Analyze The Following Ethical Situation Using Your Ethical P

Analyze The Following Ethical Situation Using Your Ethical Philosophy

Analyze the following ethical situation using your ethical philosophy. Read the situation and then in your answer, explain why this is an ethical situation, what the "issues" are, and how an "ethical" person would resolve them. Explain how YOUR ethical philosophy statement has helped you read a conclusion about how to resolve or analyze this situation. Construction companies must usually engage in competitive bidding for their contracts. This practice demands that they anticipate every material and labor cost months and even years ahead and commit themselves to complete a project for a specified amount of money. A mistake in calculating or a failure to anticipate a significant increase in prices can bankrupt a company. Consider the situation of the combination of the unexpected increase in lumber prices due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan with multiple hurricanes in the United States in the past few years. 1. Would it be ethical for a company who had won a bid for a construction job before the increase in lumber prices, to use substandard materials in order to offset the increase in lumber prices after the fact? 2. Would it be ethical for a customer to hold the contractor to the original bid after unplanned and unprecedented lumber price increases occur, knowing it will cause the contractor to go bankrupt, or do the job at a huge loss? 3. How would your answer to #2 change if your customer was Donald Trump or a community pantry feeding program for the homeless. Explain.>

Paper For Above instruction

The presented ethical dilemma revolves around the question of moral responsibility in the context of unforeseen economic and environmental challenges faced by construction companies. It probes the moral implications of using substandard materials and contractual obligations under unanticipated market pressures, emphasizing the importance of ethical principles such as honesty, fairness, and justice. Analyzing these issues through the lens of my ethical philosophy— Utilitarianism—provides insights into how to resolve these dilemmas ethically.

This situation is intrinsically ethical because it involves conflicting values: economic survival versus integrity, and contractual obligation versus moral obligation. The core issues include whether it is morally acceptable for a contractor to compromise on material quality after a bid is accepted, and whether a client has a moral duty to honor original contractual terms despite market fluctuations. A further issue concerns the broader moral considerations involved when varying client identities—such as a wealthy individual like Donald Trump or a charitable organization—impact the ethical assessment.

From a Utilitarian perspective, ethical actions are those that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Applying this framework, one could argue that using substandard materials might temporarily reduce suffering for the company but leads to negative consequences for future users and the reputation of the industry. Conversely, honoring the original bid, even at a significant financial loss, would maintain trust, integrity, and the long-term well-being of all stakeholders involved, including future clients and the public. Therefore, the ethical choice would lean toward maintaining honesty and integrity rather than short-term financial relief that could cause harm down the line.

In the case of holding contractors accountable to original contracts despite market upheavals, an ethical person guided by my philosophy would advocate for fairness and justice. They should recognize that contractual agreements are based on mutual trust and that honoring them promotes social stability and fairness. While recognizing that the contractor faces potential bankruptcy, the ethical principle of fairness suggests that the client, especially if aware of the circumstances, has a moral obligation to accept the adjusted prices or share the financial burden, rather than exploiting market fluctuations to unjustly increase profits. Such fairness fosters trust and prevents exploitation, contributing to the greater good.

The consideration of specific clients—be it Donald Trump or a charity—highlights how utilitarian considerations might shift depending on the potential outcome for societal welfare. For instance, if the client is a charitable organization aiming to provide affordable housing or basic needs for the homeless, the ethical framework may prioritize social justice and compassion over strict contractual adherence. This could justify flexible negotiations or shared sacrifices to ensure that vital community services continue, thereby maximizing overall societal welfare. Conversely, with a wealthy individual, the emphasis might still be on fairness and integrity, but with considerations for strategic or reputational impacts and broader societal perceptions.

In conclusion, my ethical philosophy—centered on Utilitarian principles—guides me to prioritize honesty, fairness, and the promotion of social welfare, even amidst unforeseen challenges. This approach suggests that ethical resolution in this context involves balancing the financial realities of construction projects with the moral obligation to uphold trust and integrity, ensuring that actions contribute to the overall well-being of society and respect for contractual agreements. Such an approach fosters a moral community where honesty is valued, and the long-term consequences of actions are considered vital in decision-making.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2017). Managing Business Ethics. Wiley.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2013). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Alexander, L. (2018). Justice, Fairness, and the Law. Routledge.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Johnson, C. (2017). Ethical Decision Making in Business. Routledge.