Ethics 2

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 3

1. How would you describe the ethical dilemma in this situation of Chick-Fil-A?

Describe such
situation.
In the modern world that we live in today, it is a difficulty to sustain a firm with conservative
principles. It will be interesting to see how Cathy and his management team respond to the
ethical dilemma of the business.
A conservative attitude can be highly constraining when trying to please all parties. As
conservative businesses grow nationally and worldwide, they must please a diverse set of
stakeholders with differing views. With regards to the LGBT rights issue, Chick-Fil-A has
recently become a very contentious company.
President and COO of Chick-fil-A Dan Cathy publicly stated his position in 2012, highlighting his
family and thereby biblical principles. Cathy's behaviors are influenced by ethics, as revealed in
her essay. We shall examine two utilitarian interpretations, a sort of consequentialism that
focuses on providing the most good for the most people.
Cathy's strong commitment to these values prompted diverse reactions to the 2012 LGBT rights
dispute. Understanding Cathy's dedication to these family values can help clarify the debate. It
may not be popular with everyone, but thank God we live in a country where we may share our
views and act on biblical principles (O'Connor, Forbes). Cathy is aware that not all of his
stakeholders will approve of his leadership approach, but he is grateful for his autonomy. He is
proud of his family-run business and of being able to run it correctly in America.
2. Is Cathy's opinion on gay marriage follows the utilitarian principle? Why or why not? Explain
your side.
Consequentialism allows us to create arguments on both sides of an ethical debate when we
examine the circumstances at hand through its lens. First and foremost, we must grasp the
meaning of the term "consequentialism." As stated by the consequential theory, "whether or
whether an act is morally justified rests simply on its results, rather than on its conditions or on
its essential nature" (Consequentialism). According to John Stuart Mills, the version of
consequentialism that is most relevant to the ethical dilemma at hand is utilitarianism, which
asks for the greatest amount of utility to be achieved at any cost. In order to comprehend
utilitarianism, it is necessary to realize that "the optimal response to an ethical problem is that
which gives the greatest good for the greatest number of people" (Roth 33). In this example,
utility is defined as the experience of pleasure itself, or as the absence of discomfort. This has
an interesting tie to the Chick-Fil-A ethical argument, which you can read about here. It is
conceivable to take two opposing positions on this issue. There are two main arguments against
Cathy's public statement on gay marriage. The first is that it restricts their stakeholders by
discriminating against the 55 percent of the population in the United States who supports gay
marriage, and the second is that they are notconcerned with providing the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. Cathy's public statement on gay marriage is a good example of this.
As stated below, Cathy loves any stakeholder who demonstrates an interest in Chick-Fil-A and
thereby creates the greatest good for the largest number of people regardless of his public view
on gay marriage.
When Cathy publicly stated his views on gay marriage in 2012, the company was in the news.
Some homosexual supporters felt targeted and unwelcome at Chick-Fil-A. Some felt uneasy
doing business with a corporation that opposed homosexual marriage. Before the scandal,
Chick-Fil-A gave $2 million to the National Christian Foundation and $3.5 million to the Marriage
and Family Foundation. After the scandal, no donations were made to either of these groups.
And she didn't plan to upset so many people by making a bad business decision. In 2012,
Cathy's activities did not bring the most good to the largest number of people. Changing public
donations to anti-gay marriage non-profit organizations in 2012 shows Cathy's readiness to shift
for the greater good.
There are two ways to understand the Chick-Fil-A debate utilitarianly. My second point, when
Cathy changes his stance on homosexual marriage, was more of a response to the first. The
first claim, that Cathy was not concerned with doing the most good for the most people,
obviously contradicts utilitarian theory. The fact that Cathy adjusted his ways after the uproar
surrounding anti-gay funding shows his desire to improve. Since he publicly expressed his
opinion on homosexual marriage in 2012, Cathy understood that he might create even more
'greatness' for more stakeholders. Second, Cathy publicly declares that Chick-El-A welcomes all
stakeholders regardless of their stance for homosexual marriage.
3. How can the idea of "universal moral law" of Kant be applied in this situation? Detail your
answer.
The "transcendental idealism" of Kant's approach emphasizes a contrast between what we can
experience (the natural, observable world) and what we cannot (supersensible objects like God
and the soul). Kant claimed that we can only know what we experience. So, to address the
question, "How can I know?" Kant responds that we can know the natural, observable world but
not the answers to many metaphysical issues.
This universal ethical concept states that one should constantly respect the humanity of others
and only act in accordance with standards that could hold for everyone. Kant claimed that since
the moral law is a truth of reason, all rational creatures are bound by it. So, what should I do?
We should act intelligently, according to Kant.
A belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul is also required. Kant argues. While we
cannot know these things, moral reflection leads to justified confidence in them, which is a form
of rational faith. That is, "What can I hope?" Kant responds that we can hope for everlasting
souls and a God who constructed the world with justice in mind.
The universal moral law can be applied in this situation in which specific moral "Doing the right
thing "is imposed. The above arguments are supposed to be ludicrous. In reality, Chick fil A
appears to have changed its stance, and they should be commended for defying rules to help
their communities in need. This is good ethics.
It may come down to the simplest argument: why eat at Chick fil A if you don't agree with their
policies? Can the Denver City Council tell people where they can and cannot dine based on
their personal biases? We should be grateful that Chick fil A staff in Orlando volunteered to aid
others during a horrible moment. They had good ethics. Maybe that's enough, and whether we
enjoy their meal or not, we should admire their commitment to ethics.
Individual rights, First Amendment speech, religion, and companies were periodically discussed
as a result of Cathy's remarks and the global response. Regardless of one's views on gay
marriage, I believe we're missing a story. Specifically, should and how does a CEO integrate
their core ideas and values into the corporate culture and ethics, and what are the implications
(good and negative)? What happens when a CEO chooses to base a company's ethics on a set
of ideals, whether spiritual or secular? How important is the company's ownership?
Most excellent CEOs I know say a leader needs a North Star to keep morally grounded
personally and professionally. This North Star is faith for many. Timberland's Orthodox Judaism.
Whole Foods' CEO's Buddhism It is the founder's Christian religion. For others, it is a subtle
source of decency and depth inherited from parents and others.
Managers and staff share CEOs' dilemmas. What do you do if your faith teaches you values
others scorn (e.g. Sabbath rest)? What if your faith teaches that the spirit of the law is as
important as the letter? What if your faith believes work should be more than simply a job? What
if others disrespect you because you can't touch certain foods, wear certain clothes, or pray at
specific times because of your faith? What if your faith instructs you to treat women, minorities,
gays, and disabled persons equally, but your corporate or country culture does not?
In these days of apparently endless corporate wrongdoing, having a strong moral compass
seems more crucial than ever. They require help developing ethical company cultures and
workplaces where people feel valued and respected.

You might also like