Kate is faced with the dilemma is weather to report about the contaminated milk to the Queensland Food Safety Authority (FSA). Ethical egoism Under ethical egoism, Kate should report the issue to the food safety Authority. Because under the ethical egoism it is maximising the self-interest which she doesn’t want to see customers get ill and furthermore the business get bad publicity. Also being rewarded as a most honest person in the restaurant she doesn’t want to be an untrustworthy person. Utilitarianism Under utilitarianism, Kate should report the issue to the FSA.
Utilitarianism is all about the greatest good overall (Low, R 2012). In this scenario we can see some possible results if Kate report the issue to the FSA. The respective customers will not get sick; restaurant will not get a bad publicity so mike would not have to retrench the staff including herself and being awarded the most hard working and honest employee last year she doesn’t want to lose her reliability. And also there are some negative results can be occurred. She could lose her job, have to buy the required milk for retail price and also if the inspectors are send out restaurant will lose an entire day of service.
Although the greatest number of positives overall indicate the theory of Utilitarianism which Kate should report the issue to the FSA. Not only that according to the Bentham’s features of happiness that if she does report the incident restaurant may get long term happiness by not having any bad publicity or bad financial occurrences due to selling contaminated foods. Kantian ethics Under Kantian ethics, Kate should report to the FSA. Selling or let someone to consume contaminated milk is not acceptable. So if everybody in the food industry does the same thing, what would happen to the entire society, who consumes those foods?
In this sort of situations Kantian expressed that the Universal acceptability which people should not make exceptions for themselves just for selfish reasons. Another aspect of this is to be a moral action which respect for others. In this particular scenario Kate does respect the respective loyalty customers by not providing contaminated food. She does follow the Kantian theory on everyone which including mike too. Because persons should be treated as ends (rather than only means) as an issue of respecting the all humans. (QUT,2011) Thirdly no one would like to consume contaminated milk which they paid for.
Kantian argued that determine who and how someone affected by your action and put yourself in a position with that person whether you have been treated with respect. However in this case Kate would report the issue in order to maintain the reversibility of Kantian argument which she doesn’t want to be the person who consumes contaminated milk. Virtue ethics Under Virtue ethics, Kate should report the issue to FSA. In this case the context that is relevant to this dilemma is significant personal challenge and a danger (QUT, 2011), which any customer who consumes milk could get seriously ill.
So the only possible chance of saving the customers is report the issue with a courage and braveness not considering her personal loss. Because she doesn’t want be cowardice person. Part A (b) “Are there any laws against writing the story? ” I was in Stage. Part A (c) “Would Ben pay me not to write the story? ” I was in stage 2, level 1 of Kohlberg theory. Because I didn’t write the story to get the money wise benefits from Ben. So I can gain the benefits from not considering others. Part A (d) “How would my boss react if I wrote, or didn’t write the story? ” I was in Stage Part B (a) Stakeholders
Policy holders (customers) –They are directly affecting on Suncorp because they are the ones who make the revenue for business. Government – Government can make decisions and impose laws, which can be affected the business Local community – They are providing the environment for the business and also making a decent place for employees. So they are adding value to the business. Employees – They are the one who provide services to customers. So they are in the middle of the value adding process. Part B (b) Decision using Friedman’s arguments I would have decided not to offer the new policies.
Suncorp as a company there to make the profit for shareholders using the resources provided. Milton Friedman argued that directors and the top management are there to run the business and should not be contributed to any social causes and responsibilities. Friedman called them as agency and they should be contributing to maximise the profit of the business (Low, R. 2012). Furthermore Friedman argued that cost for the social responsibilities should not solely taken by the business, which is a government responsibility to impose tax on them and collect them.
He called it as a social tax. In this scenario suncorp does not want to be in a losing side as it’s very risky to offer new policies for Emerald and Roma. Because those two towns have a bad reputation of being flooded badly in recent years. So it’s government responsibility to introduce something else that community in those towns can get a relief of this issue. Part B (c) Decision using Freeman’s arguments I would have decided to offer the new policies. Edward Freeman argued the company from a broader perspective whereby the shareholder is only one of many stakeholder groups.
So whatever the greater value provided has to be the main priority when making decisions which stakeholders should not be ignored. (Low,R. 2012). Mainly according to the Freeman’s argument from rights, Suncorp have to care about the rights of the customers who live in Emerald and Roma. Of course shareholders have invested money on Suncorp but as a stake holder, customers also have rights to be covered with insure. Because they can’t handle the loss and damage, if another disaster hit the cities. In government prospect too Suncorp have to abide with the regulations as government acting a big role as a stakeholder.
Another aspect is arguments from consequences. As a company Suncorp should consider the overall better consequences are archived for all stake holders including shareholders. In this particular case those towns may not get flooded again for 100 years. So in customers’ prospect to feel safe and secure they desperately need to be covered by the insurance. On the other hand by providing cover to the community government also can introduce some irrigation development projects which make sustainable life. So to gain overall belter consequences Suncorp should offer new policies.
Reference List
QUT. (2011). Business Law and Ethics (5th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia
Low, R. (2012). BSB111 Business Law and Ethics: Week 1 [Lecture Notes].
