Discrimination and Affirmative Action in Business Ethics
This paper examines a reported case from Maryland in which a government contract was awarded to a company that failed to meet the state's minority business goals. Using deontological and utilitarian ethical frameworks, the paper evaluates whether the contract should have been awarded, considering the rights of minority groups, the rights of non-minority competitors, and the historical context of business discrimination. The analysis explores tensions between equity-based obligations and outcome-based reasoning, particularly where public safety — as in an airport shuttle service context — may override rights-based considerations. The paper concludes that multiple variables govern such decisions and that empirical evidence is required before any firm judgment can be made.
- Introduction: Discrimination and Minority Business Programs: Context for minority business programs and the Maryland case
- Deontological Ethics and Minority Rights: Rights-based argument for enforcing minority program requirements
- Deontological Considerations for Non-Minority Groups: Deontological case for non-minority companies' equal rights
- Historical Context and the Restoration of Rights: Historical exclusion as justification for minority preference
- Utilitarian Analysis of Contract Award Decisions: Utility-based reasoning weighing service quality over group rights
- Public Safety, Utility, and the Airport Context: Public safety as a utilitarian override in airport contracts
- Conclusion: Balancing Equity and Utility: Inconclusive verdict requiring empirical evidence for judgment
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies two distinct ethical frameworks — deontological and utilitarian — systematically to the same real-world case, demonstrating how different lenses can yield different conclusions.
- It presents multiple sub-positions within the deontological framework (minority rights, non-minority rights, and historical redress), showing nuanced engagement rather than a one-sided argument.
- The paper grounds its abstract ethical reasoning in a concrete scenario — an airport shuttle service contract — which keeps the analysis focused and practically relevant.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative ethical analysis: rather than advocating a single position, it maps competing ethical claims against each other and identifies conditions under which each argument would prevail. This technique is particularly useful in applied ethics writing, where real-world decisions involve stakeholders with genuinely conflicting legitimate interests.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by framing the policy context of minority business programs and introducing the Maryland case. It then works through three deontological positions in sequence before transitioning to utilitarian considerations. The airport safety scenario is used to test the limits of deontological reasoning. The conclusion acknowledges unresolved complexity and calls for empirical grounding before any definitive judgment, a measured closing move appropriate for a contested ethical issue.
Introduction: Discrimination and Minority Business Programs
In today's widely diverse world, it is difficult to imagine a workplace or business authority that still discriminates against minorities. Indeed, any workplace that does so is subject to legal prosecution. Laws are in place to protect people belonging to minority groups from being marginalized in the business world. Yet, despite these laws, discrimination remains a common phenomenon, particularly when persons from minority groups are attempting to start a business.
It is often claimed that outdated paradigms and ideas held by banks and other service companies tend to be unsupportive of diverse ownership. Because of such claims, many states have adopted programs that require a certain percentage of business contracts to be allocated to minority- or female-owned businesses. Violations of these programs still occur, as illustrated by a recent report from Maryland, where a contract was awarded to a company that failed to meet the state's minority goals. When considering the question from both a deontological and a utilitarian approach, a number of conclusions can be drawn regarding whether this contract should have been awarded.
Deontological Ethics and Minority Rights
The deontological ethical viewpoint considers the case in terms of human rights. Maryland has implemented its minority program to ensure that all persons within the state receive equal rights to business opportunities. It is therefore imperative that this program be adhered to in order to ensure that business opportunities are available to all minorities. When this is taken into consideration, accepting the contract represents a violation of Maryland's determination of human rights and should not have been awarded. Instead, the search for a complying company should have continued in order to ensure that the requirements for human rights are fulfilled.
Deontological Considerations for Non-Minority Groups
On the other hand, it must also be recognized that non-minority groups have rights. The company that received the contract, for example, should have as much right to be considered for the contract as a company that does meet the minority standard. From a deontological viewpoint, exclusively considering certain groups for a contract on the basis of their minority status is not ethically sound. If this perspective is taken, awarding the contract to the non-minority company is a defensible decision, since discrimination should not occur against minority groups or against non-minority groups also competing for the contract.
Utilitarian Analysis of Contract Award Decisions
From the utilitarian viewpoint, the greatest good and the most favorable outcome are taken into account. This perspective does not focus on the rights of certain groups but instead considers the advantages and disadvantages of awarding contracts on the merit of the level of service that will be obtained. In the case considered, there are two possibilities for the award of the contract: first, there may have been no companies on the applicant list that met the minority standards; second, non-minority companies may have far outweighed their minority counterparts in the level of service they could provide.
In the first scenario, the deontological viewpoint would not have been applicable, as there were no companies available to meet the minority standards. The ethical argument might then be that all persons should have an equal right to receive the contract and be chosen on merit. The second scenario could then have been decided on utilitarian grounds, where quality of service takes precedence over human rights considerations.
Conclusion: Balancing Equity and Utility
In investigating this case, it is therefore important to have a thorough understanding of its details. Only once the deontological and utilitarian issues are clear can a judgment be made about whether the case indeed has merit. It should also be considered that minority programs are often controversial and could be unfair in terms of competition, where the best service at the best price is encouraged.
The question of whether the contract should have been awarded to the specific company is therefore a somewhat difficult one to answer with absolute certainty. Many variables govern the decision. It can, however, be assumed that Maryland Airport is as concerned with the safety of its citizens as it is with equity in employment and business. Certainly the managers carefully considered their options and the potential outcomes of each possible decision. Any accusations to the contrary should therefore be empirically substantiated by concrete evidence.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.