Utilitarianism

at
Categories
Tags

Review this short video on utilitarianism as well as the background readings:
Then & Now. (2017, May 30). Utilitarianism – John Stuart Mill [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/Dr9954kaFBs
Once you have a firm understanding of utilitarian ethics, review the following scenario and address the corresponding questions:
A new virus is rapidly spreading, causing a worldwide pandemic. Millions of people have died or have been hospitalized. Low-income communities, communities of color, the elderly, and those with health conditions have been disproportionately affected. Healthcare systems are crippled in many communities. Millions of people have lost their jobs. Entire business industries are devastated and/or sent into disarray as a result of the pandemic.

A vaccine was recently developed which proves highly effective in preventing the spread of the virus. Government officials are strongly encouraging people to take the vaccine, and many other organizations are even mandating a vaccine. Many people are skeptical of the long-term effects of the vaccine and/or feel pressure from the government, individuals, and other entities to receive the vaccine. Although data exists that supports the need for a vaccine in response to the damage being caused by the virus, a sizeable part of the population believe the numbers to be inflated; that people are overreacting; and that their personal rights are being infringed upon.

You are a leader in your organization, and you have a responsibility to turn profits and achieve organizational outcomes in addition to acting responsibly to protect your colleagues, employees, and external stakeholders, and maintain the health of your organization. You need to make a decision on how, or whether, you should implement a vaccine policy at your organization. As a leader, you need to consider the demographics, backgrounds, and beliefs that make up the internal and external stakeholders of your organization, and make a decision that is in the best interest for all internal and external stakeholders within your organization.

Complete an essay that addresses the following:

Describe and explain the key principles of utilitarian ethics, including ideas like higher-ordered pleasures and pains, act and rule utilitarianism, etc.. What is the role of utilitarian ethics in contemporary business?
Describe and explain the key principles of stakeholder management theory. What is the role of stakeholder management theory in contemporary business?
Explain how, or whether, managers/business leaders should implement a vaccination policy in response to the pandemic. Explain how your position positively and negatively affects those of different demographics (e.g., race, religion, sex, politics, age, ability, culture, values, etc.). Provide in-text citations from objective resources to support your approach.
How does your position positively and negatively affect individuals and certain groups of employees within the organization? Provide in-text citations from objective resources to support your approach.
How does your position positively and negatively affect the organization as a whole? Provide in-text citations from objective resources to support your approach.
How does your position positively and negatively affect the external stakeholders of the organization? Provide in-text citations from objective resources to support your approach.

Take some time to review the materials and take a position on the issue. Write a 3- to 5-page assessment of the situation.

Sample Solution

warriors. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legitimate to kill ‘to protect the blameless from hurt… rebuff scalawags (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above non military personnel can’t be hurt, showing soldiers as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as ‘we may not utilize the blade against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ furthermore, Frowe recommended warriors should be recognized as warriors, to stay away from the presence of close quarters combat which can wind up in a higher passing count, for instance, the Vietnam War. In addition, he contended they should be important for the military, carry weapons and apply to the guidelines of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This proposes Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members keeping away from non-warrior passings, yet couldn’t this prompt higher demise rate for soldiers, as the two sides have generally equivalent opportunity to win since both utilize comparable strategies? By and by, ostensibly Frowe will contend that soldier can legally kill one another, showing this is simply, which is likewise upheld by Vittola, who states: ‘it is legitimate to draw the blade and use it against villains (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ moreover, Vittola communicates the degree of military strategies utilized, yet never arrives at a resolution regardless of whether it’s legal to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it tends to be legal to do things like this however never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the genuine strategies as per proportionality and military need. It relies upon the size of how much harm done to each other, to pass judgment on the activities after a conflict. For instance, one can’t just nuke the fear monger bunches all through the center east, since it isn’t just relative, it will harm the entire populace, a potentially negative side-effect. All the more critically, the fighters should have the right aim in the thing they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: if fighters have any desire to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right aim and for a worthy motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legal to execute all soldiers… we should consider… size of the injury caused by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is significantly more upright than Vittola’s view yet infers similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed basically for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another on the grounds that they have been a warrior. They should be treated as empathetically as could really be expected. Nonetheless, the circumstance is raised in the event that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, everything being equal. By and large, jus in bello recommends in wars, mischief must be utilized against warriors, never against the guiltless. Be that as it may, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the ward. As Vittola

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?