Moral philosophy and ethical principles

Philosophy

Morals Case Study

(1) Whether or not to work overtime in the more dangerous parts of the enterprise.

If the CEO of a company stated that based on moral grounds she was allowing employees to decide whether they would work overtime in the more dangerous areas of the company, I would think that this would be a good thing. Considering the fact that human life and limb would be at stake letting those people who would be affected make that decision about whether or not to put themselves in that situation any more than necessary should be up to them. According to the egoism theory whether something is ethical or not is looked at from the point-of-view of the person making the decision (Shaw & Barry, 2007, pp. 41-42). In this case each individual worker would be making the decision about whether they are willing to take the risk to work overtime in the most dangerous areas of the plant. If they decide that the risk to them is worth the money then their decision is ethical. If the individual worker decides that the risk of injury is not worth the money that would be made then that decision is also ethical to them. The key in this situation is that each person gets to decide what is good for them and no one is telling them what will be done and thus forcing ethical behavior upon them.

The advantages of using the egoism theory in this case is that you are looking to do what is right and sometimes there are actions that are just right while others are just wrong. The disadvantage of using this theory is that it is sometimes it is very hard to determine whether the consequences of an action are good or bad, since in this theory that decision is left up to each individual person (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 43). In this case due to the fact that each workers gets to make the decision based upon their individual situation whether they want to participate in the overtime is an ethical decision on the part of the company and the CEO because they are leaving the decision of whether each worker will be exposed to the dangers of the plant in excess, up to each individual worker.

(2) Whether or not to wear protective equipment?

The decision to let the workers decide whether or not they will wear protective equipment in my opinion is not an ethical decision by the CEO. If you look at this issue in regards to the utilitarianism theory you can see that they greater good or happiness does not outweigh the risks involved. The utilitarianism theory states that an action is ethical if it promotes the most happiness for those affected. In this theory the most happiness is not only calculated by determining how many people benefit or are hurt from the action but also on how much they are helped or hurt (Shaw & Barry, 2007, pp. 43-44). In this case those that chose to wear protective equipment are obviously benefiting from that action and those who chose not too are taking a risk of being hurt. But not only are they taking the risk of hurting themselves but also of those in the plant as a whole. Because of their unwillingness to wear protective equipment they are putting the entire workforce at risk for injury.

The advantage of using this theory is that it allows one to come up with a fairly simple equation that can be used to determine the number of people affected and by how much. The disadvantage of this theory is that it is sometimes hard to figure out how to assign units of happiness to the actions that you are trying to measure (Shaw & Barry, 2007, pp. 45-46). There are many elements of subjectiveness when trying to apply this theory, but in this particular case I feel that the danger that all workers would be exposed to far outweighs some individuals that would be happier not wearing their protective equipment. Not only is their danger to the workers but there is also dangers to the plant as a whole. If a worker that chose not to wear his or her protective equipment hurt themselves or others around them there would be potential legal actions that could occur against the company.

(3) Would your positions change if the worker was female and pregnant?

My position on either one of these issues would not change based upon the fact that the worker was female and pregnant. I would still feel that in the case of working overtime in the most dangerous parts of the plant should still be left up to each individual worker. Women who are pregnant have to make ethical decisions surrounding their pregnancies everyday and this situation should be no different. If the decision on whether to work the overtime or not was given to everyone except the pregnant females this could be seen as a form of discrimination towards these women just based on the fact that they were pregnant. In regards to the issue about wearing safety equipment the fact of having pregnant females exposed to harm because of acts of others only goes to reinforce my position of this decision by the company being unethical.