In the tale of the Only Remaining Supplier, a company whom supplied pacemaker equipment was debating in whether or not they should certainly continue because of numerous moral issues. The company, also the sole remaining suppliers, felt that they should stop selling equipment because if the product stopped working, it might lead to key lawsuits and so they did not desire to deal with these kinds of ethical problems. In this paper, I will apply steps A through G of the Utility Test to this case and i also will also apply the Common Good Test to the case as well. After assessing and different the Energy Test with the Common Very good Test, Let me then decide which check is the most educational in terms of my evaluation of the case. Utility Check Steps in the Sole Remaining Distributor Case
" For the utility evaluation (or " Utilitarian PrincipleвЂќ), the consequences or perhaps outcomes know what is right or perhaps wrong. В For this principle the ends justify the means: an action is right whether it creates the very best overall outcomeвЂќ (Hamilton, 2009). Step A asks the question " Will be we increasing good and minimizing injury for all those affectedвЂќ (Hamilton, 2009). Before making major decisions, there are always good and bad implications to the end result. In the Singular Remaining Dealer case, the corporation thought that they would have been making the most of good if they would possess discontinued advertising pacemaker gear to others, because in case the equipment started to be faulty, their particular company can be held responsible. On the other hand, the company involved thought that all the distributing company could have maximized damage because they were the only business that marketed these products and if it were discontinued; individuals that depended on this kind of equipment will eventually suffer. Step M asks the question " how come utility a valid way to choose right and wrongвЂќ (Hamilton, 2009). In the Sole Remaining Supplier case, continuing to provide pacemaker equipment would have built the most delight, because rather than thinking about...
References: Guthrie, S i9000. (2001). Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Essential. The Examined Life Online Philosophy Journal, 2(7). Gathered 28 January 2012 via http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm
Moberg, D and Romar, E. (2003). WorldCom. Markkula Center for Used Ethics. Recovered 28 January 2012 via http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/worldcom.html
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008). Kant's Meaning Philosophy. Retrieved 28 January 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/