Utilitarianism Case 1- Dating at Wal-Mart According

Utilitarianism

Case 1- Dating at Wal-Mart

According to utilitarianism, the physical act of adultery cannot be judged moral or immoral until situated by intention and circumstances. In this case, the married woman was separated from her husband and wasn't aware of the no-dating rule in the handbook. Further, there is no evidence of direct or immediate harm. The affair did not disrupt the workplace, cause internal turmoil or damage Wal-Mart's reputation as evidenced by the fact that the manager only became aware of the situation when papers were served at the store. Therefore, there is not significant justification to infringe on the employment rights of the couple by firing them.

Case 2- Is email private?

The interests of the few for the betterment of all should prevail in matters of workplace surveillance such as reading corporate email. The cases of the reporter and the supervisor are very different. The Los Angeles Times reporter did not use his access for wider social good; he used it to advance his own self-interest. In contrast, the supervisor may well have been monitoring emails for illegal activity, harassment, gambling, etc., all activities with potential for tremendous socials costs as well as corporate liability for not taking reasonable steps to prevent the activities from occurring. Companies typically own the system used to provide email for employees and as long as they have announced their monitoring policies in advance, they are operating within the law. The reporter, however, had no such ownership rights and should not have infringed on the rights of others.

Case 3- Video Surveillance

Ordinarily, the utilitarian perspective on surveillance would be that society would benefit from it because consequences for the use of surveillance cameras have proved to protect the public and their property against acts of crime. It has served a useful purpose for law enforcers and in our courts for the identification of the criminals and their victims. However, the Consolidated Freightways and Amoco Chemical Laboratory provide interesting exceptions.

At least Consolidated Freightways had wider social good in mind with its surveillance; its goal to protect employees and the public from drug use by drivers. But, it crossed legal boundaries when it conducted surveillance in restrooms. And, it needed to consider the usefulness of its actions in bringing about the most happiness of al those affected by it. In more private areas such as restrooms and locker rooms, employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they undress. Further, because the restroom, was a public facility, more than just employees were impacted by the monitoring and, therefore, they hardly were aware of or in agreement with the video taping. The case of the Women's locker room at Amoco Chemical Laboratory confronts the same issues as Consolidated Freightways, but goes one step further in violating utilitarian principles because the monitoring wasn't even conducted for social good. Instead, it involved taping to detect a love tryst, giving not even one shred of defense that sacrificing individual rights was necessary for an overall social interest.