Sample of Ethical Model

Business Ethics Decision Making using Kidder' Ethics Check Points Identification of the relevant facts Identification of the moral issue 2 Potential for harm Determination of the moral agents The "trilemma" options Test for right-versus-wrong issues Application of resolution principles The Decision Reflection of the decision Identification of the relevant facts In this case examination, we consider the case of the bailout of General Motors by the U.S. government in 2014. This is based on a report published by news agency Reuters on April 30, 2014, titled "U.S.

government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout." It is revealed in the news report that U.S. government lost $11.2 billion when it bailed out General Motors Co through its selling of the government shares in GM in December the earlier year. More than $50 billion was used to bail out GM from the brink of the company's 2009 bankruptcy ("U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout," 2016). The government used public money for the bailout of a private company.

Identification of the moral issue The moral issue, in this case, is that the U.S. government not only lost money but the money it lost belonged to the taxpayers of the country. The government used money that it had collected from the taxpayers with the known promise of spending it in a manner that benefits the people from which it was collected.

However, the government instead used the money to provide relief to a private company and thus it can be concluded that the spending of the public money did not serve any greater good for the people from whom it was collected. Potential for harm This is a clear case of unfair use of the money and treatment towards the general population of the U.S.

This is also a case of inappropriate resource allocation by the government where the government utilized money that was meant to be spent for public development for the betterment of a private individual. This is also a fit case to allege that the U.S. government in this case reflected a clear lack of concern for its social responsibility and the common good.

Determination of the moral agents In this case it is very clear that the government as whole and individuals who took the decision to bail out the private company with public money are the agents of the moral issue. The "trilemma" options There was a third way. Instead of the government spending public money directly for the bail out it could have used other methods like taxation relief or other softer means to try and help out the company from the near bankruptcy position it was.

The government could also have taken steps to arrange for private investment in the company. Test for right-versus-wrong issues The legal test - the step by the government is absolutely legal and it was within its legal right to have bailed out General Motors Co. The intuition test -- however, this action of the government is not uncommon and had been done on earlier occasions. But this goes against the moral principles of rightful use of public money.

The publicity test -- as an individual paying tax to the government one would feel cheated and deceived after one came to know of the incident. The moral exemplar test -- if there were people of higher moral ground in the decision-making process then the government at that time it would probably have taken a third path and not used public money to bail out a private company. Test for the right-versus-right dilemma paradigms: Truth vs.

Loyalty - while the incident is truthful, it reflects that the government had not been loyal to its commitment to serving people -- a commitment which every elected government takes while assuming office and power. Individual vs. Community -- this is a fit case where an individual was benefitted by taking away from the community. Short-term vs.

Long-term -- this decision of the government, however, went well in the long-term for the private company and actually benefitted the thousands who work in the company and manage to earn a living for themselves and their families in the long-term. The money would have served to benefit the greater pubic in the short-term. Justice vs.

Mercy -- the act of the government can also pass off on the basis of the argument that the government actually showed mercy to the thousands working in the company and their families instead of being absolutely fair.

Application of resolution principles However applying Kant's categorical Imperative theory which states that the actual outcome of an action or the consequences didn't matter at all, what mattered was the intent, according to this, the actual outcome of the government's action resulted in helping an individual but the intent was to help the thousands of the people who worked in the company and their families from suffering (Shafer-Landau, 2007). Hence applying Kant's theory it can be said that the government did an ethically right thing.

Again by applying Mill's principle of Utility, which states that actions would be right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness, also justifies the government's actions (West, 2006). Through this act, the government tried to promote.