Following the increase in lumber prices due to Afghanistan and Iraq war, the company may decide to use substandard materials in order to offset the increase in lumber prices. The consequence of the action is that, they are not going to experience a loss in doing the work thus a happy end. According to the consequentialist theory, the action is morally right since it promotes good to the company, of not going at a loss. It is thus ethical.
A customer may on the other hand decide to hold the contractor to the original bid after unplanned for increase in lumber prices. This would definitely cause a great loss to the company. If the customer is Donald Trump, who is a wealthy man, it would not be ethical. The idea behind consequentialist theory is to promote either happiness or sadness to the party involved. The question is will Donald Trump feel happy for not having to spend more money The answer is obviously no. Because he has a lot of money and the small amount of money he would gain for this action will not make him happy. The result of his action will not lead to happiness as compared to a person who does not have plenty of money. The latter will tend to appreciate the amount since it makes a difference to the amount heshe has. Consequentialist theory says that an action is ethical if it promotes happiness which it does not in this case.
Philosopher John Locke argues out that the rules of morality aim at insuring a decent, comfortable existence of all persons. He defends the sanctity of the individual and individual pursuits. According to him, the end of morality is set by God. His consequentialism concerns only the advarcement of that end. He says that men judge the most considerate moral Good or Evil of their actions since they like to procure them happiness or misery from the hands of the almighty.
Locke would have solved the above problem differently from the consequentialist theory. Does the action of contractor to use substandard materials ethical If he does this, it would be promote happiness to the contractor but the customer would not be happy. To ensure a comfortable existence of the two parties involved, the action should promote happiness in both parties. The action by the contractor to use substandard materials is thus not ethical, according to Locke.
The idea of the customer holding the contractor to the original bid even after unplanned for increase in lumber prices is also not ethical according to Locke. This is so because, the action would lead to the happiness of the customer and the contractor would not be happy because of the loss it has encountered. Locke as explained before advocates for the happiness of all persons involved.
The main difference between the consequentialist theory and Lockes view is that Locke emphasizes on happiness of all parties involved i.e. the customer and the contractor. The consequentilist theory on the other hand views the consequences of the action to the individual doing the action that is if it promotes good to the contractor in the first case, then the action is morally right, if in the second case, the action promotes happiness to the contractor then it is ethical.
On the other hand, the customer will be happy or rather advantaged since heshe does not need to spend any more money. The money paid to the contraction will remain constant despite the increase in lumber prices. The action hence, according to the consequentialist theory is ethical. This is so because the consequence of the action by the customer leads to happiness.
In summary, an action by an individual to solve a problem heshe is encountering can be interpreted to be either right or wrong depending on the theory heshe uses, as exemplified the above situation.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment