1. Export capital for production abroad: According to Shaw and Barry, deciding what sort of economic arrangements would best promote human happiness requires the utilitarian to consider many things. It is unethical to export capital for production abroad because this capital can be used for production facilities domestically and by exporting this capital, the opportunity is available for local and domestic use is restricted.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with similar system of liberty for all. I believe the principle is saying that we should be free as possible to set the course of our own lives. Social and ...view middle of the document...
The resultant theory is known as "Justice as Fairness", from which Rawls derives his two principles of justice: the liberty principle and the difference principle. In a state where capital goods for production are sent abroad , the distributive justice of making it available to all is lost and hence harms people. The theory defeats the social contract principle .
2. Export commodities which have been banned from sale in the United States:
Any commodity that has been banned for sale in the USA should be banned by all countries. These commodities cannot be sold by any country as one country has banned it. It is totally unethical to export these goods which are banned in to be made available to people regardless of market and profits and is against the ethical lenses of the golden rule of ethics and utilitarianism. Shaw and Barry say rule utilitarianism maintains that the utilitarian standard should be applied not to individual actions but to moral codes as a whole. The rule utilitarian asks what moral code a society should adopt to maximize happiness. The principles that make up that code would be then the basis for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions.
Shaw and Barry state that the kind of good that is banned from sale by USA need not necessarily be banned by other countries because there is no moral grounds of insisting the fact that what may be banned by ne country may be legal for another country based on the maxim what is good for you may be necessarily good for another .the determinant of the same according to Shaw and Barry are as follows :
1) The type of economic ownership.(private, public, mixed)
2) The way of organizing production and distribution in general.
3) The type of authority arrangements within the units of production.
4) The range and character of material incentives.
5) nature and extent of social security and welfare provisions
3. Downsize in the face of economic difficulty: this need not be unethical if the rule of ethics is applied properly. In times of economic difficulties firms have to be downsized but not at a disadvantage to all. Shaw and Barry distinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. These two forms are act utilitarianism, which is the classic and most straight forward version of utilitarianism. We have one and only one moral obligation, the maximization of happiness for everyone concerned, and every action is to be judged according to how well it lives up to this standard. (Shaw & Barry, 2013) It brings the greatest amount of happiness in a particular situation regardless of the consequences. Shaw and Barry say rule utilitarianism maintains that the utilitarian standard should be applied not to individual actions but to moral codes as a whole. The rule utilitarian asks what moral code a society should adopt to maximize happiness. The principles that make up that code would be then being the basis for distinguishing right actions from wrong actions (Shaw & Barry, 2013).
...
