The Bujoreni Case

In applied business ethics, within the rule utilitarian theory of Mill, many principles exist which may be used to inform the morality of actions when analysing cost-benefit, or should be, if consequences are to favour more people overall. These include harm, honesty, justice and rights. So no harm should be done to others, people should not be deceived and their rights to life, free expression, and safety should be acknowledged. The argument here is that Bujoreni abandoned these principles, abused the utilitarian theory to suit their needs, stayed within the laws of the time, but behaved unethically. The utilities' as a consequence, appeared to be money, and they used that to define the value of their needs against the value of human life. The Bujoreni Case is a personal experience of mine regarding business in general and the business I own in particular. In 2009 I started bargaining, I say bargaining because this is the appropriate word for describing that specific moment, for renting a working place. The bargaining concluded with an agreement which I have signed with the owner of the place (a very well-positioned place where is a big hall). This was a state-owned enterprise and nowadays its a private enterprise. Since it became private, the owner of the company divided the entire place and sell it exclusively for money. In 2000, when the company became private the business was very flourish. Now its a gap in Militari district. In the future, there will be a parking place. If we make a short analysis we see that jobs were lost, this means that approximately 1000 people are now unemployed. Second of all its a pity that a business that worked was sold in this way the industry also suffered, even if it is a small company. From my point of view a business man also has a moral duty, so people overall could benefit from positive actions marked by utilitarian ethics, not only benefits from what he does. Gaining profit through

any methods no matter what doesnt make you a good business man, it is a sign of weakness. The one which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiest principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. The company from the case I have presented obviously doesnt respect the principle of utilitarianism as utilitarianism looks only at how much utility is produced in a society an fails to take into account how that utility is distributed among the members of society. There should be a balance between quality and quantity in life and also in other fields.

Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account. This being according to the utilitarian opinion the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality, which may accordingly be defined as the rules and precepts for human conduct by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but so far as the nature of things admit, to the whole sentient creation as Mill said.