Rollback, Inc Case Study

Sometimes the right thing to do is to do something hat benefits others more than It benefits you. For example, It Is more ethical for one to put the needs of their family before their personal wants.

It Is better to work for your family as opposed to just working for yourself. For example, a more ethical business owner would use their income primarily to support their family instead of their own wants. A less ethical business owner would invest their money in things they simply want instead of what their family needs. Deontological ethics are duty based.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The theory of deontological ethics says that following ethical duties can rate the best society.

In demonology It Is said that praiseworthy goals can never justify Immoral actions. This also means that an action does not always Justify the result. For example, making an A on a test does not justify the fact that it was the result of cheating. It is immoral to cheat on a test. The shareholders and directors of Rickrack, Inc. Should keep their business in Richmond, Kentucky.

In this decision, the ends do not justify the means.

In order to move this company to Canada, 250 employees would lose their Jobs so that the owners could increase their profits. This Is going to hurt a large number of families who were dependent on an Income from Rollback, Inc. If every American business did this kind of outsourcing, It would create a huge number of unemployed Americans. The deontological theory can be applied to make the right decision regarding this situation.

Mice’s and Troy wrote, “We address the theory of ethical decision-making and deontological ethics for business executives and explore the concept of “moral duty” as transcending mere gain and profit minimization. This means that there is more to consider when a equines considers making a decision that will maximize their profit. In this case, moving the business to Canada will negatively impact the 250 current employees and their families. Mice’s and Troy say, “Stock ownership and stock options in particular, may lead to extremes in self-interested behavior. ” Self-interest behavior is unethical when it causes harm to others.

If everyone only worried about themselves society would not function as well. Owners of a company have to provide employees with Job security to keep up their reputation.

Otherwise, people would want to work for them. According to Mice’s and Troy, “When the corporate leaders operate their businesses with a primary interest on the consequences to their personal wealth and reputation, and devoid of concern for their duty to employees, investors, the environment and other parties directly or indirectly affected, capitalism has suffered an ethical defeat. ” Relating to this quote, deontological ethics are not applied.

An tentacle leader Is someone Tanat employees snouts De addle to rely on. Employees are not going to respect a leader that they cannot trust.

If the business did choose to eve to Canada, the Canadian employees more than likely would not feel a sense of having long term security at their Job. With these kinds of self-interests, the business could move again if it finds a more profitable opportunity somewhere else, hurting even more people. In order for Rickrack, Inc. To be ethical, they should remain in Kentucky where they will have their employees respect.

Respect is earned by ethical decision making. Fred has an ethical duty to stay with Rickrack, Inc. The reasoning behind this is that if he leaves for the better paying Job it will put Rickrack, Inc. D all of the families that depend on that company in a bad situation. Seeing that Fred is the only person that can run the machine, it would take no less than eight more weeks to replace him.

It is possible that the company could go out of business due to his Job being critical to the company’s operations. Regarding demonology, Brady states, “A deontological ethic is an ethic of duty. It does not look beyond the act itself in assessing its moral worth. Results are irrelevant so long as the action itself conforms to duty. There are many possible sources of one’s duty.

Fred has a duty to his family and a duty to the business he works for. Due to the fact that Rickrack, Inc. Has not trained anyone else to do Fried’s Job, he is very important to the survival of the company. Desiring to pay for a college education for his children is perfectly understandable. However, the cost to others would currently be too great. If he quit his Job, the result could be that Rickrack goes out of business.

Everyone that works there would lose their Job. Though Fred would not be breaking any laws by quitting, he would be exposing a bad ethical quality about himself.

His new employer would immediately know that Fred disregards the livelihood of others. This kind of self- interested behavior is not ethical when it harms other people. Therefore, making more money does not Justify actions that harm other human beings. If everyone behaved that way, no one could be relied on.

Teleological ethics differs from deontological ethics. In this ethical theory, the ends can Justify the means. This means that choices are Judged on whether or not they will produce good results. The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few in teleological ethics.

Consider what refreshers do as an example. Firefighters put their lives at risk so that they can attempt to save as many lives as they can over time.

Regarding teleological ethics, Groves and Larch quote, “Teleological ethics’ emphasis on ends and outcomes is consistent with the influence process of transactional leadership, specifically the norm of reciprocity and the mutual altruistic motive. ” Transactional leadership is primarily focuses on supervision and group performance. A leader that rewards followers for good behavior and punishes them for bad behavior earns respect from them.

Groves and Larch feel that ethical leaders have a concern for the welfare of others. This practice of teleological ethics can be used by Rickrack Inc. To come up with a decision on whether or not to move their business to Canada.

Employees who worked hard for many years should not be punished by losing their Jobs. A good leader does not simply abandon their followers for self-interests that only benefit the leader. A good leader cares enough about their followers to make decisions based on how it will affect their lives. Therefore, remaining in Richmond, Kentucky is the tentacle calicles.

I Nat would produce ten greatest good Tort ten greatest mummer. Groves and Larch said, “According to act Utilitarianism, an individual bases decisions solely on their outcomes by selecting the act that provides the greatest social good.

The last quote by Groves and Larch can also be used by Fred to come up with a decision related to teleological ethics. He should do what produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Though switching Jobs would provide extra income which would benefit him and his family, too many other people would be harmed by a decision to quit.

A quote by Brady states, “Ideally, a teleological ethic should provide a vision of an improved human condition. Not all goals or purposes are equally moral.

” Both of the decisions Fred could make would produce some negative consequences. He would not be able to afford college tuition for his kids if he keeps his regular Job. If he quits his Job he will be able to afford the tuition. However, over 250 people could end up out of work. That is why the decisions are not equally moral.

In order to produce the greatest good for the greatest number, Fred must keep his Job at Rickrack, Inc.

At least his kids will have the student loans option in Kentucky. In conclusion, the usage of both deontological and teleological ethics can be used to determine morality in either of the two situations. Although no laws would be broken in any of these situations, there are clearly ethical decisions that need to be made to produce the greatest good for society. That is, if the right decisions that minimize harm are chosen.

It is more ethical to minimize the negative consequences that affect everyone. When faced with a choice, it is more ethical to choose what causes as little harm to everyone as Seibel.