Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussion Read Chapter 4 Of

Prior To Beginning Work On This Discussionread Chapter 4 Of the Cours

Prior to beginning work on this discussion, Read Chapter 4 of the course textbook. Browse the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (Links to an external site.) web page and The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Links to an external site.) website for additional information. Marigold Dairy Corporation sells milk products, including powdered milk formula for infants. Marigold hopes to increase sales of its powdered milk formula in Liberia and other African nations where mothers are often malnourished due to drought and civil war. Marigold’s marketing department has created a marketing plan to convince mothers and expectant mothers not to breastfeed their babies and to, instead, use Marigold formula.

Doctors generally favor breastfeeding as beneficial to mothers (it helps the uterus return to normal size), to babies (it is nutritious and strengthens the bonds between the infant and the mother), and to families (it is inexpensive). Marigold’s marketing plan stresses the good nutrition of its formula and the convenience to parents of using it, including not having to breastfeed. You are the senior vice president of marketing for Marigold. Do you approve this marketing plan? What would a rights theorist do? What would a utilitarian do? What would a profit maximizer do?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding Marigold Dairy Corporation’s marketing plan to promote infant formula over breastfeeding in developing countries such as Liberia involve complex moral principles. Each ethical framework provides a different perspective on whether the marketing strategy is justified, emphasizing different values and priorities.

From a rights-based perspective, the emphasis is on respecting the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly the rights of mothers and infants. Breastfeeding has been widely recognized as a natural and often preferred means of infant nutrition, supported by numerous health authorities such as the World Health Organization (WHO). The rights theorist would question whether the marketing plan infringes upon the infants' right to the best possible nutrition, which is often perceived to be breastfeeding. Furthermore, promoting formula in regions where proper sanitation and clean water are scarce might jeopardize infants' right to health, as unsafe water used to prepare formula could lead to harmful health outcomes. The rights-based approach would likely oppose the marketing strategy if it is seen to undermine informed consent or mislead mothers, especially considering the vulnerable context of drought and civil unrest.

Utilitarianism assesses the morality of actions based on their consequences, aiming to maximize overall happiness or well-being. From this viewpoint, promoting powdered formula could have positive outcomes, such as alleviating malnutrition among infants if the formula is nutritious and safe. The convenience in feeding could reduce stress for mothers and provide economic benefits, particularly in environments where breastfeeding may be challenging due to malnutrition, illness, or societal pressures. However, the utilitarian also considers potential harms, such as increased risk of infections if unsafe water is used to prepare formula, or the potential long-term health consequences associated with formula feeding at the expense of breastfeeding, which provides immunological benefits. A utilitarian might ultimately be divided, balancing the immediate benefits of improved nutrition against the risks of health complications and social impacts, but if the marketing leads to a decline in breastfeeding, the overall happiness might diminish. Hence, a utilitarian advocate might oppose uncritical promotion of formula in these settings.

Profit maximization, as a core goal of business ethics, would prioritize increasing sales and profit margins. From this perspective, approving the marketing plan makes business sense, assuming it helps to expand market share and revenue. The profit maximizer would likely do so if the marketing promises substantial financial gains, disregarding potential ethical concerns about health, informed consent, or social impacts. This approach often focuses on short-term gains without necessarily considering the broader social or health consequences, especially when vulnerable populations are involved. Therefore, a profit maximizer would probably endorse the plan if it results in higher sales and profits, regardless of ethical considerations.

In conclusion, the decision to approve Marigold's marketing plan hinges on the ethical framework adopted. A rights theorist would likely oppose it due to concerns over mothers’ and infants’ rights and the potential for harm in vulnerable populations. A utilitarian might favor a cautious approach, weighing benefits against risks, but might oppose aggressive marketing if it leads to overall harm or diminishes well-being. A profit maximizer would prioritize financial gains, possibly endorsing the plan despite ethical concerns. Overall, a responsible approach would involve integrating these perspectives to ensure that marketing practices promote health, respect rights, and consider societal impacts.

References

• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business. The New York Times Magazine.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• World Health Organization. (2003). Infant and Young Child Feeding: Model Chapter for Textbooks. WHO.
• Karim, S. M. R., et al. (2014). Ethical Dilemmas in Marketing Infant Formula in Developing Countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 209–219.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Ethical Theories. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/ethics/
• The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (n.d.). Business Ethics Resources. Santa Clara University.
• Ten Have, H. (2016). Ethics and Public Health: Modelized Ethical reasoning in health promotion and prevention. Springer.
• Hale, T. (2012). The Concept of Human Rights. University of California Press.