Length: between 800 to 850 words.

In analyzing the scenario, describe how an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian, a deontologist (Kantian

ethics) would each reach a solution to this dilemma. Which solution seems most plausible according to

you?

Explain why

.

Obs.: You may (or may not) want to use Ross act-deontology or Moors just-consequentialism (sections

2.8.1 2.8.2 from the book) as your most plausible position when analyzing the scenario. Its up to you.

You have just been appointed to the board of directors of a tech company, i.e. XYZ.com. Unfortunately,

the company has been experiencing some difficult financial times, resulting in revenue losses in three of

the last four quarters. As you assume your new position, you discover that two proposals are on the

table. Each proposal has been put forth as a means for dealing with XUZs immediate financial problems.

Proposal #1 recommends that all employees be retained, but that an immediate freeze on salary

increases for all employees be imposed for the next 12 months. (Employees may even be asked to take a

5% pay cut if things dont improve by the end of that period). Proposal #2 recommends that wages not

be frozen, but that 5% of the XYZs work force be laid off. One piece of reasoning behind proposal #2 is

that taking more drastic measures will protect 95% of XYZs workers sending a message to Wall Street

and local investors that XYZ is serious about improving its financial position and that it will soon

(hopefully) be a stable company once again. The board is evenly split, seven members favoring proposal

#1 and seven favoring proposal #2. Yours will be the tie-breaking vote.