Identify the CONSEQUENCES. State: (a) the _consequentialist principle (CP)_ used to assess the actions of the decision maker (e.g., egoism, utilitarianism); (b) the standard implicit in this principle (e.g., action in my long-term self-interest); (c) the key potential consequences for each of the affected parties; (d) the extent to which each consequence undermines (U) or supports (S) the issue based on the CP selected.
Utilitarianism – “greatest balance b/w good & bad”
Iacocca & Ford Co.
Increase (short-term)/Decrease Rev. (long-term)
Increase PR issues
Identify the OBLIGATIONS. State: (a) the _deontological principle (DP)_ used to assess the actions of the DECISION MAKER (e.g., Kant’s ethics, prima facie); (b) the standard implicit in this principle (e.g. categorical imperative – Could the action be willed into universal law?); (c) the key obligations of the decision maker for each of the affected parties; (d) the extent to which each obligation undermines (U) or supports (S) the issue based on the DT selected.
Consider the DECISION MAKER’S CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY, (Virtue Ethics) assuming an aspiration to be an authentic leader. Standard Implicit: An action is morally right if it meets the highest ethical standards of the relevant moral community. State: (a) the core ethical values and the virtues the authentic decision maker aspires to achieve; (b) the extent to which each value/virtue undermines (U) or supports (S) the issue.
Society as a whole
State your conclusion in moral terms (e.g., Thus, X action is morally wrong.) for each principle (steps 4, 5, and 6): (a) Consequences (b) Obligations (c) Character and Integrity
CHECK YOUR GUT: Is (are) the conclusions consistent with your sense of right and wrong.
Think creatively about potential ACTIONS: (a) In an effort to be transparent, offer one or more alternatives (A) that an authentic leader could propose that would respond to the situation in order to address the conflict presented by the issue (moral dilemma). Be creative!
Is it morally right to outsource Electrocorp’s operations to countries that have lower regulation standards to decrease operating cost, given the potential harmful effects on communities in other countries. (GT)
Is it morally right to move Electrocorp’s operations out of the US to a less-developed country for the sake of cutting operating expenses, given it will increase unemployment in the US and negatively affect the health and safety and environment of the less-developed country the operations relocates to? (KA)
Is it morally right to further investigate one or more of the sites in less developed countries given that Electrocorp is major employer in U.S. cities where located, possible relocation will cause: social costs, increased unemployment, economic dislocation, employees will have difficulty finding equivalent jobs? (LN)
Is it morally right to further investigate one or more of the sites in less developed countries given that relocating will reduce operating costs due to less strict safety and environmental/health regulations? (LN)
Is it morally right to continue operations within the U.S. given that cost production has risen and profits have declined due to: increase in salary and benefits of its employees, stringent safety and environmental regulations? (LN)
Is it morally right to shut down US operations and move manufacturing overseas to increase profit margins given that local communities and families will be unemployed and unlikely to find an equivalent position? (EE)