The rational choice model operates on three main principles, namely, rationality, interests, and choices (McKinnon, 2013). Applying the theory to Joe’s scenario, it is apparent that he has the rationality , which is the ability to think critically and make informed choices. The decision to meet Bill, the customer, is informed by the Joe’s personal interests . He wants to have a greater influence on Bill so that in future, he can win tenders to supply uniforms, without having to struggle like other competitors. That explains why he makes the choice to meet Bill because he will enhance his utilities in the sense that the company will increase its sales volume.
I do not think that the application of rational choice model is appropriate in the scenario. The rationale is that that there is a conflict of interest. The main reason why Joe wants to establish strong relationship with his customer is to have undue influence on the tendering process, which is unethical and unfair to other competitors. Joe’s action could constitute bribery, though, not in its explicit form. My recommendation is that Joe should not accept the invitation, especially if the goal is to increase his utilities in the contract.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rawls’ theory of justice supports the recommendation provided above. Rawls’ main argument is that people should be accorded an equal opportunity, regardless of their race, social class, gender, and other similar factors. However, Rawls argues that there is no perfect system or institutions, which explains the injustices and irrationality. The goal should be to enhance the utilities of all the people and seek to protect the interests of all through fairness and justice.
Rawls’ theory of justice supports the recommendations because it offers an ethical approach to business activities. Justice demands that all the players in the business be given an equal platform to compete for contracts. The process ought to be transparent and the people involved should be accountable. Joe has been interfering with the transparency and fairness of the process. With the application of the justice theory, that gives all the competitors an equal opportunity to succeed.
An alternative recommendation is for Joe to agree to meet the customer (Bill) in a business-like setting, where the relationship is well-defined. Both parties should also be accompanied by relevant representatives to ensure that the communication is focused on the interests of the two businesses in a fair manner. The deontology ethical theory can apply in this perspective. The argument is that the rightness or wrongness should be judged from the action and the consequences (Waller, 2005). In other words, what should matter most is the process and not the end product. Therefore, Joe should not argue that the end justifies the means. Even if he enhances the interests of the company and makes more profits, the means for achieving the gains remain unethical. There is no justice for other competitors who can even offer better services than he does.
In comparing the recommendation and the alternative provided, it is apparent that the two choices are similar in the sense that they are ethical. Both recommendations are based on the ethical principles of justice. The goal is to ensure that Joe conducts his business activities by observing fairness and respecting the rights of other competitors.
In conclusion, Joe’s decision to meet Bill is unethical because it constitutes conflict of interest. The deontological and Rawls’ theory of justice are vital in ensuring that Joe changes his approach to business. While the goal should be to enhance personal interests, there is a need to ensure that all business processes are done within the precepts of fairness and justice.
References
McKinnon, M. (2013). 'Ideology and the Market Metaphor in Rational Choice Theory of Religion: A Rhetorical Critique of “Religious Economies”'. Critical Sociology , vol 39, no. 4, pp. 529-543.
Waller, N. (2005). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues . New York: Pearson Longman.
