Utilitarianism and Business Ethics
Institutional Affiliation
Students Name
Course
Date
The parents’ unilateral joint decision not to see the exams canceled as they did not expect such an incident to have taken place has both positive and negative impacts. Since KCDP was offering its training sessions for pay, the decision will benefit the students and the corresponding who were able to pay up for the training classes provided by KCDP. However, the other students and parents who did not manage to afford to pay for the training sessions would be on the losing side because they never had the opportunity to preview the questions that eventually came to exams as their classmates did.
A useful perspective requires that the choices made bring the best (including happiness and pleasure) out of the results or the consequences that come accompanied by choice made. KCDP agreed to have no risk of claim to the SAT regarding its infringement of the ownership rights. Therefore, it sought to pay out to the settlement of 400,000 dollars by tutoring the students who would not afford to pay for the classes, as agreed by the College Board. Before KCDP makes the payment, the SAT and the College Board should ensure that whatever allegations they have been proven.
The allegations to be proven will be if the KCDP went astray to have the papers used by students to revise before they sat for the exams (Kačerauskas, 2019). After proving that the documents were acquired illegally before exams to win more students, maybe then the settlement should be given.
Utilitarianism requires that a decision made is targeting to bring pleasure in maximization of the utility. The frustrations that the students who initially paid the price to have is entirely different in that now their counterparts are now receiving the training sessions for free. Utilitarianism aims at promoting social happiness rather than individual happiness (Sarnacki, 2020). The pleasure is equated as a preference, so the settlement claim agreed to be made KCDP by was 400,000 US dollars in the students’ case. This amount of money was to be prioritized and bring social happiness. The move to make it be utilized by the students who could not afford the training sessions was Utilitarianism. However, much it was frustrating to the others, but it equated to happiness among students.
From a practical perspective, if the College Board was aware of the oppositional presses that would come with the free classes’ public announcement. The aim was to promote social happiness but not by letting out the plan. Maximizing the program would be good if the settlement terms agreed by KCDP to pay College Board would be evaluated on private tours. If the scores were not canceled, equality is a case if free sessions for the poor are provided.
It is possible that even after the word of the free session got out to the public, the College Board can rebuke it and negate the fact that it was not part of the settlement claim. Based on Utilitarianism, the essential thing is implementing social happiness in whatever the case (Tran et al. 2017). If the school was after equating social happiness by uplifting the affected, the College Board could refuse such claims. Utilitarianism recommends a lie for the well-being of the majority in promoting happiness if ethical.
The case for cancelation of exams as corresponded to Utilitarianism requires that the decision made to make some people happy more so the ones that had the chance to preview the exam tests before the main exam. Their happiness would be promoted if their exams would nob canceled because they did not know what would happen. However, Utilitarianism requires that if they are happy who, and how many people are affected (Idagu et al. 2019). Utilitarianism will require that a decision equal to happiness is taken up to suit every student socially. So as per Utilitarianism, the exams would be canceled to achieve social satisfaction.
Utilitarianism in income distribution requires that the utility is well adapted to the salary generates. Furthermore, the income should not be wasted if it can pay more people if surplus and a population are suffering. At the same time, it can be given out to ensure goodness and happiness in society. If I were practical, I would steal money from the principal’s bank account on the following basis, and the money is too much to satisfy his needs. And the students in school are suffering as they cannot pay for the training sessions; he knows this, and he has not acted to help out.
The act of KDCP settling the claims it had with the College Board is altruistic; the company has allowed the school and the students to benefit from it at the expense of it gaining nothing. Its services are not being paid for by the school, and the students in benefit. Ethically the act is egoistic because it acted on its best of interest to maximize social happiness; it helped the other students out in its acceptance to give the free sessions.
References
Udoudom, M. D., Idagu, U. A., & Nwoye, L. (2018). Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment. Journal of Sustainable Society, 7(1), 5-11.
Van Dang, C., Tran, T. T., Gil, K. J., Shin, Y. B., Choi, J. W., Park, G. S., & Kim, J. W. (2017, June). Application of soar cognitive agent-based on utilitarian ethics theory for home service robots. In the 2017 14th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI) (pp. 155-158). IEEE.
Sarnacki, A. (2020). Utilitarian Ethics in the Praxis of Companies: Challenges of Imposition and Duplicity. In Virtuous Cycles in Humanistic Management (pp. 77-90). Springer, Cham.
Kačerauskas, T. (2019). Ethics in business and communication: common ground or incommensurable?.