If Mr. Bucket, the attorney, used duty-based ethics he would not bride the judge in order to win the case for his client. Under the religious ethical standard he would not pay the judge off because even though the act may seem fair the act is not justifiable and is immoral. This would be just like Robin Hood who is still seen as a theif eventhough he was redistrubution the wealth to those who needed it more. Furthermore, Bucket would also say no because of kantian ethics. To use this form of ethics one must ask, if everyone bribed the judge to win their case how would it affect our justice system? There would be no true value of justice just like if everyone cheated on their test their would be no value in a degree. Lastly, under the principle of rights Bucket would not bribe the judge because bribes are contrary to the natural desire for justice. It would impend on the judges decision to make an ethical decision and affect other attorneys who come into contact with this judge Under outcome-based ethics Mr. Bucket would bribe the judge, however. The bribe would essentially hold the corportation responsible for all the victims it negligently injuried. Without the bribe there would be no consequences for the corportation, but under the utlitarian theory one must decide the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Requiring …show more content…
The corportation has a duty to be accountable for their actions and how they affect their customers. Under the stakeholders approach they should have evalutated their decisions not to fix the axle problem and the effects it woud have it left unfixed. Since they knew the axle was a problem the negliget their customers. Furthermore, under the corportate citizen approach the corportation should have used their wealth and power to benefit society, not harm it. The least they could do after causing damages would be to compensate for