Jack’s company is wrong to provide the East African community with solar system considering the non-conformity to moral norms. Deontologist side of view would argue that the situation is often viewed bad or good depending on rightness or wrongness of the action that brought it (Langlois and Claire 35). Even if the consequence would be positive since the community would be capable of receiving lighting system, the course of action would mean that Jack’s company will incur much money in setting up the project. Notably, Jack had even a more robust idea of solving the situation through considering the simplistic lighting system that is less expensive and affordable by locals. It is not, therefore, ethical to risk investing in a project that would lead to a financial crisis as it does not auger well for a business. Also, another reasoning based on deontology would outlay that the actions of theft in the East African community brought about signs of paranoia among investors. It deters Jack’s thinking on whether to advice mechanical energy company against considering the project.
Jack should consider the right course of actions with positive endings for the firm such as abandoning the project, creating an alternative method, which is cheaper and advising the sponsor on financial implications. His choice of actions should not depend on the results, instead, it should conform to the moral norms. The situations described in the East African community are all wrong. The first situation is a financial crisis that mechanical energy company would incur in case they involve in the deal. Second is the theft situation in the region. Therefore, Jack has the mandate to think morally upright and make decisions that would foster positive results in their company. Moral ethics makes a course of action either right or wrong (Paquette, Erich and Michael 56) Jack should consider financial implications that would arise when solar system project is implemented, theft crisis in the region, efficient options for energy supply, and robust way of the convincing sponsor.
On a deontological point of view, Jack should consider the right course of actions that are relevant to moral values. He should abandon the project. It is always a necessity to use efficient methods in business. Even if the sponsor has a celebrity kind of achievement if the project is implemented, it does not sound ethical providing financial implications and theft. Jack should provide a new framework such as wind power generation schemes, which are indestructible to avoid theft, and advise the sponsor as well as his company on the financial implications involved with solar panel installations. It is not efficient to use solar power system in the community providing the previous theft scenarios. The situation is not right for the implementation of the project providing the negative situations at hand.
The self-interest case according to the context is considering to work on the job. Given the fact that the project involves a lot of money, there is no doubt that Jack would benefit significantly from it. He will be in a position to earn a lot of money while working on the project. Remarkably, abandoning the project proposal is a bad move regarding self-interest since he would earn nothing out of it. Furthermore, the sponsor may withdraw his or her idea completely. An action that would fit Jack’s interest herein violates moral norms, which denotes wrongness of an action. A situation, which is unconducive would require such actions that are correct them in a moral perspective (Bredillet, Stephane and Ravikiran 61).
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.