Business Ethics Discussion

Can you help me understand this Business question?

Utilitarianism

The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states that the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness. John Stuart Mill adapted Jeremy Bentham’s theory, and stated that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, Mill clarified that there are higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the pleasures of the intellect, and the lower pleasures are the pleasures of the senses. The upshot is that morally speaking, it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but the quality as well.

It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest.

Is it justified that under the utilitarianism principle, one should commit unjust actions in certain situations for the greater good? Why or why not?

Business ethics discussion

I’m studying for my Business class and need an explanation.

Theme 1 – Safety/Civility

One of our readings this week was related to an off the field incident involving Kareem Hunt, formerly of the Kansas City Chiefs. There has been many incidents involving athletes in recent years, which typically results in varying punishment. Do you think a business should be able to punish an employee for actions they take in their personal lives? Why or why not? Support your response.

Theme 2 – Freedom From Discrimination

This theme is split into illegal discrimination and legal discrimination. Detail one of your readings in each category and explain why you feel it is important to have laws against discrimination as well as laws that allow for discrimination in certain circumstances.

Business Ethics Discussion

Can you help me understand this Business question?

Utilitarianism

The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states that the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness. John Stuart Mill adapted Jeremy Bentham’s theory, and stated that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, Mill clarified that there are higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the pleasures of the intellect, and the lower pleasures are the pleasures of the senses. The upshot is that morally speaking, it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but the quality as well.

It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest.

Is it justified that under the utilitarianism principle, one should commit unjust actions in certain situations for the greater good? Why or why not?