Doing Business with China (Coursework Sample)

Business with China Student’s name: School Affiliation: From time to time, almost everybody encounters an ethical issue that has to be addressed. Ethical dilemmas result from moral principles and values held by individuals. Intriguingly, what is ethically unacceptable to one individual could be acceptable to another. Further, the situation is made complex by differing theories and models of ethics. While some theories hold that only what is good ought to be done, others state that anything profitable to the majority of people ought to be embraced at all cost. For instance, the case being analyzed in this paper entails ethical issues relating to abortion. The organization’s motive is continuing offering the much-needed care to the residents of the said province. To do so, abortion operations that are legal could play an integral role in the continuity of the project. Conversely, such an undertaking would mean that the manager would have to allow the firm to proceed with the proposal. This paper analyzes this scenario from different ethical perspectives. Utilitarian perspective Utilitarianism theory is often termed as consequentialism as it focuses on the culmination of a particular decision whenever faced with a moral issue. In short, this approach seldom focuses on the exact action one takes; instead it places emphasis on the eventual results. As long as the results will maximize the benefits, then the theory argues that the morality of an action thus irrelevant (Gandjour, 2007). Though often criticized for seemingly failing to address the cases where innocent people might suffer, the proponents of the theory argue that it tends to benefit a majority of the people. In light of this understanding, a person applying utilitarian theory would go ahead and implement the plan. The reason for the assertion is that by undertaking this project, the clinics would no longer rely on other Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Additionally, the residents of this province would no longer be turned away for lack of medicines in the facility. The recent deaths resulting from curable diseases would cease. Most importantly, the facilities would achieve its core objective: offering health services to all the residents of this Chinese province. In other words, a utilitarian would approve the plan as it is since it will benefit more people than the number it will hurt. Contrary to the popular belief that utilitarianism disregards morality it indeed does but from a different perspective. To a utilitarian, an action is wrong if the resulting consequences do not benefit a large number of people(Jones, 2015). However, analyzing this Chinese case, a utilitarian would never have a problem with the implementation of this proposal. If the plan does not cater for the large community, a utilitarian will hesitate to implement. However, for this case it is different, and that is why the implementation would not be hesitated upon. Deontologist In contrast, a person applying deontology theory –defined first a German philosopher, Immanuel Kant- would seldom approve or implement the proposal to allow abortion operations in this village. The word ‘deontology’ was coined from the Greek term ‘Deon’ which means duty. Thus, this theory is often called duty-based as it compels an individual to do the right thing as a duty. While utilitarianism seeks to maximize the outcome irrespective of the actions, Deontology argues based on the morality of the action regardless of the outcome (Dougherty, 2011). That is to say, a deontologist would oppose an action deemed as wrong even if the benefits are higher. Often, deontology is concerned with moral absolutism whereby the argument is that one ought to do the right thing always regardless of the outcome. Consequently, given this situation a deontologist would neither approve nor recommend the proposal. First, the organization aims at offering abortion-related services to middle-class women in the area. Though the action itself is legally acceptable, a deontologist would have reservations based on the morality of the action. It is worth pointing that deontology does not necessarily approve something just because it is legally acceptable. Instead, the connection of the situation with the preceding morals determines the action to take. For instance, in this case, a deontologist would argue that the women are not conceiving accidentally. Rather, it is on purpose thus morally unacceptable for abortion to proceed. Despite the high number of patients that will benefit from the proposal, a deontologist will not approve the plan nevertheless. However, a deontologist would still accept this proposal especially when they do not hold the notion of moral absolutism. As indicated, this kind of stance argues that neither the motive nor the consequences of an action can justify an action taken. Non-absolutists concede that some actions might be justifiable based on the motive of the person taking it. For instance, if a gang demands that one reveals the whereabouts of a possible victim lying would be acceptable. In this Chinese village case, even a non-absolutist deontologist would not approve the plan. The reason for this assertion is that the decision of abortion by the women is not under duress or a result of coercion. Virtue perspective In the deontologist, as already explained, a decision maker will stick to that which is universally known to be right. A deontologist views doing the right thing as a duty that one has to adhere to at all times irrespective of the eventual results. Conversely, a utilitarian views something as wrong only when the culmination is negative. That is to say, if the consequences will be positive, the morality of an action is somewhat irrelevant. However, in the case of virtue perspective, a decision maker will be guided solely by their virtues. In the event of deontologist, their focus will be on the agreed ethics and that which is right. For a utilitarian, a decision will be made as per the eventual result. A virtue ethicist, instead, tends to ignore both of these approaches and make a decision based on own established virtues. Typically, virtue ethics has three main strands including eudemonism, ethics of care and agent-based theories. The term ‘eudemonism’ is interpreted to mean ‘well-being’ or ‘happiness’, and virtue ethicists argue that it is the primary goal of life. Further, it is argued that this could be achieved by regularly practicing ‘arete’ or merely virtues (Birsch, 2011). Whenever faced with a dilemma, virtue ethicists state that one ought to engage ‘phronesis’, or simply practical wisdom gained with time. Ethics of care emphasizes the need for community, relationship and solidarity as opposed universal standards. Therefore, a virtue ethicist makes a decision based on their inner convictions but is likely to avoid implementing the plan. It is imperative to realize that though a virtue ethicist might steer clear of applying the program this decision would be influenced by consequences or the morality. Instead, the reluctance would emanate from the individually developed virtues and values. It, therefore, means that a virtue ethicist is likely to make a decision that could often lean toward consequentialists and at other times toward deontologists. In essence, a person facing this dilemma will make a decision based on their level of morality. The reason is that it takes time for a moral character to be established; thus some decisions might be made differently. However, upon establishment, a virtue ethicist will be consistent with their decisions (Birsch, 2011). Rights and justice perspective In the rights and justice theory, a decision is made as per the rules set forth by the majority. It is argued that because rights are endorsed by the majority of people in the society, the adherence is a requirement whenever making a decision. Unlike the other three perspectives that tend to focus on morals and values, this theory bases the argument on that which has been approved as acceptable by the majority. In short, while deontology and utilitarianism elevate morals and consequences respectively and virtues elevate values, this approach emphasizes rights. Priority is given to the rights, not morality. Anybody tasked with making a decision using this theory perfectly understands that the people have surrendered some of their freedoms and instead tacitly or explicitly allowed the formulation of the rights. Popularized by John Rawls and seen as an alternative of the utilitarianism and deontology, this theory is often questioned for not clearly explaining the process of crafting the rights. Additionally, the process does not address the objections of the people who might be opposed to some of the agreed rights as it passed by the ma...