Scenario 01: Your Company’s policy on reimbursement for meals while traveling on business is that you will be repaid for your out-of-pocket costs, not to exceed $80 per day. You don’t need receipts for these expenses – the company will take your word. When traveling, you tend to eat at fast food places and rarely spend in excess of $20 a day. Most of your colleagues put in reimbursement requests in the range of $55 - $60 per day, regardless of what their actual expenses are. How much would you request for your meal reimbursement?
Decision: I* would request of $ 20 for the meal reimbursement. I will use “utilitarianism view” in making this choice. I will emphasize on efficient use of company resources by minimizing my expense. That will lead to increase company production and generating more profit. In this way I am securing the greatest good for the greatest number. This is the concept of “utilitarianism view”. But it ignores the right of one individual. For example, in any day if I desire to take a food item which cost is more than $20, then it will be limiting my desire for company progression by requesting now only $ 20 for the meal reimbursement.
Scenario 02: Assume that you are the manager at a gaming company and you are responsible for hiring a group to outsource the production of a highly anticipated new game. Because your company is a giant in the industry, numerous companies are trying to get the bid. One of them offers you some kickbacks if you give that firm the bid, but ultimately it is up to your bosses to decide on the company. You don’t mention the incentive, but you push upper management to give the bid to the company that offered you the kickback. Is withholding the truth as bad as lying? Why or why not?
Decision: Yes, Withholding the truth is as bad as lying.
I am hiding the truth because I am being offered to get some kickbacks from that firm although I have no detail information about that firm’s potentiality or success...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document