Ummm

QUESTION 1

If Peter does not tell Dan, he will be faced with the dilemma of breaching a moral contract with Dan.

QUESTION 2

Using the ethical egoism theory for decision making, Peter will keep the money because his self-interest will be looking at the outcome of the benefits for his family and himself, which would be to rebuild his business. Under ethical egoism, it is unlikely that he would mention the winnings to Dan, as Peter’s decision would derive from a direct result of his self-interest. An extra one hundred thousand dollars will increase Peter’s ability to be financially viable to support himself and his family, and he could use Dan’s share of the money to restore his business. That way he can retain his staff and financially support his family.

QUESTION 3

By applying the Utilitarianism theory to influence his decision-making, Peter will not tell Dan about the money. This outcome is aimed at creating the greatest good because it will financially benefit numerous people e.g. Peter’s family and his ability to retain his three employees. Unfortunately, to attain an outcome which fulfills the greatest good, it is usually necessary to sacrifice someone else’s ‘happiness’ or benefits; Dan will not get his share of the winnings. With the extra money, Peter will be able to rebuild his business faster, with the added possibility of expanding the business and hiring more staff. This outcome would result in increased long term happiness for a greater amount of people.

On the other hand, if Peter decides to tell Dan and give him his share of the winnings it will only financially benefit Dan. Considering that Dan earns three quarters of a million dollars annually, a reasonable person would conclude that he could do without the lottery winnings. However by making this choice, Peter may struggle to rebuild his business as the loss of half the winnings could have quite a substantial impact and could deplete his ability to retain the employment of all of his...