Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Application of business ethical theory
Theories of ethics and its application to business
Bribery as an unethical business practice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Application of business ethical theory
(A) From the above statement we know that Mr.Ali is undergoing a financial problem and a debt of RM 1.5 Million. So, he had an agreement Mr. Micheal Chong with the contract from a china company called China Medical Ltd. Because of this agreement Mr.Ali gave 5 percentage of his income as a bribery to Mr. Micheal Chong. Basically, bribery is an illegal action. It is an action of receiving or giving money in an illegal way. Moreover, bribery is consider as a wrong action by government all over the world. In every country around this world the law and act of bribery are the same. Those who did bribery they will be punished very badly. For an example, bribery can be punished by putting the accused in jail or stiff …show more content…
It tells all activity are childish propelled and that really unselfish activity are along these lines unimaginable. This links with 3 major objections to Egoism. Firstly, the not sound theory. It tells that personal interest of someone which always motivates us. Mr.Ali motivates the employees to start working for the China Medicine company. This show personal interest of Mr.Ali motivates all of them. Secondly, egoism which is not a moral principle. Action of Mr.Ali on giving bribery. Even its benefits the whole point of morality is gone there. Lastly, moral selfishness overlooks conspicuous wrongs. In this sometimes the wrong one can be morally right. As we know giving bribery is an International fraud but it depends on the situation of people. Even its wrong but it brings good to others it’s consider as a good …show more content…
Weather its right or wrong in the end must get substantial much of happiness. Like what Mr.Ali did was like this. He take care of people who are in his company and doesn’t care about the third and the fifth parties. Then, utilitarianism divide works according to their consequences and the work result in many different ways, almost everything, be morally correct in any particular situation. To get enough money to pay Mr.Ali‘s debt. he find money in the form of agreement . This shows that to get something right we can see it from anywhere. Fourth, utilitarian hopes to increases happiness not simply immediately but in the long run as well. Even the RM 20 million used to pay debt, some will be in the company name and after sometimes it divided to the employees and utilised their satisfaction. Even one of the employee is not satisfied then the whole relationship will be damaged. This is the one of the most important ad cannot be
Ethical Egoism A rear assumption is that the needs and happiness of other people will always affect our moral ethics. If we accept this assumption, we think that our moral ethics balance our self-interest against that of others. It is true, that “What is morally right or wrong depends not only on how it makes us feel, but also how it affects others”. The idea that each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively to do in his lifetime for others is known as Ethical Egoism.
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
In other words, self-interest is a person’s pleasure, and chasing self-interest as a kind of happiness is comprehensible and somehow necessary, as Fr. Fagothey mentioned, “Man is free in the choice of concrete objects by whose possession he hopes to obtain happiness.” (Fagothey, 47) He also wrote, “We naturally desire health, wealth, knowledge, and other goods; but we cannot always obtain them.” (Fagothey, 56) Gaining all desire is necessary for people rather than simply survive. In this case, there is nothing wrong with reaching a personal goal and dreaming without impeding others, because as Stoic scholar declared, “What people constantly, are things that are not within their control.” (Hospers, 53) Therefore, trying to accomplish desire, promoting self is the only way to reach. For example, if one person wants to be wise, go to school and study hard, finally they gain the knowledge, which in other way finish his personal interest. Without promoting him/herself, it is impossible to reach this goal. Promptly, if everyone tries their best to capture the best by taking this kind of active progress into the society, as each one make little progress; it actually has huge influence to the society.
Egoism considers the best outcome for the decision maker. From an egoist perspective the most favourable outcome for the teacher to do is minimise the stress and conflict of possible outcomes in his/her life. It is therefore in the teachers’ best interest to not upset the principle, to align a similar view to her and not accept the offer of further promotion of funding.
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
In this paper, I will define and explain Utilitarianism, then evaluate the proofs made to support it. In the nineteenth century, the philosophy of Utilitarianism was developed by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is the theory that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Jeremy Bentham is acknowledged as the father of Utilitarianism, it was Mill who defended its structure through reason. He continually reasoned that because human beings are capable of achieving conscious thought, they are not simply satisfied by physical pleasures; humans desire to pleasure their minds as well. Once a person has achieved this high intellectual level, they do not want to descend to the lower level of intellect where they began. Mill explains that “pleasure, and
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which determining the rightness or wrongness of action or decision is based on determining whether the greatest benefit or happiness will be provided in the highest or greatest number of population. This simply means that action or decision must be based on the highest amount or number of beneficiary (Martineau, 2006). However, this ethical theory has two major types. First is the “act utilitarianism” and second is the “rule utilitarianism.” Act utilitarianism specifically adh...
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
The Utilitarian Approach: the ethical decision should provides the greatest good for the greatest number;
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.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible