The three chosen can reflect the negativity that outsourcing can cause in local communities and how none of these frameworks are used when looking at the workers who are going to be out of a living for themselves and the families. The first framework is utilitarianism, “based on the premise that ethical choices should be based on their consequences”. When using this framework the outcome would play a big role in deciding the course of action or a particular decision. The four steps to using Utilitarianism for an ethical problem are: clearly Identify the action or issue under consideration, specify all those who might be affected by the action, determine the likely consequences both good and bad for those affected and lastly, sum the good and the bad consequences and see which of the two the benefits outweigh the cost” (Johnson, pg.157). Advantages would include, it is frequently used, easy to understand, forces us to examine the outcomes of our decisions, supersedes personal interest. Disadvantages would include, consequences are difficult to identify, measure, and evaluate, may have unanticipated outcomes, may result in decision makers reaching different conclusions. Utilitarianism makes individuals focus on outcomes, which, encourages us to think through our decisions, and we’re less likely to make rash, unreasoned …show more content…
None of these three frameworks can be used when determining outsourcing jobs from small communities to other countries; it creates an unemployment pit that takes years to repair. It continues to be an issue, “The debate over outsourcing has been morphing, and today there are growing numbers of people who think that what started as a sensible, globalized extension of sending some work outside a firm to specialized companies may in fact be creating long-term structural unemployment in the United States, hollowing out entire industries” (Pearistein,