Supreme Court Winery Decision

0 Comment

Supreme Court Winery DecisionQuestion 1 According to the utilitarian ethics, a situation is morally upright if the course of action serves to the benefit of the majority. Both the Supreme Court ruling and the earlier law generate benefits to different members of the American society. However, based on the utilitarian ethics, the decision by the Supreme Court is not moral since it eradicates the utility. The utility lost in this scenario is defined by reduced tax revenue and a decline in the quality of life of the society. In this perspective, the ruling results in loss of tax used to support the major functions of the government, which is enjoyed by its citizens. It is plausible to note that the ruling destroyed the distribution chain by the wine fabricating companies including chain stores, wholesalers and retailers (Bravin A1). The system reduced benefits since it boost unemployment in the United States. Although the decision might create new market niche for the country’s products, the benefits are enjoyed at the expense of collapse of local infant/inefficient industries. Question 2 Kantianism suggests that although some actions could bring about more happiness than the others could, there is a possibility of being prohibited. Based on this principle, the Supreme Court ruling was morally upright since it encouraged equality, transparency and fairness in the market. In fact, if all states and countries could act and emulate the earlier ruling, then globalization together with its benefits could be a nightmare. There is the essence of collaboration and competition in the market, which benefit all market participants. The earlier law did not respect the goals of the human being, but rather were used to protect the local industries and presumed consumption of alcohol by young Americans. According to Kantianism theory, the moral of an action does not depend on whether the presumed action is wrong or right on their consequences, but rather on whether such action fulfils its duty (Bravin A6). Question 3 Out-of-state wineries can still conduct online businesses with their customers in a socially accepted manner. Tax is a fundamental ingredient to the government that assures benefits to the greatest majorities. In this perspective, online out-of-sale wineries would be considered dealing in a moral perspective only if they contribute a significant amount of the profits as tax to the government to support the establishment and creation of public goods. The fabricating companies wishing to deal with online customers should enact strict regulation while on an operation to prevent the purchase and consumption of alcohol by young individuals (Bravin A1). In addition, the industries should create more job opportunities by expanding their operation to respond to increasing of wine across states. The perspective compensates the loss in employment from stores and wholesalers.Question 4 Although globalization has resulted in a change, in the political, social and economic situation of the country, increase in integration in the business environment has a detrimental impact on specific states. This paper does not concur with the Supreme Court ruling against domestic protection of local industry and possible employment in the state (Bravin A6). It is, therefore, immoral to allow the sale of wine over the internet. Since the recipient of the product sold through online is unknown, then there is a possibility of the product is used wrongly. In other words, the restrictions on the mode of consumption and age limit may not be effective since the buyer is unknown.Work citedBravin, Hess, and O”Connell, Vanessa, High Court Rejects Limits on Out-of-State Wineries, Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2005, pp. A1, A6.