Ethics

In the given scenario the characters are using the agent-focused morality kind of ethics and utilitarianism by analogy. Briefly, the agent-focused morality can be explained in the sense that persons act the way they do, based on a justification that these are their natural instincts, as human beings. Utilitarianism on the other hand relates the action in terms of the consequences as measured by the goods or values. In this case, there is the application of the agent-focused morality because the senator threatened to divulge the chairpersons alleged scandal in hopes of passing the bill that would benefit a lot of people. The senator was only human in doing what might be viewed as an improper act in hopes of obtaining a better result for the majority. The utilitarianism has application because there is the goal of delivering better tax treatments for the people which may be viewed as goods for the people to utilize.
    The ethical theory adopted by the parties in this case is the consequentialist theory which provides in essence that as long as the results are good, even if the means by which it was achieved was bad, the act would still be categorized as good. The improper action that the senator did was to blackmail the chairperson regarding a matter relating to the latters personal life. The senator did an unethical act of threatening to divulge a secret of the chairperson in order to get his bill approved. The benefit that thousands of workers would obtain from the correction of tax equities is considered as the good result achieved through the bad act.
    There is no perfect person or situation in the world. If given a choice, I would do what the senator has done exactly the same way. Assuming that there is no other way by which the bill could be passed into a law, the commission of the blackmail was nothing compared to the possible suffering that thousands of workers would have to go through if the bill was not passed.