Ethics Game
- Submitted by: malafia
- Views: 2607
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 03/31/2010 03:24 PM
- Pages: 4
- Report this Essay
Ethics Game: Reflective Journal
Introduction:
In this paper, we will analyze two cases: the Case of Fair Warning and the Case of Stringent Standards. First, we will need to identify the stakeholders involved. In both cases, the stakeholders include the various members of G-BioSport such as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), operations director, quality control manager, director of public relations, shareholders of the company and also the consumers of the company. These are the groups of people who will be directly affected by any decisions or changes made to G-BioSport.
The Case of Fair Warning:
From the point of view of a quality control manager, I made the decision to inform the various stakeholders about the increase in risks which they are exposed to. This is achieved through the dissemination of information through various sources like posting an information sheet on our company’s website and informing the media and the press. If possible, a hotline can be set up to allow consumers to have their enquiries answered. Only with enough awareness on the problems and issues with the company’s goods and products can consumers make informed decisions and take the appropriate actions.
In this case, there are two options which the company can engage in to resolve the problem. The first method will be collect back all the tainted goods and refund the consumers their money. The second method will be to collect back all the tainted goods and replace them with better ones.
This is in line with both utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. From the point of view of the utilitarian, warning consumers will allow a great part of the society to benefit as such it is a moral and acceptable action. From the point of view of a deontologist, it is essentially unacceptable to lie or hide the truth, hence it is only correct to inform the consumers about the risks which they are exposed to. In addition, by being responsible to the consumers, consumers will also...
Introduction:
In this paper, we will analyze two cases: the Case of Fair Warning and the Case of Stringent Standards. First, we will need to identify the stakeholders involved. In both cases, the stakeholders include the various members of G-BioSport such as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), operations director, quality control manager, director of public relations, shareholders of the company and also the consumers of the company. These are the groups of people who will be directly affected by any decisions or changes made to G-BioSport.
The Case of Fair Warning:
From the point of view of a quality control manager, I made the decision to inform the various stakeholders about the increase in risks which they are exposed to. This is achieved through the dissemination of information through various sources like posting an information sheet on our company’s website and informing the media and the press. If possible, a hotline can be set up to allow consumers to have their enquiries answered. Only with enough awareness on the problems and issues with the company’s goods and products can consumers make informed decisions and take the appropriate actions.
In this case, there are two options which the company can engage in to resolve the problem. The first method will be collect back all the tainted goods and refund the consumers their money. The second method will be to collect back all the tainted goods and replace them with better ones.
This is in line with both utilitarian ethics and deontological ethics. From the point of view of the utilitarian, warning consumers will allow a great part of the society to benefit as such it is a moral and acceptable action. From the point of view of a deontologist, it is essentially unacceptable to lie or hide the truth, hence it is only correct to inform the consumers about the risks which they are exposed to. In addition, by being responsible to the consumers, consumers will also...