View Problem Scenario To Learn About Bill And Joe's Relation

Viewproblem Scenario Ato Learn More About Bill And Joes Relationship

View Problem Scenario A to learn more about Bill and Joe's relationship. Joe has scheduled a meeting with his management team for next week to talk about the Peninsula Hotel chain contract. He hopes that he will be able to work with them to draft a contract favorable to Peninsula that will ensure its renewal for another year. He is reasonably sure that the contract renewal will ensure his continued success and employment with UWEAR.

On his way out of the office today, Joe receives a call from Bill.

Bill: “Joe, how are you doing? Got any great plans for the weekend?”

Joe: “No, my wife and I are just planning on hanging out at home and relaxing. How about you?”

Bill: “My family and I are planning a short trip on the yacht. We haven’t been out in a while, and the weather looks perfect. Maybe you and your wife could join us? We haven’t seen you guys in quite a while, and it will be good to catch up.”

Joe is relieved to get the invitation from Bill because their relationship has been strained lately because of the contract negotiations. Joe must decide how he will answer Bill’s invitation to join him and his family on their yacht.

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will analyze Joe’s decision regarding Bill’s invitation by applying the rational choice model, then discuss the ethical implications of the recommended response through relevant ethical theories, and finally compare this with alternative approaches grounded in different ethical perspectives.

The rational choice model assumes that individuals make decisions by systematically considering the potential benefits and costs, aiming to maximize their personal advantage. Applying this model, Joe’s primary consideration should be his strategic relationship with Bill, which is currently strained due to ongoing contractual negotiations. Accepting the invitation could serve as an opportunity to mend their relationship, foster goodwill, and potentially improve their collaborative efforts moving forward. From a pragmatic perspective, strengthening this personal connection could yield beneficial outcomes for Joe’s professional ambitions, especially if Bill holds influence or favors Joe in upcoming negotiations.

However, the model also suggests weighing the potential costs. Accepting an invitation from someone with whom he has a strained relationship could be risky; it might be perceived as favoritism or insincerity, which could exacerbate tensions. Additionally, Joe might feel compelled to accept for social convenience rather than personal desire, which could lead to discomfort or resentment. Alternatively, refusing could maintain professional boundaries but might be viewed as impersonal or overly transactional, which could hinder relationship repair efforts.

Using the rational choice model, I lean toward recommending that Joe accept the invitation. This strategic decision considers the possibility that shared personal time could help ameliorate their strained relationship — an advantage that likely outweighs the minor social discomfort. Moreover, accepting could subtly convey openness and willingness to rebuild rapport, which is valuable for future collaborations. Nonetheless, this decision assumes Joe’s genuine willingness to engage outside formal negotiations, aligning with his best interest of fostering a positive professional relationship.

Turning to ethical considerations, the response to Bill’s invitation can be supported by deontological ethics, which emphasizes duty and moral obligations. If Joe's duty is to act in good faith and foster honest relationships, accepting the invitation aligns with his ethical responsibility to maintain integrity and loyalty. It also respects the ethical value of forgiveness and reconciliation, which could be considered a moral duty when relationships are strained.

In contrast, a consequentialist approach—specifically utilitarianism—would focus on the overall benefits and potential harms of accepting the invitation. If the positive impact of repairing their relationship outweighs any possible negatives, such as perceived favoritism or potential awkward moments, then accepting is justified. Conversely, if accepting might compromise Joe’s professional integrity or create perceptions of bias, then refusing might be the ethical choice to maximize overall well-being.

An alternative recommendation grounded in virtue ethics would emphasize integrity, honesty, and temperance. From this perspective, Joe might choose to decline the invitation if he feels that attending would compromise his professionalism or authenticity. This approach values moral character over strategic benefits, promoting actions that align with virtues such as honesty and prudence. Comparing this with the previous recommendations, virtue ethics prioritizes moral character and integrity over tactical relationship management, which could offer a more principled but potentially less strategic resolution.

In conclusion, choosing to accept or decline Bill’s invitation involves balancing strategic, ethical, and personal considerations. The rational choice model supports acceptance to repair strained relations, which could enhance professional success; ethically, this aligns with duties of loyalty and reconciliation. However, alternative approaches guided by virtue ethics emphasize maintaining moral integrity, which might suggest declining if it conflicts with personal or professional virtues. Ultimately, Joe’s decision should integrate both strategic and ethical perspectives, aiming for a response that fosters genuine relationship-building while upholding his moral values and professional integrity.

References

• Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13, 32-33.
• Hartman, L. P., & DesJardins, J. (2018). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage: The virtues that create character, build relationships, and encourage good work. HarperOne.
• MacIntyre, A. (2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Shaw, W. H. (2021). Business ethics: A textbook with cases. Cengage Learning.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press.
• Velasquez, M. (2012). Business ethics: Concepts and cases. Pearson.