Ethical? The First Option Is by Far

¶ … ethical? The first option is by far the most ethical from a utilitarian perspective. The first option allows the business to maintain its going concern condition. It will also help mitigate the damage of layoffs, wage restrictions, and benefit reductions to staff. This option, therefore provides the greatest amount of good to society at the lowest possible cost. The reputation of the business would also remain intact, further providing benefit to society, in that management is dedicated to its employees.

From an egoism perspective, the second option would be the most ethical. It allows for Joe Woodman, to serve his own needs at the expense of lost jobs, wages and benefits to others. Under the assumption that Joe wants to maintain control of the business, this alternative allows him to do so, while also helping the company generate stable and consistent cash flow. The use of expert management, would also provide credibility to his business aided in his pursuit of control.

2) How does egoism come into play in this case? In which of the three cases is altruism most apparent? Egoism comes in to play in multiple facets within this case. First Joe must decide on conducting his activities to enhance the business of society or the benefit to him. Assuming that Joe operates in a capitalistic environment, providing the greatest good to society may put Joe in an adverse circumstance collectively.

For instance, option 1, maintaining workers in a business that is struggling to generate stable cash flows, will hinder his ability to maintain control of the business, or even to have the business survive. If the business fails, then society will ultimately benefit as it has gotten rid of an inefficient, unproductive operation. The banks and investors capital can then be deployed in more meaningful, higher return, and better businesses.

By tying up the banks, the investors, and Joe's money in a struggling business, capital that could have been deployed in a more meaningful manner, is stuck paying salaries, benefits, and bonuses to an unproductive business. If the company is not generating stable cash flow, this must indicate society does not need Joe's products, or a competitor can provide a substitute product at a lower cost, thus benefiting society in a more meaningful manner.

Altruism, or selflessness would be displayed in option 1, although, as indicated above, this option may harm society in the long run. In the short run however, option 1 provides the best indication of altruism. 3) What option would provide the greatest good for the greatest number? From an ethical perspective what is Joe's duty? It is my contention that option 2 provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. By hiring turnaround management, society can better determine if the businesses products are in demand.

If society does not demand the products offered by the business, the business will fail, ultimately allowing capital to better deployed in other endeavors. If the turnaround is successful, the business would have appropriately identified products that are sought after and demanded by society. This ultimately will provide utility to those who purchase the product. Option 1, as mentioned above, only harms society in the long run as capital that could be of better use is stuck within the business.

Option 3, is outright fraud, which takes valuable and talented labor resources from society and allocates them to an inefficient and ultimately corrupt organization. Joe's duty is to himself. By helping himself, he will ultimately benefit society. In this example, by operating a business in which its products are demanded, society benefits. Joe benefits as he was able to properly identify a need of society, and created a product to satisfy that need. Society ultimately rewards Joe.