I chose to approach the issue from the Kantian Ethics point of view. I believe that trying to justify the issue using utilitarianism in it has no negative effects on babes would be dangerous. The reason for this is that it would set a bad precedent, and people in society would follow this precedent of looking at the consequences rather than the morality of the acts until it one day ends in disaster. I, therefore, believe that this type of behavior should be discouraged from the onset, hence the reason why I side with the principles of Kantian ethics.
Lars Hoyvald and John Lavery acted contrary to the principles of Kantian Ethics. According to the principles of Kantian ethics, whether an act is right or wrong does not depend on its consequences. Instead, individuals in a society should always be encouraged to do good and fulfill their duty to humanity. The two executives should, therefore, have chosen to act ethically from the onset. Doing so would have given them two choices. The first option would have been to label and market the juice by revealing their true contents, or they should have sourced real apple juice for their products.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The consumers had the right not to be misled but sold the real products they thought they were paying. Lars Hoyvald and John Lavery, therefore, had an obligation to be true to their customers rather than misleading them. Instead, the two executives went against the principles of Kantian ethics and treated their customers as a means to an end. In this case, the end was to maximize the profits of Beech-Nut Company. They achieved this by not offering their customers value for their money, even though it did not have negative health effects on them.
