Ethics Case Study - Semester 1 - 2013 - Qut Business

1250 Words5 Pages
Question 1 Utilitarianism Ethics It would seem in this instance if “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” was to broadcast the prank, it would not promote the greater good. The greater good could include the company maintaining their public perception of ethical behaviour and being compassionate to all individuals. The negatives could be that the radio station might feel restricted in what they can and cannot do, and this may be another indicator of that fact. Specifically, how they cannot share a humorous prank on air. By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial. As this would be seen by the radio station as maintaining their professional integrity, it would avoid the possibility of impacting their relationships with multiple stakeholders negatively. From the positives and negatives discussed, it would seem under utilitarianism ethics the prank would not be ethical to broadcast. Kantian Ethics The decision to not air the prank would not be delayed under Kantian ethics. As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed. The ethical expert would advise “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” to exercise self-restraint and act ethically as it is their duty. Despite the temptation to please audiences and to achieve high ratings and revenues by humorous pranks, duty must prevail and the prank must not be aired. Furthermore, individuals in and outside the business universally should be treated with respect and should not be treated as a means to an end. To not air such pranks; this can be easily accepted universally, which is in compliance with Kantian ethics. Perceived negatives that could come from Kantian ethics could be that even if the outcome is not ethical under this theory, an individual is compelled to follow their instruction. However, in this case the decision to
Open Document