Week 4 Checkpoint

Scenario 1 | Consequentialism | Weighing the good with the bad, as mayor, the ethical decision would be to go ahead with the plans to develop the property into a mall. At the cost of some temporarily displaced citizen seniors and 30 jobs, the town stands to gain revenue and a potential for hundreds if not a thousand new jobs. There is no other suitable place for this project; however, there may be another place suitable for another senior recreation center. |

| Deontology | The decision the mayor should make, by deontological standards, should be to move forward with the mall development. The economic boost, coupled with the multitude of jobs created by the mall development, make it the fairest and most universal decision. Yes, the mayor does have an obligation to protect the rights of his citizen seniors, but he has the same responsibility to all of his constituents. If everyone was to make the same choice, it would be the fairest choice every time. |

| Virtue Ethics | Going ahead with the mall plan is the most prudent choice given the local economic situation and job market. Siding with the majority is the most impartial and fair way to decide this matter. The mayor’s integrity must be his guide in making sure the seniors are treated fairly and are modestly compensated. Whatever deals are to be made with the developer should include the replacement of the seniors into an equal, or better, suited facility. It would be up to the mayor to make sure the developer holds up their end of the bargain. As long as these things are done, this is the most ethical decision. |

Scenario 2 | Consequentialism | Judging from a consequentiality standpoint, the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, coupled with the least harm to the fewest amount of people, the decision to be made would be to report three sales that do not yet exist. More people would benefit, in the form of incentives, and the only person to face harm would be Catalina. This is,...