Essays on Business Ethics or Ethical Evaluation of Auto Companies Essay

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Business Ethics or Ethical Evaluation of Auto Companies" Is a great example of a Business Essay. From the beginning of human civilization to the modern age, the question of morality has been very significant in our societies. Philosophers researched tirelessly on the concept of moral coexistence. Various scholarly interventions have shown how morality has inevitable practical application in our societies and its evolution for the common good of all men on the planet. Although different philosophers have exhibited significantly different views on the concept of morality, it is quite plausible how each has had a tremendous influence on the recognition of what is right and wrong.

In this discussion, I will examine ethical theories namely; Utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, Justice, Rights and Normative ethical relativism. These theories will guide in the evaluating of the decision by Auto companies to expand the automobile industry in China. The discussion will seek to identify what is morally unacceptable for the Auto companies to venture into expanding the Chinese automobile market. According to Mackie (1977) and Rachels (1998), ethical theories are a subdivision of philosophy that seeks to answer questions in morality.

The term utilitarianism is derived from the noun ‘ utility’ . Utility refers to the state of an object, idea, item or action being useful, profitable or beneficial. According to Utilitarianism, an action, rule or principle is right if its consequences and contribution maximize pleasure, happiness and minimizing any suffering of the majority in a given population (Crisp, 1997; Darwall, 1995; Long, 1990 & Smart, 1993). Utilitarians argue that actions should lead to overall usability, satisfaction, and happiness (Mill, 1863; Smart & Williams, 1973).

The greatest happiness principle is the chief goal of utilitarians. However, an action may qualify to be right even when the consequences are poor considering the alternative consequences would be much worse. “ What is good” and “ what is right” is essentially significant in drawing conclusions about the rightness of an action, rule or principle. There is tremendous growth in the car industry in China due to the demand for cars by the middle class. The government has provided an enabling framework for investment in the car industry to meet the growing demand. As well, the exciting Chinese automobile market has attracted many automobile investors.

People prefer to have their own cars for various reasons i. e. convenience or as a status symbol. Therefore, the government’ s promotion of the car industry in the country is solely for the benefit of the entire society i. e. to maximize the greatest happiness principle (Smart & Williams, 1973). Auto companies in China are morally wrong to manufacture environmentally harmful products. A clean environment supports life and benefits every person. From a utilitarian perspective, environmental degradation as a result of automobile emissions would have severe health implications than just the convenience of having personal cars or social recognition.

The companies violate the principle of utility as advocated by utilitarians (Scarre, 1996). They should take into account the environmental consequences of their products by complying with all applicable emission standards to alleviate environmental degradation. Deontological ethics form a part of normative theories on acts that are morally approved, forbidden, or permitted (Kant, 1964; Darwell, Ed., 2003; Olson, 1967 & Beauchamp, 1991). As utilitarianism, deontological ethics are moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do.

They are founded on the belief that we are obliged to abide by defined rules that stipulate what is right and wrong. However, deontologists don’ t look at the consequences of specific decisions thus they are non-consequentialist (Kant, 1964 & Darwell, 2003). The nature of specific acts is examined. For instance, Kantian deontology may not take into consideration that a drunk driver arrived home safely. Instead, driving under the influence of alcohol is wrong.


Anton, D. K. And Dinah L. S(2011).Environmental Protection and Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baxi, Upendra,(2006). Bentham’s Theory of Legislation, 7th ed. (reprint). LexisNexis, New Delhi.

Beauchamp, Tom L. 1991. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bentham, J., 1789 (1948), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and of Legislation, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Boaz , D. (2010). The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings from Lao Tzu to. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Broad, C. D. 1930. Five Types of Ethical Theory. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.

Crisp, Roger (1997). Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge

Darwall, Stephen (1995). Hume and the Invention of Utilitarianism, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

Darwell, S (Ed.) (2003) Deontology: Contemporary Expressions, Moral Constraints and Moral Goals. New York: Wiley.

Feinberg, J. (1980).Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty. Princeton: Princeton

Finnis, J. (1980).Natural Law and Natural Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hinman, L. M. (2011). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. New York: Cengage Learning.

Hohfeld, W. (2001).Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in JudicialReasoning. Burlington, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company and Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Hugman, R. (2012).Culture, Values and Ethics in Social Work: Embracing Diversity. NewYork: Routledge.

Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.

Lomasky, L. (1987).Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lyons, D. 1994.Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books, Har-mondsworth.

Mill, J. (1979).Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Mill, J.S. (1863). Utilitarianism.Marxists. Retieved March 2013, from

Mill, J.S. (1863).Utilitarianism. Justiceharvard. Retieved March 2013, from

Moreland, J.P. Ethics Theories: Utilitarianism Vs. Deontological Ethics. CRI because truth mstters.Retrieved March 2013, from

Olson, Robert G. (1967). 'Deontological Ethics'. Paul Edwards (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan

Rachels, J., editor (1998). Ethical Theory. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford

Rainbolt, G. (1993). Rights as Normative Constraints on Others.Philosophy andPhenomenological Research53: 93–112.

Rawls, J. & Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. A (1999).Theory of Justice.Revised Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (Cambridge, MA:1971).

Rawls, J., 1971, a Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Rosenblum, Nancy (1978). Bentham's Theory of the Modern State, New York: Cambridge University Press

Scarre, Geoffrey (1996). Utilitarianism, London: Routledge

Schofield, Philip (2006). Utility and Democracy: the Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, B. A. O. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wellman, C. (1985). A Theory of Rights: Persons Under Laws, Institutions, and Morals.

Wolff, J. (1991). Robert Nozick: Property, Justice, and the Minimal State.: Stanford University Press.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us