Decision making takes a lot of thought and consideration. There are always actions and consequences involved in the decision making process that must be taken into consideration before a decision is made. Those elected to public office are expected to make the right decision every time. In the first scenario, a mayor is faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to tear down the city’s only senior home and recreation center and replace it with a mall and resort. Based on consequentialism, the mayor should allow the resort and mall to be built. The problem with this decision is that many seniors will lose their homes and a place where they can meet and congregate. The mayor needs to do something to bring in more revenue for the city and jobs to the community. The mayor’s best option would be to allow the mall and resort. The community is sinking and this new development will allow the community to have enough money to build a new senior home and recreation center. These new jobs and the mall will help keep the community’s money invested in local businesses. The citizens of the community will be able to shop locally and even vacation locally if they would like to.
According to deontology, the mayor should uphold his duty to the community and keep the senior home and recreation center. The needs of the community should sway his decision the other direction. It will do more good than harm to build a mall and resort. This is the same for the decision based on virtue ethics. It may not be a bad idea to let the community vote. This is a matter that they should have a say in. While the seniors will lose in the present, the new in-flow of money will allow them to win in the future.
It is easy to say that this decision is the wrong one. This is a tough decision. The naysayers can protest and say that it would hurt 100 seniors and the community would lose 30 jobs. They may say that it is unfair to tear down the only home and recreation center that...