Part one
The major ethical issue that Luke faces is the issue of Insider information. This refers to the situation whereby one as knowledge about various plans by their companies to invest or carry out other financial plans which have not yet been revealed to the public; this gives them an advantage over the public as they can always use such information to their own advantage. However, it is important to note that not all forms of “misuse” of insider information are illegal. It is at its extreme side that the use of insider information can amount to a criminal offense in the United States. This happens when the employees go to such extreme ends of purchasing or selling the company shares based on the information they have about the future price changes. In most cases, such information is only available to the heads of relevant departments.
A predetermined number of individuals inside an organization unavoidably think about an occasion that will, when it is uncovered, will altogether influence the organization’s stock cost. It may be a pending merger, an item review, a deficit in income, or the disappointment of a significant venture. In outrageous cases, it may be a money related embarrassment that is going to blast into general visibility.
The individuals who are up to date are not simply promised to privacy. They are illegal by law to exploit that information by purchasing or selling stock in the organization, or by going along the data to another person who exploits it. Insider exchanging is unlawful when the material data has not been made open and has been exchanged on. It sabotages trust in the uprightness of the market and can hose monetary development.
Clearly, organization insiders’ own stock and they purchase and offer offers now and again. Not all insider exchanging is unlawful. In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) controls lawful insider exchanges. Exchanging organization stock by its administrators, chiefs, and representatives are dependent upon guidelines encoded in the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. The enforceable meaning of insider exchanging has been extended since the law’s entry through a progression of prominent protections misrepresentation decisions and proviso shutting enactment.
Luke should thus inform his brother on the need to sell the property before the development of the property since this does not in any way disadvantage the company, the shareholders, nor the public.
Part two: Memo
Utilitarianism summarized means that all actions that promote general well-being and increases happiness are right.
Facts
The first interesting fact of this theory is that, above all the material possessions and other forms of prestige happiness is the only possession than has an intrinsic value. Thus, the more happiness that a certain action is likely to bring, the more valuable that action. Leaders and business managers should thus consider this fact while making important decisions that affect the organizations and the public in general. They should consider the levels of happiness such actions are likely to bring forth. The opposite is exactly true as the actions that bring unhappiness are likely to be “invaluable.”
Universal ethics, on the other hand, leaves great room for flexibility as they consider the question of what is culturally right or from one’s point of view. Analysis of the moral goodness of decisions based on this theory is thus the consideration of what one believes in. This is a great contract from Utilitarianism whose major subject matter is fixed; that is happiness.
Issue and lens
The consideration while basing one’s question on this theory is the moral consideration of the overall well-being of people upon which a certain decision is likely to affect. People derive happiness from having “rational” achievements. For instance, if the decision is likely to increase people’s well-being in such ways as increased savings or income, then it is a good decision, and this should always be the key point of consideration. The decision-maker should thus look at the outcome of the decision from the lens that the people on whom it targets to look at it in order to evaluate its “intrinsic” value. Universal ethics theory, on the other hand, will on the other endeavor into an inquiry some form of discretion in order to point out what is really right and what is wrong.
Analysis
The universal ethics theory looks are a rational and realistic theory compared to Utilitarianism. This is because, unlike the former, the latter focuses on the optimality of the results- how beneficial is a certain decision and what are the moral repercussion of the same are central considerations of this theory. On the other, Utilitarianism theory fixes its every value of a decision to happiness, and hence it’s largely unrealistic as this indicator is emotion-based and can greatly differ from one person to another.
Recommendation
In my view, universal ethics theory is a more rational theory as it is flexible and leaves room for discretion. This means one can, for instance, take into consideration more and diverse aspects of a decision and not merely the feelings or superficial outcomes of the same. It thus gives a room for a broader look and analysis.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )