Business Ethics Utilitarian Theory

Question: Discuss the ethical theories that may be relevant to each decision that Elaine and Dennis have made this situation. Answer: In the context of this case study, the decisions made by Elaine and Dennis have a number of ethical and moral grounds. As mentioned by Dion (2012) the Utilitarian theory of ethics says that an action is good if its overall effect produce more happiness than unhappiness. The acceptance of the lone application of the American drug dealing firm or the applicants in Elaines bank would create more unhappiness at the end than the momentary gain for the companies. Hence, the decision of rejection of the deals and the lone can be identified as ethical under the Utilitarian approach. On the other hand, the explanation of the ethical egoism developed by Nicillo Mechivelli can be referred in this regard. As discussed by Wolbring (2012) this particular ethical theory says that the end justifies the means. Hence, the decision of rejecting the loan application of Electrode International and the Brazilian company can be identified as an ethical decision. The lone would have helped them in operating a business which would create an adverse economic and environmental end. On the other hand, the decision regarding the cigar importing company was typically directed by the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant. This theory says that the peoples action needs to be guided by moral laws and that regulations are universal (Dion 2012). This theory creates the basis of national laws. Here, Elaine took the decision against the Canadian company operating in the importing business of cigars from Cuba only because it was against the gridlines of the US laws. References: Dion, M., 2012. Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership?. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 33(1), pp.4-24. Wolbring, G., 2012. Ethical theories and discourses through an ability expectations and ableism lens: The case of enhancement and global regulation. Asian Bioethics Review, 4(4), pp.293-309.