Part 1
Ethic in business is a crucial thing. In these paper Halliburton company is said to have been involved in corruption scandals shall be evaluated. At the same time the Wal-Mart company that has been exploiting people shall be evaluated from different perspectives as outlined.
Utilitarianism takes two dimensions, the act utilitarianism and the rule utilitarianism. The act utilitarianism has it that consequences of a single act be measured depending on how right or wrong the course of action was. The basic rule in this case is exercising the probable benefit. In this case the point of reference in every action that is carried out is maximum utility, where the majority well-being needs to be achieved. The course of action that will be taken is one which produces utility in most of the cases to the majority in most of the circumstances, even if the rule will have to be broken (Roleff, 2006).
Rule utilitarianism has it that the consequences of the rule be the guiding factor. The set code of conduct, the rules, and the universal law should be repeated over and over again. Rule utilitarianism will therefore argue that the wrongness or the goodness of an action does not matter. What matters and is worth to be evaluated is the rightness or wrongness of the course of action that a person does will be evaluated. As such the guiding rule is that if a person carried out his or her undertaking with regards to the rule, the general action shall be good. Where the results of the course of action have negative impact it shall be held that the rules were broken (De, 2002).
Consequetialism on its part emphasises on observing the rule and the regulation set. The rule is said to have the capacity to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Therefore it requires our action be guided by the rule. Kantian ethic is based on the rule that the intrinsic motive of the course of action be considered in determining the goodness or the wrongness of the action. Therefore the rationale of an action can be determined if the maxim and principle Wal-Mart- the High Cost of Low Price behind it can be attributed to observing and upholding the moral law (Moon, 2001).
Social responsibility on its part requires that any action that is undertaken must have an obligation to benefit the society at large. Therefore every individual whether they base their action with regard to the law or uphold other theories, their action must be guided by the rule of social responsibility. With regard to justice and monetary value, justice override over monetary value since the law has it that in all situation justice must prevail. On the same note, the rights of people cannot be trade with the monetary value of any course of action.
In my evaluation, I would argue for act-utilitarianism as its argument hold water towards moral philosophy. Therefore since the company has the overall welfare of the people where they aim at producing the greatest welfare of the people without putting much attention on the rules set (Shaw, 2000).
Part 2
Wal-Mart-Management ethic position represented in the movie can be evaluated with regard to act and rule utilitarianism, consequentialism, right and justice versus monetary value, Kantian ethics and social responsibility. With regard to the act- rule utilitarianism, the company has absolutely failed since it uses traditional way to get to power and once it have got to power it does not act in the best interest of the majority that is enhancing and promoting the well-being of the people. This is because the movie shows that the company has put profit as their top priority rather than the interest and welfare of people and the environment. With regard to consequentialism, the company again score low since it does not uphold the rules and the laws set. In the movie it is clear that the company has buried its way into town and as a result it does not respect the laws and does not give the local small outlet a chance to survive in the market. In fact it squeezes them out of town (Bowie, 2002).
The company have placed monetary value as the major priority to them rather than observing justice. People are not benefiting from the inception of the company and the people are even becoming poorer by the day. The company is just amassing wealth at the expense of the poor people. Kantian ethics require that the company action be guided by the principle of good intrinsic intentions. From the overall conduct of the company with regard to the film the company has no good intention to the locals. Social responsibility is the other perspective we can evaluate the course of actions of the company. However from the movies, the company does not act with regard to social responsibility since the company is the main beneficiary.
Wal-Mart business ethics as evidenced in the film has no respect for women and family issues. In their parking lots, it have been established that people are at risk since there are no security guard to monitor them. It have been established that women have been terrorised and raped in the parking lots. The mart has refused to hire guard so that their profits are not reduced. Since wall-Mart is against union for workers, the whistle blowers have found it rough since they have been unjustly dismissed from work. Wal-Mart have absolutely failed to observe the international ethics in business set since they aim at extracting every penny that the consumers have and even engages in cut throat competition where they cut their costs to wipe away their competitors. This is against the international business ethics.
References
Bowie, N. E. (2002). Business ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
De, G. R. T. (2002). Business ethics. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.
Moon, C. (2001). Business ethics. London: Economist.
Roleff, T. L. (2006). Business ethics. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press.
Shaw, W. H. (2000). Business ethics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
