Most of the people would agree that Alex should not vote in favor of continuing to make the payments to the United Peoples Liberation Front.
Rule utilitarianism suggests that some classes of actions, like making payments to terrorist organization, are obviously wrong regardless of their consequences as they have negative effect on the general happiness of the society as a whole (Brooks, 137). Therefore, a rule utilitarian would not favor the payments as following the rule, not supporting terrorist organization, should create a greater happiness. An act utilitarian may argue in favor of the payments as they are made to protect employees of the firm, creating a greater balance of good and evil . However, utilitarianism states that the end doesn't …show more content…
Now that the UPLF is declared a terrorist organization, not only these payments violate codes of AICPA code of conduct, they are also illegal. Therefore, I would advise Alex that by voting in favor of the payments, as a CPA, he will not be complying with the six Principles of code of conduct. It would suggest that he failed to carry out his responsibilities with integrity, objectivity, and due care. It is definitely not an action that will serve public interest. Thus, he would not be in compliance with the Scope and Nature of services principle.
I would also suggest Alex to consider following codes while making the decision as he would be in violation of following AICPA codes. Below is my conclusion to why he would be in the violation of these codes.
2.000.020 Ethical Conflicts
.01 a - Cameron is putting pressure on Alex to vote in favor of payments by insisting that he needs to do so for the safety of the employees and to keep the mines open.
.01b - Alex would fail to act with professional standards and will have conflicts in applying relevant professional and legal standards in future as he will have to make sure that the illegal payments are not exposed.
2.100 Integrity and
Rule utilitarianism suggests that some classes of actions, like making payments to terrorist organization, are obviously wrong regardless of their consequences as they have negative effect on the general happiness of the society as a whole (Brooks, 137). Therefore, a rule utilitarian would not favor the payments as following the rule, not supporting terrorist organization, should create a greater happiness. An act utilitarian may argue in favor of the payments as they are made to protect employees of the firm, creating a greater balance of good and evil . However, utilitarianism states that the end doesn't …show more content…
Now that the UPLF is declared a terrorist organization, not only these payments violate codes of AICPA code of conduct, they are also illegal. Therefore, I would advise Alex that by voting in favor of the payments, as a CPA, he will not be complying with the six Principles of code of conduct. It would suggest that he failed to carry out his responsibilities with integrity, objectivity, and due care. It is definitely not an action that will serve public interest. Thus, he would not be in compliance with the Scope and Nature of services principle.
I would also suggest Alex to consider following codes while making the decision as he would be in violation of following AICPA codes. Below is my conclusion to why he would be in the violation of these codes.
2.000.020 Ethical Conflicts
.01 a - Cameron is putting pressure on Alex to vote in favor of payments by insisting that he needs to do so for the safety of the employees and to keep the mines open.
.01b - Alex would fail to act with professional standards and will have conflicts in applying relevant professional and legal standards in future as he will have to make sure that the illegal payments are not exposed.
2.100 Integrity and