Earlier in the chapter, we concluded that information varies from person to person. One implication of people informing themselves differently is that inevitably some people will misinform themselves about events. For example, you know that Chapter 1 is on the exam, but your classmate was distracted when the teacher explained this and believes it is not. This exam misinforming is not an ethical issue, but in your future work environment, the ethics of misinforming will certainly appear.

Consider this example where misinforming hides a mistake you make. One of your jobs at a regional supermarket company is to work with potential suppliers. you have been corresponding with one potential new supplier, Green Foods, by email and have copied your boss on the important exchanges. On one email sent by Green Foods with the subject line Remove Application, it asks about how to stop its application, as it would like to reapply later in the year. Unknown to you, your boss misreads this exchange and concludes Green Foods has decided to end its application. you knew the supplier was only asking about removing its application, but sadly, you got distracted and made a mistake you failed to include Green Foods in the list of new applications to consider. shortly afterward at a meeting of managers of the supermarket chain, you hear that your boss explained to the group that Green Foods withdrew its application. you know he is misinformed, that it did not withdraw, but clearly his misinforming has hidden your mistake.

The Ethics Guide in Chapter 1 introduced Kants categorical imperative as one way of assessing ethical conduct. This guide introduces a second way, one known as utilitarianism. The basis of this theory goes back to early Greek philosophers, but the founders of the modern theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, as you will learn in your business ethics class.

According to utilitarianism, the morality of an act is determined by its outcome. Acts are judged to be moral if they result in the greatest good to the greatest number or if they maximize happiness and reduce suffering. The prior sentence contains a great deal of subtlety that has led to numerous flavors of utilitarianism, flavors that are beyond the scope of this text. here, we will work with the gist of those statements. Using utilitarianism as a guide, killing can be moral if it results in the greatest good to the greatest number. Killing Adolph Hitler would have been moral if it stopped the holocaust. similarly, utilitarianism can assess lying or other forms of deception as moral if the act results in the greatest good to the greatest number. Lying to persons with a fatal illness is moral if it increases their happiness and decreases their suffering.

You did nothing to misinform your boss, and in the long run, you expect everything to work out. You will finish what you failed to do and Green Foods will be considered at the next meeting. In all likelihood, no one will notice your bosss mistake. Should you tell your boss your mistake? Is the decision to not tell your boss unethical? Consider both the categorical imperative (pages 2021) and utilitarianism (page 40) in your response. If you were the boss, what would you want your employee to do in this case (the Golden Rule)?