Apply Aristotle's Golden mean theory and Kant's categorical imperative theory to the case study of the Balobedu Cousil vs Multichoice and make an evaluation as to whether or not the conduct was ethical according to each of the two theories

Answer 1

To evaluate the case study of the Balobedu Council vs. MultiChoice using Aristotle's Golden Mean and Kant's Categorical Imperative, we first need a brief understanding of both ethical theories and then apply them to the specific context of the case.

Aristotle's Golden Mean

Aristotle's Golden Mean emphasizes moderation and balance in ethical behavior. According to this theory, moral virtue lies between extremes of excess and deficiency. The ideal ethical decision involves finding a middle ground where virtue prevails, considering the specifics of each situation.

Evaluation:

In the context of the Balobedu Council vs. MultiChoice, we would assess the actions of both parties to determine if they exemplify moderation. For instance:

1. Balobedu Council: If the Council sought extreme measures (e.g., aggressive litigation or public condemnation) without considering negotiation or compromise, this could represent a lack of balance. On the other hand, if they pursued reasonable and constructive discussions with MultiChoice, this would align with the Golden Mean.

2. MultiChoice: Similarly, if MultiChoice acted in a way that was excessively dismissive of the Council's concerns or excessively accommodating to a fault, it would not reflect the virtue of moderation. A balanced response, recognizing the Council's concerns while also considering its business interests, would align with Aristotle’s view.

Overall, the conduct of both parties must reflect a balanced approach, avoiding extremes, to be considered ethical in the eyes of Aristotle's Golden Mean.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

Kant's Categorical Imperative focuses on the principle of universalizability and treating individuals as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. Kant proposed that one should act according to maxims that could be universally applied and that respect the dignity of all individuals.

Evaluation:

In applying the Categorical Imperative to the Balobedu Council vs. MultiChoice case:

1. Balobedu Council: If the Council's actions were based on a desire for justice and the well-being of its community, rather than self-interest or financial gain, they would likely be acting ethically according to Kant. The key is whether the Council's approach could be universalized—would it be acceptable for all similar councils to act in the same way?

2. MultiChoice: MultiChoice must also be evaluated in light of the Categorical Imperative. If their response to the Balobedu Council’s concerns was dismissive or exploitative, prioritizing profit over ethical considerations, they would be failing the test of universalizability. Ethical conduct would demand that they consider the implications of their actions not only for the Balobedu Council but for all stakeholders involved in similar situations.

In conclusion, for both Aristotle's and Kant's theories, the ethical evaluation of the conduct in the Balobedu Council vs. MultiChoice case hinges on the balance of actions taken and the consideration of moral imperatives in treating all parties with respect and fairness.

Summary Evaluation

• According to Aristotle's Golden Mean: The ethicality depends on whether each party demonstrated moderation in their actions rather than resorting to extremes.
• According to Kant's Categorical Imperative: The ethicality hinges on whether the actions can be universalized and whether they respect the dignity of all stakeholders involved.

Ultimately, both theories can provide critical insights into the ethical implications of the conduct of the Balobedu Council and MultiChoice in this case. A thorough examination of their actions in light of these ethical frameworks will determine whether they acted ethically or not.