Ethics Article Critique - Assess each of the six scenarios posing the marketing ethics issues, and address

the ethical questions at the end of each scenario, by trying to absorb the ethical theories and framework discussed in the paper, as well as your interpretation of the tactics and strategies being dealt with in each scenario, which inject ethical dilemmas (good detail and elaboration is required in this section, as it is the major focus of your article assignment). For each of the scenarios, I have tried to use each of the three frameworks and the ethical questions the frameworks seek the answers for. I have put the responses next to the questions which arise in each of the frameworks. There are conclusions for each of the scenarios and conclusions for the scenarios after all the three frameworks have been applied. The strategy I had chosen was that if two or more framework declare scenario to be ethical, I accept it. This contrasts to situation where the scenario is unethical if only one framework concludes so. I did so because in my mind sometimes one couldnt be hundred percent ethical but I can try to be as close to hundred percent as possible. The method I used is tedious but I got the satisfaction that this tedious process allowed me to have 360 degree look and leaves no room for doubt. If such process is used in answering day to day managerial ethical dilemmas, the entire thinking used to make the decision can be captured on a paper. The responses captured could be used for future analysis and hind sights. Here is my application of frameworks to the 6 cases from the article in tabular format Scenario 1: Is the distribution managers economic rationale sufficient for his allocation method? Ross's Framework Duties of Fidelity? Application The company policy is that their stores have same prices for all items at all stores. From my view point, the poorest cuts are not same as the quality cut. So to equate them same will be violation of duties of fidelity. Here the manager feels gratitude or special obligations to the good customers at better stores, because these customers are more profitable. So the better customers get better product. The distribution manager feels that few trouble makers are not sufficient enough to discriminate against all the customers at the store in the low-income section of the city.

Duties of Gratitude?

Duties of Justice?

Duties of Beneficence?

Here the manager might feel that even the low income customers deserve good products so that are happy and satisfied customers. So the manager decides not to send poor cut meat to the store in poor section. Here the manager will send the poorest cut meat to the low income store, because the manager wants to increase ROI of the supply chain. Here discarding poor cut meat will be to take loss and decrease ROI, so this action will be avoided. Here the manager will discard poorest cut meat or sell them at lower price. The intent is to avoid injury to others. Since most of the duties are violated by sending the poor cut meat, the ethical action will be not to send poor cut meat to the store in question.

Duties of SelfImprovement?

Duties of Nonmaleficence?

Conclusion under Ross's Framework

Garret's Framework What is willed as means and end? If a major evil is willed the action is unethical and should not be taken. What are the foreseen but unwilled side effects? If there is no proportionate rest on for risking or allowing a major evil or willing a minor evil, the action is unethical and should not be taken. Given the situation, what are alternative actions? Is there an alternative to the end which would provide more good consequences and less evil consequences? Not to select this alternative would be unethical. Conclusion under Garret's Framework Here the intent of managers action is to save money and increase ROI and the means are to send poorest cut meat to poorest section. Here manager is not willing major evil to the customers who would consume the poor cut meat. The unwilled side effects might be that the good customers in the poor neighborhood might feel cheated while buying the poor cut meat if they know that the better meat is sold at same price. A vicious cycle might form where good customers might start to leave the store and store gets worse customers as time passes. This way the action of sending poorest cut meat should be avoided.

The alternative will be to discard the poor cut meat or to sell at lower price to honor the store's pricing policy. Again discarding product will be causing loss, but selling at lower price might add to bottom line a little. So the risk of evil consequences is almost nullified, so this new course of action should be taken.

Since proportion is the key here, it seems like selling the poor cut meat at lower price will be most ethical action.

Rawl's Framework Does action infringe on the inalienable rights of the customer? Here even the poorest customer has right to get quality product if the customer is paying full price for the goods. The poor customer's right should be equal to the rich customer's right. Both should get equal quality product if they both pay same price. Yes the action of sending poor cut meat to poor section leaves that store's customer less well off. And this section of customers is underprivileged.

Does action leave another person or group less well off? Is this person or group already relatively underprivileged? Conclusion under Rawl's framework Over all

It will be unethical to send poor cut meat to the store in poor section of the city. The manager should avoid sending poor cut meat to the store in poor neighborhood. If ROI is in question then alternative pricing could be thought about and implemented.

Scenario 2: Is it ethical for the dealers association to use a fear appeal to offset an economic disadvantage? Ross's Framework Duties of Fidelity? Application Here the dealers association might decide that the heavy handed fear appeal is wrong because of the fidelity duty to their potential customers. Since the Japanese cars are unsafe then the action is ethical because the association is telling truth as it feels gratitude towards its customers. And the association is rightfully performing duties of gratitude by advertising. The question here is that is the dealer association winning business from Japanese dealers in rightful way? I feel that they are not. Using fear does not confirm to duties of justice. The dealer association thinks that by using advertisement, the customers are benefited because they will be safer in American cars. Again, dealers association sales are improved. So the duties of self improvement are fulfilled. The dealer association might feel that they are providing adequate information to fulfill this duty, but I feel that using fear is coercive and duties of nonmaleficence is broken.

Duties of Gratitude?

Duties of Justice?

Duties of Beneficence?

Duties of SelfImprovement? Duties of Nonmaleficence?

Conclusion under Ross's Framework

In this case the verdict is equally split between ethical (duties of gratitude, beneficence and self-improvement) and unethical (duties of fidelity, justice and nonmaleficence). So we need to look at what set of duties is more urgent, perhaps the association will argue for former (duties of gratitude, beneficence and self-improvement) and will go with advertisement.

Garret's Framework What is willed as means and end? If a major evil is willed the action is unethical and should not be taken. What are the foreseen but unwilled side effects? If there is no proportionate rest on for risking or allowing a major evil or willing a minor evil, the action is unethical and should not be taken. Given the situation, what are alternative actions? Is there an alternative to the end which would provide more good consequences and less evil consequences? Not to select this alternative would be unethical. Conclusion under Garret's Framework Here the association wants to increase American car sales and increase ROI. This translates to fear advertising. So the association is not causing major evil to the customers who would end up with safer car.

The unwilled side effects might be that the customers might end up buying bad quality car and will get bad impression of American cars due to frequent breakdowns and high mileage costs. These issues will stick in customers' mind and will be harmful for future American car business. In car business loyalty is the key thing in holding on to customers. And fearful advertisement could cause greater harm for future of the business. The alternative will be not to take out advertisement, but win customers with better financing which will make cars affordable to more customers.

I would suggest not taking out the advertisement as there will be more harm in long run. Also the alternate of selling cars with better financing should be considered.

Rawl's Framework Does action infringe on the inalienable rights of the customer? I feel customers have right to know all the information. The association decision to talk about safety is a step towards that.

Does action leave another person or group less well off? Is this person or group already relatively underprivileged? Conclusion under Rawl's framework Over all

The only group which will be at disadvantage will be Japanese car dealers. Is this group underprivileged, I think not?

Under Rawl's framework it is ethical to take out the advertisement. After applying all three frameworks, the ethical tilt is more towards taking out the advertisement, agreeing to frameworks of Rawl and Ross.

Scenario 3: Is it acceptable for Jones Company to send out unsafe product to Europe? Ross's Framework Duties of Fidelity? Application In sending products to Europe, the Jones Company is violating duties of fidelity, since in selling the European Cola consumers will not be told truth that use of subsugural is questionable. The Jones company doesn't feel duties of gratitude towards European market, as the company is going to sell cola with possible harmful ingredient to its customers. Is selling cola with possible harmful ingredient justifiable, I think it is not. So duties of justice break, if Jones company sends the product. I can't see why European customers will benefit in any way in drinking cola with subsugural. So duties of beneficence is broken, if cola is send to Europe. The Jones Company is reducing possible loss by sending subsugural laced cola to Europe. Hence duties of selfimprovement are fulfilled. In order to maximize consumer safety, the Jones company will not send cola to Europe and hence complete duties of nonmaleficence. It is clear that under Ross's framework, it is unethical to send cola to Europe.

Duties of Gratitude?

Duties of Justice?

Duties of Beneficence?

Duties of SelfImprovement? Duties of Nonmaleficence?

Conclusion under Ross's Framework Garret's Framework

What is willed as means and end? If a major evil is willed the action is unethical and should not be taken. What are the foreseen but unwilled side effects? If there is no proportionate rest on for risking or allowing a major evil or willing a minor evil, the action is unethical and should not be taken. Given the situation, what are alternative actions? Is there an alternative to the end which would provide more good consequences and less evil consequences? Not to select this alternative would be unethical. Conclusion under Garret's Framework Rawl's Framework Does action infringe on the inalienable rights of the customer?

The company wants to avoid loss by sending colas to Europe. But will major harm be caused in this decision. No. But if the subsugural say causes birth defects in children, then the decision will be causing major evil.

If the cola is sold and consumed in Europe and European consumers learn about the questionable ingredient in the Cola, then the Company reputation could be damaged so will be future business. In this age of quick news travel, the possibility of exposure to this is very high.

The alternative will be not to send Colas to Europe and take a hit. This course of action will be ethically better.

I would suggest not sending cola to Europe, as the possibility of proportion damage is higher.

I feel that the customer in Europe and America should be treated at equal footing. If cola is not sold to American consumer due to possible suspect then the cola shouldn't be sold to European customer. There is no group underprivileged in this case.

Does action leave another person or group less well off? Is this person or group already relatively underprivileged? Conclusion under Rawl's framework Over all

Rawl's framework says that it is unethical to send cola to Europe. The ethical decision is not to send cola to Europe after applying all three frameworks.

Scenario 4: Is Acme's policy of providing gifts to purchasing agents morally poor. Ross's Framework Duties of Fidelity? Application Duties of fidelity require refraining from deceptive practices to get advantage. In some way Acme could be getting advantages in getting order by providing gifts. Hence duties of fidelity are broken. The company is correct in thinking that gratitude allows them to provide gift if not prohibited by its client's organization. If providing gifts doesnt anyway sway clients to buy supplies from Acme, and Acme clients buy only after they have selected the supplier fairly, then duties of justice is fulfilled else it is not. Acme is finding that by giving gifts the relations with its clients become more cordial, and it clients are able to understand Acme's offerings in more relaxed way. Here the duties of self-improvement are achieved. Cordial relations with clients provide Acme better relationship with its customers. In this case, duties of self-improvement are upheld. In respect to Acme's competitors, there is more possibility that the competitors would be following same principle of providing gifts to clients if unprohibited. As per my understanding duties of nonmaleficence are fulfilled. It is clear that under Ross's framework, it is ethical to provide gifts to purchasing agents.

Duties of Gratitude? Duties of Justice?

Duties of Beneficence?

Duties of SelfImprovement? Duties of Nonmaleficence?

Conclusion under Ross's Framework Garret's Framework What is willed as means and end? If a major evil is willed the action is unethical and should not be taken. What are the foreseen but unwilled side effects? If there is no proportionate rest on for risking or allowing a major evil or willing a minor evil, the action is unethical and should not

The company wants to keep cordial relations with purchasing agents and giving gifts allows them to have better relations, and also to win more business. No major evil is willed by this action.

One possibility is that Acme's competitors might not win contracts and could go bankrupt. But I feel that since competitors would be doing same (provide gifts) the competition will be fair.

be taken.

Given the situation, what are alternative actions? Is there an alternative to the end which would provide more good consequences and less evil consequences? Not to select this alternative would be unethical. Conclusion under Garret's Framework Rawl's Framework Does action infringe on the inalienable rights of the customer?

The alternate action is not to provide gifts. From Acme's view point, cordial relations with the clients will get disruptive. So Acme will pursue the policy of providing gifts.

Garret's framework tells us that Acme should continue to provide gifts where doing so are not prohibited.

Here the customers are not treated equally. Acme is saying that one of the ways to have cordial relations is to provide gifts. And what about customers who prohibit gifts. So Acme will not be able to have cordial relations with these customers. Looking this way the act of giving gifts becomes unethical. There is no group underprivileged in this case.

Does action leave another person or group less well off? Is this person or group already relatively underprivileged? Conclusion under Rawl's framework Over all

Rawl's framework says that it is unethical to provide gifts. The ethical decision is to provide gifts as concluded from using Garret's and Ross's frameworks.

Scenario 5: Is Buy American Electronics Company's competitive strategy critical Ross's Framework Application

Duties of Fidelity?

Duties of Gratitude?

Duties of Justice?

Duties of Beneficence?

Duties of SelfImprovement? Duties of Nonmaleficence?

Duties of fidelity require refraining from deceptive advertisement. Buy American Company is advertising TV Sets for $100 less but is not letting its customers know about loss of quality. So duties of fidelity are broken. Duties of gratitude require special treatment to special customer. The older customers might feel cheated when they see price reduction, but these days most of the consumers do understand that when it comes to electronics products, the price keeps falling year after another. I feel that the new strategy has nothing to with duties of gratitude. Many manufactures show duties of gratitude by allowing some credit to consumers to buy new product when they return the older ones. Such scenario is not in question here. Here I feel that duties of justice is fulfilled because consumers are getting slightly lower quality but at lower prices. The earlier consumers paid higher price but got better product. So the quality delivered is based on merit (price consumer pays). Duties of beneficence are fulfilled in this case because consumers are getting slightly lower quality product at lower prices. The product is being made more affordable. With lower price company is able to fight the competition. This fulfils duties of self-improvement. Since company is providing slightly lower quality product at lower price without telling consumers, if the company offers same warranty as its older products, then duties of nonmaleficence will be achieved. Using Ross's framework, the strategy employed seems ethical.

Conclusion under Ross's Framework Garret's Framework What is willed as means and end? If a major evil is willed the action is unethical and should not be taken.

The company wants to fight competition (end) and acquire bigger market share by lowering prices (means) for slightly lower quality (means) products. Here major evil is not willed hence the strategy can be continued.

What are the foreseen but unwilled side effects? If there is no proportionate rest on for risking or allowing a major evil or willing a minor evil, the action is unethical and should not be taken. Given the situation, what are alternative actions? Is there an alternative to the end which would provide more good consequences and less evil consequences? Not to select this alternative would be unethical. Conclusion under Garret's Framework Rawl's Framework Does action infringe on the inalienable rights of the customer?

I feel that with slightly less quality the unwilled side effects are low. In case the quality decline is indiscernible, then consumers will be happy with lower prices and I don't see any foreseen unwilled side effects.

The alternative action is to keep product price same, reduce market share and decrease sales. In this case alternate is harmful.

Using Garret's framework, Buy American Electronics Company is ethical to continue with the strategy.

Here customers rights are infringed because the customers are not informed of quality reduction. And consumer rights require that customer need to have all the information available, which is not true in this case. There is no group underprivileged in this case.

Does action leave another person or group less well off? Is this person or group already relatively underprivileged? Conclusion under Rawl's framework Over all

Rawl's framework makes Buy American Electronics Company strategy unethical. The ethical decision is to continue with the strategy as it is ethical using Garret's and Ross's frameworks.

Scenario 6: Is it ethical for the Smith and Smith Agency to undertake the proposed campaign. Ross's Framework Application

Duties of Fidelity?

Duties of Gratitude?

Deceptive advertisement breaks duties of fidelity. The agency knows the truth but will depict different conditions about the country in the advertisement. So the agency is not being truthful. It is not clear if Agency is showing gratitude towards the US department of State by accepting the campaign. Perhaps the Agency is showing gratitude in doing so. In accepting the campaign, the advertisement agency is neither breaking any law nor is the agency distributing any rewards to anyone. I feel duties of justice are fulfilled, as Agency will perform as per reimbursement received. The target audience is harmed because they will get incorrect information about the South American country, have wrong image about the country and might take wrong decisions based on the false information. Duties of beneficence are broken. Agency will receive much required cash in doing the campaign. Hence acceptance of campaign fulfils duties of self-improvement. The false campaign might cause injury to target audience if the audience acts based the false information received. So duties of nonmaleficence are unfulfilled. Since some of the duties are broken, as per Ross's framework, going with campaign seems unethical.

Duties of Justice?

Duties of Beneficence?

Duties of SelfImprovement? Duties of Nonmaleficence?

Conclusion under Ross's Framework Garret's Framework What is willed as means and end? If a major evil is willed the action is unethical and should not be taken.

The company wants to survive (ends) by doing the campaign (means). Major evil might be caused when say investors invest in the country and lose their investment. Or the government of South American country will find more legitimacy and its citizens could be in more peril. Hence the action should not be taken. If campaign is undertaken, and some people are harmed by the advertisement, then the agency's trust in market will be damaged. Hence the campaign shouldn't be accepted.

What are the foreseen but unwilled side effects? If there is no proportionate rest on for risking or allowing a major evil or willing a minor evil, the action is unethical and should not be taken.

Given the situation, what are alternative actions? Is there an alternative to the end which would provide more good consequences and less evil consequences? Not to select this alternative would be unethical. Conclusion under Garret's Framework Rawl's Framework Does action infringe on the inalienable rights of the customer? Does action leave another person or group less well off? Is this person or group already relatively underprivileged? Conclusion under Rawl's framework Over all

The alternative is not to do campaign. In doing so, lot of potential investors might not have losses and the government may not get the legitimacy it is seeking. More good is likely in not doing the campaign.

Using Garret's framework, we find that the agency will be unethical in pursuing the project.

Here audience rights to correct information are damaged.

Here the underprivileged group is the citizens of the South American Country. These citizens will be worse off after their government gets legitimacy due to advertisement.

Rawl's framework makes the decision to go with campaign unethical. The ethical decision is not to go with the campaign as it is found unethical using all three frameworks.

From above application it is clear that these three frameworks provide us a means to work out and solve ethical dilemmas we might possibly face. The application is very conscientious and detailed and almost leaves no room for error. There is possibility that one particular framework may not allow us to conclude, in that application of other framework could be sought. Other checks such as legality, morality should also be used in deciding if an action is ethical or not.