Applying An Ethical Theory 003828

Applying An Ethical Theory

Choose an ethical question that you formulated in Week One or select a different one from the acceptable topics list. Select either utilitarian or deontological ethical theory to apply to this question. Explain the core principles of the chosen theory and demonstrate how these principles support a particular position on the ethical question. Additionally, articulate a relevant objection to that position. Your essay should be structured as a five-paragraph paper, at least 1,000 words in length, and formatted according to APA style. The first paragraph (introduction) must clearly state the ethical question, define the essential issues, include a brief remark about the chosen theory, and conclude with a summary of the position supported by the theory and the objection. Each body paragraph should begin with a topic sentence, explain the theory’s core principles with supporting quotations, apply these principles to the question resulting in a specific conclusion, and present a plausible objection to that conclusion. The conclusion should briefly summarize your main points. Use at least two credible sources: one representing the chosen theory and one related to the ethical issue, both cited and formatted according to APA style. The textbook does not count toward the resource count.

Paper For Above instruction

The realm of ethical decision-making often involves complex considerations about what is right or wrong in various situations. For this assignment, I have selected the ethical question: "Is it ethical for a company to prioritize profit over environmental sustainability?" This question is highly relevant in contemporary business practices, where corporations frequently face the dilemma of balancing economic gain with their environmental responsibilities. To analyze this issue, I will apply utilitarian ethical theory, which emphasizes the calculation of overall happiness and the welfare of all affected parties. The core principles of utilitarianism advocate for actions that maximize happiness and reduce suffering, aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863/2002). This ethical framework guides moral reasoning by encouraging an impartial consideration of outcomes, weighing the benefits and harms of potential actions to determine the most ethically justifiable course.

Utilitarianism is grounded in the notion that moral decisions should be evaluated based on their consequences, particularly in terms of happiness and suffering. According to Jeremy Bentham (1789/2007), the founder of utilitarian philosophy, actions are deemed right when they promote the maximum happiness and wrong when they cause harm. This offers a pragmatic approach to ethical dilemmas, where stakeholders’ interests are collectively considered. A key feature of utilitarianism is impartiality; it treats the happiness of every individual as equally important and mandates that ethical choices aim to produce the highest net utility. In the context of environmental issues, a utilitarian would assess whether a company's decision to prioritize profit aligns with maximizing overall well-being, including the health of the planet, human health, and future generations (Shaw, 2016). This perspective often supports environmentally responsible actions if such actions enhance societal welfare in the long run.

Applying utilitarian principles to the debate on corporate profit and environmental sustainability suggests that companies should pursue practices beneficial to overall societal welfare. If a corporation adopts environmentally sustainable practices, it can reduce pollution and conserve resources, leading to increased health, economic stability, and quality of life—all contributing to greater happiness (Singer, 2011). Conversely, sacrificing environmental concerns for short-term gains may result in severe climate impacts, health issues, and resource depletion, exacerbating suffering for current and future populations. The utilitarian calculation, in this case, would weigh the immediate profits against the potential long-term harms; generally, the greater the environmental degradation, the lower the overall utility. Therefore, from a utilitarian standpoint, a corporation committed to sustainability is ethically justified, as it maximizes societal happiness by safeguarding natural resources and public health.

However, a significant objection to utilitarianism's application in this context concerns its potential to justify ethically questionable actions if they produce the greatest overall happiness. Critics argue that utilitarianism may allow for injustices or violations of individual rights if such acts increase overall utility. For example, it could justify environmental harm inflicted on marginalized communities if the broader societal benefits outweigh the localized suffering (Scanlon, 1998). This objection highlights a critical difficulty: utilitarianism might overlook issues of justice, rights, and moral integrity, which are essential for ethical decision-making. Critics warn that a sole focus on aggregate happiness risks sacrificing individual dignity and fairness, raising concerns about how to adequately protect vulnerable populations in utilitarian calculations. Recognizing this, some philosophers advocate integrating additional moral principles, such as rights-based ethics, to address utilitarianism’s limitations.

References

• Bentham, J. (2007). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (J. H. Burns & H. L. A. Hart, Eds.). Athlone Press. (Original work published 1789)
• Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1863)
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). The ways of philosophy. Harvard University Press.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and environmental ethics. In W. H. Shaw, Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy (pp. 145-165). Wadsworth.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practicing utilitarianism: How happiness counts. In P. Singer, Practical Ethics (3rd ed., pp. 85-102). Cambridge University Press.