Ethical Theories of Utilitarianism and Kantianism - Essay Example

 Introduction Ethics and morality are diminishing from all segments or domains of human life and business sector is also not an exception. Relationships between people have less importance in the current world which is filled with selfish interests and profit making mottos. The dominating mentality of the human being and the increased competition for existence forced the people to adopt any kind of actions irrespective of whether it is ethical or unethical. There appears to be good reason to suggest business ethics as a phenomenon, as a subject, but not as an oxymoron (Crane &Matten, 2007, p.5). In the given case study, the manager Michael has faced an ethical situation in his family’s business of metal components. The current economic crisis has created strong challenges to Michael in sustaining his family business. On the other hand, one of his unskilled, but loyal workers, John, who started working for the company even at a time when Michael’s grandfather was running the business, has developed some unhealthy behaviors at the workplace which caused Michael lot of headaches. Michael knows that John’s wife and only son died in a car crash a year ago and that, to cope with his loss, John has taken to drinking alcohol. Michael has repeatedly talked with John about this problem but this has not changed John’s behavior. Even though Michael decided to cut down all the unproductive sectors including the unproductive problematic employees also, he decided to keep John on. This paper briefly analyses Michael’s decision to keep John on the basis of ethical theories of utilitarianism and Kantianism. Main ethical issues and key stakeholders in the given case Ethical issues The main ethical issue involved in this case was about John’s future. He has started his career even when Michael’s grandfather was running the business and moreover John has spent majority of his healthy periods for the company and worked hard for the company as a loyal worker. Right now he is rapidly approaching the end of period of his life both as a worker and a human being. Is it right to fire a worker who spent majority of his life for the wellbeing of a company during a period when he was about to retire? Another ethical issue involved in the above case was that John has lost his entire family in an accident and left alone in this world by destiny. Apart from his family, the company was the second entity in which John was constantly interacting. Is it right for the company to fire such a loyal worker when he was left alone in this world, especially when considering his earlier services to the organization? Stakeholder issues The major stakeholders in this case were Michael and his family, the other employees of the company, customers of the company and shareholders of the company. Michael has the responsibility of preserving the interest of all the above stakeholders. Keeping an unproductive element, especially I n the current recession scenario is against the interests of the stakeholders. Michael is answerable to all the above key stakeholders and it is his responsibility to keep the interests of the stakeholders along with the interests of John as well. Analysis of the given case based on utilitarianism As per utilitarianism utility is measured as in terms of pleasure and pain (Crane &Matten, 2007, p.95). Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness (Mill, p.6). The utility of John as a worker has been lost as far as Michael is concerned. John is creating more pain to Michael than gain at present. So at the first instance, when we analyze the case of John, we may tend to take an opposite stand than what Michael has taken (Michael decided to retain John). At the same time, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good (West, n. d). In other words, utilitarianism analyses an action not only based on utility alone, but based on the intrinsic value as well. John was in a pathetic condition at present. He lost his entire family and he has no other support from any sources at present. He has given his healthy days for the company and now he has lost everything; his physical health as well as mental health. The company has every responsibility of helping such loyal workers. Michael has considered the above fact while taking the decision of retaining John. He has realized that John has done enough for the company in the past and it is ethically wrong to leave him when he badly requires some support from the company. John’s actions at present must be excused considering the contributions of John in the past when he was healthier both physically and mentally. The productivity of a worker should never be constant. It can vary based on the physical and mental conditions. It is not possible for a worker to perform exactly the same way at the beginning of his career and at the end of his career because of the variations in physical and mental health. Michael has considered all such things while finalizing his decision to keep John on. Analysis of the given case based on Kantianism As per Kantianism, the second maxim requires us to treat humanity as an end and never as a means only (Crane &Matten, 2007, p.267). According to Kantian thinking, it is human dignity that forbids treating employees as a means only (Crane &Matten, 2007, p.269). Kantians believe that what a person should do and what a person wants to do are often not compatible. (Maccarelli, 2006) It is not necessary that the “rights” of a person might be the “rights” of others as well. In the given case, Michael wants to fire John because of his irresponsible behavior. At the same time he should never fire John out because of John’s early contribution to the company and his present pathetic condition. In other words what Michael wants to do and should do in John’s case are not compatible. Second maxim of Kantianism urge for humanity in every action. In other words, Michael was totally right in retaining John considering the humanitarian concepts of Kantianism. Humanity and morality are two sides of the same coin as per Kantianism. The segregation between the two is often difficult. Kant believed that human being has a special place in the creations of God and hence morality is the core of every actions or duties performed by human being. He has explained morality in terms of categorical imperatives. Since man cannot have absolute surety in what is going to happen in the next moment, it is his mission to do his duty on an ethical basis giving importance to humanity and don’t bother about the outcomes. In other words, man comes to this earth for a temporary assignment and he is not sure about his mission in the past and in future also. In other words, the value of moral actions is infinite whereas value based on utility might be temporary. When we analyze Michael’s actions under the above perspective, we can conclude that Michael’s decision to keep John was fully justified. As per the Kantian theory of universal law formulation (ULF) maxims are chosen only if they may true everywhere (Categorical Imperative). Kant defined morality with respect to categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; everywhere anytime. They must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances in order to keep morality. A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation for everyone who has belief in morality. Michael’s decision to retain John is a moral action which is true everywhere anytime, if somebody analyses it through the perspectives of Kantian ethics. Conclusions Michael’s decision to retain John was fully justified under the perspectives of Kantian and utilitarian ethical principles. John was a loyal employee to the company for a long period and he has spent his good days for the growth of the company. It is immoral for the company to relive him forcefully at a time when he needs the support of the company badly. Michael has considered the psychological problems of John also while taking his decision to keep John on. Even though the utility of John as a worker may be less to the stakeholders at present, it should be respected that the same John has worked hard for the stakeholders during his good days for a prolonged period of time. In short, Michael was right in his decision to keep John on if we analyze John’s case with respect to either Kantian or Utilitarian ethics. References 1. Categorical Imperative, (n.d), Retrieved on 29 November 2009 from http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~hedmonds/lecture%20notes/kant%20lecture%20notes.htm 2. Crane Andrew Matten Andrew Crane (Author) › Visit Amazon's Andrew Crane Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central Dirk,(2007), Business Ethics, Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 2 edition (March 1, 2007). 3. Maccarelli Sarah, (2006), The Ethical Theory of Kantianism, Retrieved on 18 August 2009 from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/20668/the_ethical_theory_of_kantianism.html?cat=9 4. Mill John Stuart, Utilitarianism,(2004), Retrieved on 18 August 2009 from http://books.google.com/books?id=9PE1LARQNV8C&dq=Utilitarianism&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=54VwimSZ8i&sig=7f2q1be-7t6ih4pHPFsnmXT0qTs&hl=en&ei=kSeKSsL-G8OOkQXzv6gr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false 5. West Henry R., (n.d) Utilitarianism, Encyclopædia Britannica, Retrieved on 18 August from http://www.utilitarianism.com/utilitarianism.html Read More