally right. According to the lyrics of the song, it signified
killing the cops and causing harm to the cops. The primary issue raised as the Company was
promoting a song that contained abusive language in order to increase profit in their business.

2Business Law and Ethics
Moreover, for the reason to profit in business, it shall not be abusive and encourage
the youth to kill any person or induce in the killing of the cops. Albums and songs are a
common thing that people listen to, so it influences the public at large in developing moral
and ethical behavior. Hence for that reason, a song that will be out to the public at shall not
be something against the morals and the ethics of a person (Ogbari et al 2016) . Songs like
that influence to have a criminal behavior inducing harm upon a person and influencing or
encouraging g the killing of the cops or cause harm to them. Inflicting harm to some person
can never be right. So the stakeholders mentioning that the songs were just for the fun
purpose were not right. It was against the decent human practice as inflicting harm to danger
to a person’s life can never be right even though it is just through words. However, despite all
such, the act was an expression of the singer. So expressing the opinion or thought of a
person shall not be considered wrong.
When someone mentions anything that is against the moral standards only in an oral
way, it reflects the moral personality and characteristics of the person. It signifies that the
person by nature is not right. So anything he does or says can never be right. As a person
intending to harm someone itself is morally and ethically wrong as inflicting injury to
someone else, life can never be considered right even though made in an oral way and not
through words. The issues were in the albums that were released by Time Warner. More or
less, every album consisted of some violent and aggressive behavior that was against the
morality of a person. As according to the morals of a person profiting in business should not
constitute any kind of negative impact on the society as it strongly influences the thought
structure of a person listening to such music. The moral dilemma in this study was to whether
such lyrics were ethically right or it was the right of the singer to express his own opinion.
The dilemma arises because whether expressing the opinion and voicing their opinion shall
be considered right or wrong. Although the lyrics of the song signified something morally

3Business Law and Ethics
wrong, it was the opinion of the singer, and he just expressed his views that shall be not
considered as wrong at all. So expressing the opinion may not be wrong, but if the opinion is
related to killing a person, it shall never be considered right. Hence through the application of
the various ethical and moral frameworks of the society, the dilemma can be solved.
Ethical Framework
The ethical framework used in the scenario is the utilitarian theory and deontology.
The base of the analysis is based upon the application of the utilitarian theory, followed by
the deontology to support the theory (Von Kriegstein 2015). Both this theory is used in order
to understand the ethical dilemma and come to a conclusion that will benefit the society at
large and induce the maximum wellbeing of the people. The ethical structure that focuses
upon the happiness of the maximum members of the society is the actual framework that
shall be used to overcome such a dilemma and bring out a definite conclusion for the
stakeholders to follow. So the frameworks are described in the below context:
Utilitarian Theory
This theory focuses on the maximization of the happiness of the people of society
upon the action. Jeremy Bentham formulated this theory. The main focus of this theory is
upon the act that will bring wellness to the people at the maximum level with the act that is
conducted (Cremaschi 2014). It believes the act itself that is good will bring happiness in
society, and the actions that will be bad will create suffering for the people of the society. So
the ideal notion will be such that it shall bring maximum happiness. It is dependent upon the
consequential theory of the actions that shall bring the maximum happiness (Mill 2016). This
theory is described as the property persisted in any object that will tend to benefit, inflict
goodness or pleasure in the society, and that it shall eradicate the pain or the unhappiness. In
general words, it suggests that the act itself is responsible for the good or bad conduct. It

4Business Law and Ethics
states that any action can be held justifiable that will tend to focus on the happiness of a
person. A kind act is stated as an act that brings the maximum happiness to the person, and
the corrupt conduct is stated as the act that brings stress, anger or any kind of negativity in the
person. It states that any theory can be considered as justifiable if it brings maximum
happiness to the person based upon the act he conducts and not upon the consequence that
may follow by the conduct of the act. It depends upon the theory of pleasure and pain.
According to g to Bentham, pleasure will constitute an act that will bring happiness in the life
of the person, and any act that brings happiness should not be against the morals and the
ethics and shall be considered as an ethical act no matter what the consequences to it are
(Garcia-Ruiz. and Rodriguez-Lluesma 2014).
Moreover, if any action is terrible, it will inflict pain in society no matter what the
consequence is. So any act that inflicts pleasure is considered as good, and any act that
inflicts pain or suffering is considered harmful. It does not depend upon any hierarchy, and it
can be challenging to understand the consequence of every action as every action has a
different consequence (Fleurbaey and Zuber 2014). It discards moral enigmas or
arrangements that contain guidelines or bans that are built on duties, orders, or traditions
given by beings. As an alternative, utilitarians reflect that what brands decency be justifiable
or right is its optimistic influence on human beings.
Deontology
Deontology is a moral theory that uses guidelines to differentiate right from wrong. It
is linked with theorist Immanuel Kant. He believed that this theory depends upon the basics
that believe what is wrong and what is right. It just needs that individuals tail the procedures
to follow the onus. Unlike the analysis based upon the consequences which adjudicate the
activities by their outcomes, this theory does not involve considering the prices and welfares

5Business Law and Ethics
of a condition. This circumvents biasness, and that needs specific guidelines to be followed.
Despite its gifts, inflexibly, the following deontology can harvest fallouts that many people
find insupportable. Kant contends that to act in the ethically correct method, persons must
turn from obligation. Secondly, it stated that it was not the magnitudes of activities that mark
them correct or incorrect, but the objects of the individual shall carry the actions. Kant's
dispute that to action is considered as ethically or morally right in a way where one must do
any that is virtuously from obligation begins with a quarrel that the uppermost quality that is
considered good shall be proper in all the aspects without needing for any kind of
qualifications. Anything is considered as intrinsically good it does not require any
qualification to justify its conduct as ethical. Anything that makes a situation ethically right is
considered as good without any requirement for such qualification. However, in a situation, if
it is required to think about the consequence shall not be considered ads good. So the thing
that is natural goods can never be ethically wrong. So if in a situation it the act is against the
ethics and the moral, it does not make it ethically or morally right and considered as good for
the individual as well as the society. Hence pleasure can never be considered as a good deed
it appears without any kind of qualification (Goyal, Sergi . and Jaiswal 2015). Pleasure, for
example, acts not to be good without prerequisite because when people take desire in seeing
someone suffer, then it can never be considered as ethically right. In order for some action to
be ethically as well as morally right, it requires that the act itself is perfect, and it should not
have any consequence that relates to the suffering of any other person. Nothing in this whole
world can be considered good ethically as well as morally if it does not qualify to be a perfect
act. Kant then contends that the significances of action of eager to be used to regulate that the
individual possess goodwill; valid concerns could ascend by coincidence from an act that was
driven by a need to inflict harm to the maximum people of the society, and evil significances
could arise from an act that was motivating the good deeds to occur. Instead, he asserts, an

6Business Law and Ethics
individual has a respectable will when he behaves in a way that is respectful and rightful. An
ethical will is something when the killer does something that is the duty of the person to
follow. So an act is not defined as competent by the consequences of the act, but an act that
leads to something good can be understood under the purview of the deontology.
Analysis
Based upon the application of the theories that is the utilitarian and the deontology,
the following derivations can be made:
Time Warner’s perspective:
According to the perspective of the Company, the utilitarian theory will be applicable
as it depends upon the act that shall bring unlimited happiness and not upon the consequence
of the Act. As per their position, it was the profit, and the business they were doing so
profiting in a business is something that brings the maximum profit to a person’s life (Sison, ,
Ferrero and Guitián 2018). So the act was to increase the profit that was to get the pleasure
and based upon the concepts of the pleasure and pain anything g that brings pleasure with any
kind of shall be considered as good and hence shall not be considered morally or ethically
wrong. As such, act only depends upon the maximization of the pleasure of the individual
that is the core of the theory. So the act of the Company shall not be considered as a wrong
act as it was just to increase their profit and not to inflict harm to the cops or kill them.
Moreover, it was just an expression of the singer that he had the right to express his
views. So based upon that, it shall not be something against the ethics, and hence it was not
violating any rules of the society as there was no activity, and it was just an expression (Shin,
Sung, Choiand Kim 2015). So the critical thing that needs to be recognized in this situation is
the nature of the act. Moreover, the motive and the intention of the act were just to do their
business, so any conduct for the business, unless there is no physical activity, shall be

7Business Law and Ethics
considered morally wrong. The act was indeed to gain profit, which was as per the pleasure
of the Company. So under this circumstance, this act of the Company is not ethically or
morally right. So as per the application of this theory, any act that induces pleasure is
ethically and morally right despite the consequence of the act. By the application of the
utilitarian theory, it will impact the Company positively.
On the other hand, with the application of the deontology theory, it will hurt the
Company. Unlike the theory of utilitarianism, this theory depends upon the magnitude of the
action that helps in justifying any act and differentiate it from an act that can be right as well
as wrong. So an act is considered right if it does not follow any consequence that is
considered as wrong or that may impact the wellbeing of the society at large. So the action of
the Company, though it gave them pleasure, but it inflicted pain and had a reversed
consequence to the rest of the society. So any actions that harm the maximum masses cannot
be considered as ethically as well as morally right. Moreover, it was the duty of the Company
to conduct the activity in a way that will not have any negative consequences on society. So
the application of the utilitarian theory will be applicable in order to have a positive impact
on the Company for the business.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that the best approach that the Company could follow to
defend them would be utilitarian theory, as this theory depends upon the act that brings
happiness or pleasure is considered right despite the consequence or action of the act.
Moreover, this theory focuses upon the concept of pleasure and pain and state that anything
that brings pleasure shall be considered as a right, and anything that induces suffering or pain
shall not be considered as good as shall be stated as immoral despite the consequences that
will follow the act. So the Company has not conducted any act that is ethically or morally

8Business Law and Ethics
wrong as it was just to induce pleasure by conducting the business. So the album was just
with the motive of business and the free right to the opinion of the singer. Hence the act shall
not be considered as something that is ethically or morally wrong.

9Business Law and Ethics
Reference
Cremaschi, S., 2014. Utilitarianism and Malthus' virtue ethics: respectable, virtuous and
happy. Routledge.
Fleurbaey, M. and Zuber, S., 2014. Discounting, beyond utilitarianism. Dietrich II Economic
Theory Center Research Paper, (060).
Garcia-Ruiz, P. and Rodriguez-Lluesma, C., 2014. Consumption practices: A virtue ethics
approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), pp.509-531.
Goyal, S., Sergi, B.S. and Jaiswal, M., 2015. How to design and implement social business
models for base-of-the-pyramid (BoP) markets?. The European Journal of Development
Research, 27(5), pp.850-867.
Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383).
Routledge.
Ogbari, M.E., Oke, A.O., Ibukunoluwa, A.A., Ajagbe, M.A. and Ologbo, A.C., 2016.
Entrepreneurship and business ethics: Implications on corporate performance. International
Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3S), pp.50-58.
Shin, Y., Sung, S.Y., Choi, J.N. and Kim, M.S., 2015. Top management ethical leadership
and firm performance: Mediating role of ethical and procedural justice climate. Journal of
Business Ethics, 129(1), pp.43-57.
Sison, A.J.G., Ferrero, I. and Guitián, G. eds., 2018. Business ethics: a virtue ethics and
common good approach. Routledge.
Von Kriegstein, H., 2015. Shareholder primacy and deontology. Business and Society
Review, 120(3), pp.465-490.

10Business Law and Ethics
Xu, Z.X. and Ma, H.K., 2016. How can a deontological decision lead to moral behavior? The
moderating role of moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), pp.537-549.