Egoism and Utilitarianism in Workplace Ethics: A Case Study
This paper applies two foundational ethical theories — egoism and utilitarianism — to a series of workplace moral dilemmas. Using Shaw and Barry's framework from Moral Issues in Business, the paper evaluates whether a CEO acts ethically by allowing employees to choose whether to work overtime in dangerous areas, and whether employees should be permitted to forgo protective equipment. The analysis considers both the advantages and disadvantages of each theory before extending the discussion to whether the conclusions change when the worker in question is pregnant or of child-bearing age. The paper concludes that individual autonomy is best preserved in the overtime decision, while collective safety concerns make the protective equipment decision an ethical obligation rather than a personal choice.
- Introduction: The CEO's Moral Framework: CEO grants workers moral autonomy over risk decisions
- Overtime in Dangerous Areas: An Egoism Analysis: Egoism supports individual choice on dangerous overtime
- Protective Equipment: A Utilitarianism Analysis: Utilitarianism argues mandatory protective equipment serves collective good
- Impact of Pregnancy on Ethical Positions: Pregnancy does not alter the core ethical conclusions
- Impact of Child-Bearing Age on Ethical Positions: Child-bearing age similarly leaves ethical positions unchanged
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each scenario is answered with a clearly stated position, followed by a specific ethical theory applied to justify that position — making the argument easy to follow and evaluate.
- The paper consistently pairs each theory with both an advantage and a disadvantage, demonstrating awareness of theoretical limitations rather than one-sided advocacy.
- The extension to gender-related scenarios (pregnancy and child-bearing age) shows the student can apply the same analytical framework across variations of a problem without abandoning consistency.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical reasoning — the ability to select an appropriate normative theory (egoism or utilitarianism) and map its logic onto a concrete workplace scenario. Rather than defining theories in the abstract, the student uses them as analytical tools, showing how each theory produces a specific verdict in a specific context.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized as a numbered case study with four discrete questions. The first two sections address distinct ethical dilemmas using different theories. The final two sections revisit those positions under modified conditions (pregnancy and child-bearing age), testing the robustness of the earlier conclusions. Each section follows a consistent pattern: position statement, theory application, advantages and disadvantages, and final verdict.
Introduction: The CEO's Moral Framework
This case study examines a series of workplace ethical dilemmas in which a CEO, acting on moral grounds, grants employees varying degrees of autonomy over decisions involving personal risk. Two ethical theories — egoism and utilitarianism — are applied to evaluate whether the CEO's positions are ethically sound. The analysis also considers whether those conclusions shift when the worker in question is pregnant or of child-bearing age.
Overtime in Dangerous Areas: An Egoism Analysis
If the CEO of a company stated that, on moral grounds, she was allowing employees to decide whether they would work overtime in the more dangerous areas of the company, that policy would represent a sound ethical choice. Considering that human life and limb are at stake, allowing those who would be directly affected to make that decision for themselves is appropriate. According to egoism theory, whether something is ethical is evaluated from the point of view of the person making the decision (Shaw & Barry, 2007, pp. 41–42). In this case, each individual worker decides whether the risk is worth the additional compensation. If a worker concludes that the financial reward justifies the risk, that decision is ethical for them. If a worker concludes that the risk of injury outweighs the pay, that decision is equally ethical. The key is that no one is imposing a choice upon them.
The advantage of applying egoism theory here is that it affirms that some actions are simply right and others are simply wrong — and that individuals are best positioned to make that determination for themselves. The disadvantage is that it can be difficult to assess whether the consequences of a given action are good or bad, since that judgment is left entirely to each individual (Shaw & Barry, 2007, p. 43). Nevertheless, in this context, allowing each worker to weigh their own circumstances before deciding whether to accept the overtime is an ethical stance on the part of both the CEO and the company, because they are not forcing any worker into excessive exposure to danger.
Protective Equipment: A Utilitarianism Analysis
The decision to allow workers to choose whether to wear protective equipment is not an ethical one. Examined through the lens of utilitarianism, the greater good does not support giving individuals that choice. Utilitarianism holds that an action is ethical if it promotes the most happiness — or prevents the most harm — for all those affected. Happiness is calculated not only by the number of people benefited or harmed, but also by the degree to which they are helped or hurt (Shaw & Barry, 2007, pp. 43–44). Workers who choose to wear protective equipment clearly benefit from doing so. Those who choose not to wear it risk harming not only themselves but the entire workforce, because their actions expose everyone in the plant to potential injury.
The advantage of utilitarianism in this context is that it provides a relatively straightforward equation for weighing affected parties against one another. The disadvantage is that assigning precise units of happiness to different outcomes involves considerable subjectivity (Shaw & Barry, 2007, pp. 45–46). Despite that difficulty, it is clear in this case that the danger posed to all workers far outweighs whatever personal preference some individuals might have for forgoing protective gear. There is also a broader organizational risk: if a worker who chose not to wear protective equipment injures themselves or a colleague, the company could face significant legal liability.
References
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2007). Moral issues in business (10th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.