Solving Ethical Dilemma Using Ethics Theories

¶ … utilitarianism vs. Deontology The case of Sam is one that raises ethical dilemma since Sam had stayed out of job market for long and immediately he gets the job, he finds there is some aspect he grossly disagrees with in his work. He realizes that the company adds some substance to their cigarettes that makes them addictive. This Sam disagrees with and would not like to be part of it, as a matter of fact he would like to expose them to the general public.

Taking a utilitarian angel to the case at hand, if Sam was a utilitarian, he would continue working and supervising his department and not expose discovery to the public. This is based on the fact that according to Bentham, Sam should think of what brings more pleasure than pain to him and follow that.

Sam should also consider the extent of the pleasure he would derive from continuing with his job, which is that his family and children and relatives who now depended on him would continue to enjoy the pleasure. His wife who is not working will also continue having her supplies and their mortgage will still be paid for hence avoid foreclosure that they were facing.

He also needs to apply rule utilitarian is which seeks to balance of consequences and the decision or action that has the best overall consequences is the one that is followed. Sam needed the job just like the other employees in the company. If he exposed the secret, he will not only lose his job, but an entire company may come down eventually as the clients start to shun their products, a catastrophic result.

Sam, as a utilitarian, needs to leave the department as he found it and carry out his assigned duties which were in his contract and derived the maximum pleasure form the pay for work done. Taking the deontological perspective, things would be different, if Sam was a deontologist, then he would have to not only abandon the job, but also expose the secret that he discovered.

This theory of ethics indicates that morality is a duty, it looks at the purity of the will or intention rather than the consequences as is the case with utilitarianism. Two rules that stand out in the Kant theory here is the Beneficence and non-malficence. Beneficence dictates that any deontologist must strive to improve the lives of others, Sam in this case would not keep silent as a large population is predisposed to cancer.

Non-malficence dictates that we should avoid harming others, by Sam keeping silent, his action will not avoid the harming of many smokers through cancer brought by addiction to their products. Thus, Sam would have to speak out against the act and.