IndexIntroductionThe philosophy of consequentialismPhilosophy of utilitarianism and ethical egoismThe philosophy of non-consequentialismWorks CitedIntroductionEthics can be defined as rules of behavior known for a specific class of human beings activity or a particular group/society. It defines how things are according to the rules. According to the BBC (2014), the word “ethics” comes from the Greek word ethnos, which can mean tradition, practice, behavior, or temperament. Ethics addresses dilemmas such as how to live a good life with our rights, responsibilities, the language of right and wrong moral decisions, and even what is good and what is bad. In the field of ethics, doing the right thing is not always popular, as it may challenge established norms or conveniences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Morality, on the other hand, basically means values ​​or behaviors related to right or wrong conduct. It determines how things work based on a person's ideas or values. According to a report published by the University of Texas (2020), morality is the prevailing norm of conduct that allows individuals to live together in groups. Morality applies to which cultures are correct and appropriate to sanction. Many people tend to act morally and follow society's guidelines. Morality also requires people to sacrifice their own desires for society in the short term. Individually and regardless of right or wrong, people or entities are considered amoral, while those who do evil are considered immoral. Based on the above scenario, ethics are paramount not only towards Mr. Gunawan but also towards our lives. Many entrepreneurs believe that ethics are not very important from a purely financial and business perspective. Ethics have some importance especially in business, where Mr. Gunawan can reflect on his mistakes. One of them is ethics in leadership. Management sets the tone for the day-to-day operations of the entire company. When the existing management culture is centered on ethical practices and behaviors, a company's leaders can provide guidance and direct employees to make choices that not only affect them but also the institution as a whole. Building on an ethical foundation leads to generating long-term positive effects for an organization, including the ability to recruit, retain and build a reputation for highly talented individuals. Ethical business management from the top establishes a stronger relationship with the leaders of the management team, which provides greater cohesion within the organization (Horton,2019). Mr. Gunawan, who is the owner and also the leader of a company, has failed to lead his company to become a company with high integrity and strong ethical values. The second importance of ethics within a company/organization is reputation. According to Keka.com, reputation is one of a company's most valuable assets and is also one of the most difficult things to restore when it is lost. With explicit ethical behavior, a company would be able to build credibility. Potential investors and shareholders will likely attract companies that abide by their moral guidelines and commitments, which keeps the company's stock prices high. Mr. Gunawan, who accepted the bribe from the media owners, could potentially face massive backlash from his company's stakeholders as his actions are deemed unethical and even illegal. The Philosophy of Consequentialism Mr Gunawan's action of giving a bribe goes far beyond theits question the actions are right or wrong. Consequentialism is a theory created by a person named John Stuart Mill, and it means the doctrine that actions based on their consequences should be judged right or wrong (Britannica,2020). This theory is best related to the situation of Mr. Gunawan and his company. Consequentialism can be divided into two particular parts which are utilitarianism and also ethical egoism. The belief that moral right is the behavior that generates the greatest good is generally considered utilitarianism. This general statement can be described in many ways. One thing to note is that theory is a form of coherence; correct action is fully understood as a result. The scope of relevant consequences is what distinguishes utilitarianism from selfishness. In the utilitarian context, the most significant benefit should be maximized; that is, both the good of others and the good of oneself (Stanford.edu, 2014). Ethical egoism is the view that individuals should pursue their own self-interest and no one else's interests should be promoted. It is, therefore, a normative or prescriptive theory: how people should conform (Westacott, 2019). There are many pros and cons regarding utilitarianism and ethical egoism. The advantages of utilitarianism are that it is a universal concept that we can all understand. At some point in life, a person's goal is to reduce personal harm while increasing satisfaction. In any case, even if pessimism is at the center of our every thought, we don't want to live in poverty. By creating a society that places greater emphasis on behavior that produces happiness, we will create a typical climate. Secondly, you do not need to practice a religion to benefit from this method. Utilitarianism is a philosophical method that can add religious elements if we are happy. This action is not about seeking redemption of the soul. He will not impose other views on God to ensure inclusion. If we focus on what makes us happy before anything else, then we can always channel our spirituality directly. Third, the choice between doing the right thing or the wrong thing requires an impartial procedure. If we make a choice, our actions are always influenced by it. The results can be positive, negative or a mixture of the two. Utilitarianism attempts to describe justice through these steps. Once we know the outcomes that bring happiness, we can all work towards a fair and impartial way to identify on a personal level what is right and wrong (Connectusfund.org, 2019) Philosophy of Utilitarianism and Ethical Selfishness The Cons of Utilitarianism, on the other hand, society does not focus exclusively on satisfaction/happiness when making decisions. Utilitarianism implies that satisfaction is the only intrinsic value, but there are other resources worth considering as well. Existence is something that brings us meaning. There is a value that should not be ignored in being free to choose for ourselves. If there is love in the photo, there are also the connections that trigger the emotional reaction. Secondly, regarding the future, the results are uncertain. Utilitarianism wants people to look into the future and then foresee what will make them happy at the highest level. Since nothing is guaranteed beyond the present moment, the principles of these instructions cannot be applied. We simply function on assumption. Third, happiness is a subjective thing. At no time can we place exceptional value on the amount of satisfaction something offers us. Every time we choose to do an operation, our first meetingwill always offer us a high degree of happiness. The sum of satisfaction we have may decrease each time you continue this task. There are also some pros and cons of ethical selfishness. The benefits of ethical selfishness are that it would lead to a greater sense of personal belonging within society. By reflecting on ethical selfishness as a spiritual concept, a person will be able to more deeply understand their own personality. In fact, he will be able to focus on other people's discrepancies as a way to promote his own self-interest. Second, ethical selfishness promotes a healthy family. This type of theory is also applicable to a family where it is carried out because a house is a manifestation of the person's personal identity. It also ensures that the family's wishes are also met quickly before other out-of-this-world needs arise. Third, ethical egoism ensures that our basic requirements are always met. An individual who embraces ethical selfishness using his moral framework always satisfies his basic needs in contrast to those of others. This, however, does not guarantee a comfortable life, but ensures that housing, clothing, food and water are the main focus (Lombardo, 2016). culture. One of the central tenets of ethical egoism is that no one else will take care of your personal needs except yourself. This means that everyone, including family members, pursues reflection on their own self-interest. Marriages would not be comfortable or loving environments: they would become a means to an end. Relationships with children would be the same thing. Secondly, in the world of ethical selfishness, empathy would be missing. The implementation of an ethically selfish society will cause us to lose sight of our current culture of empathy. There are numerous benefits to understanding how others think or feel, and the lack of it is one of the hallmarks of psychopathy. We need this trait to build friendships, to have satisfaction in our intimate relationships, and to see a reduction in society's aggression. If people pursued their own self-interest more than they supported each other, it would make society violent. Lack of understanding would lead to more errors, poor health outcomes, and people being less satisfied with each effort. Third, ethical selfishness can cause a breakdown of ties in the world of work. Ethical egoism suggests that in a company with this structure, relationships with employees would become problematic, as the business would only serve its purpose as a means to an end. Partnerships established over the course of a career are based on what others can do for you, rather than being a mutually beneficial position where a rising tide lifts all ships. Everyone would give up what others could do as their privileges in this system are always top priority. In the case of Mr. Gunawan, he clearly practices ethical selfishness in the workplace. His actions show that he only cares about the short-term future of his company and does not care about the consequences he may have to suffer in the long term. The Star recently reported on a case similar to Mr Gunawan's in which a person named Riza Aziz is facing corruption charges in Malaysia for suspected embezzlement of US$248,000 (RM1bil) from state-owned company 1-Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB). Following the suspected theft of about US$4.5 billion (RM18.3 billion), his stepfather, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, was removed from the Fund as Premier. Belfort believes the money came from RedGranite, including high-profit individuals, Goldman Sachs, came from legitimate sources, according to Riza Aziz. the history of the defendant who disguised these criminal acts and the sources of financing,” the lawsuit reads. The philosophy of non-consequentialismIn philosophy, deontological ethics places particular emphasis on the relationship between obligation and justice in human actions. The word deontology comes from the Greek deon, “work,” and logos, “truth.” An action is considered morally right in deontological ethics because of some aspect of the action itself, not because the outcome of the action is good. Deontological ethics states that at least specific actions are morally necessary regardless of their effects on human well-being. Immanuel Kant, the German founder of analytic philosophy in the 18th century, was the first major philosopher to describe deontological concepts (Britannica.com). Kant, there are 3 formulations of the imperative.The first formulation is "Act only according to the maxim which, at the same time, you will be able to make it a universal law without inconsistencies". Kant argues that a true moral proposition need not be tied to any specific conditions, including the identification of the decision maker. A moral maxim must be isolated and accessible to any human being from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition. According to Kant, we have the perfect obligation, first and foremost, not to act according to maxims that lead to logical contradictions (Shakil, 2013). Furthermore, we have imperfect roles that are still based on pure justification that require an understanding of how they behave. are carried out. Because these duties are based largely on the desires of humanity, they are not as powerful as ideal duties, but they are as legally binding as ever. Unlike perfect duties, if people fail to fulfill an imperfect duty, they are not blamed. However, if they do, they receive praise because they went beyond the essential duty and took responsibility. Imperfect duties are circumstantial, meaning that one cannot reasonably live in a constant state of performing that obligation. Perfect and imperfect duties are characterized by the fact that imperfect duties are never fully performed (Shakil, 2013). The second formulation is "Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, never simply as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." This imperative says that every action morality must be treated not only as a concept but also as an end. Most ends are contextual because they must be followed only if they conform to a conceptual imperative. To achieve a certain goal, it is necessary to categorically pursue it the foundation of all rational action. Since free will is the only source of moral action, he opposes the first formulation of the categorical imperative by stating that an individual is simply a means to some other end, rather than an end in himself. (Shakil, 2013). «therefore every rational being must act as if, through his maxim, he were always a legislating member of the universal kingdom of ends». A truly autonomous will is not subject to any interest; it is subject to the laws it makes, but the will must also accept specific laws, as if the laws bind others. If laws are not universal, they are in no way laws of conduct. Kant suggests that people often see themselves and others as ends and never simply as means. People should only act according to maxims that are in harmony with a possible realm of ends (Shakil, 2013). Immanuel Kant also devised an alternative categorical imperative formulation. Kant expressed the categorical imperative in