| Course | BU 217 Business Ethics and the Legal Environment |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Ethical frameworks overview |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Business Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 217 Unit 1
Four Frameworks and a $1,200 Generator: An Ethical Frameworks Overview, With One Framework Put to Work on Pricing After a Hurricane
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 217: Business Ethics and the Legal Environment
Instructor Name
January 15, 2026
Four Frameworks and a $1,200 Generator: An Ethical Frameworks Overview, With One Framework Put to Work on Pricing After a Hurricane
Four Frameworks, Each in a Block
Utilitarianism. Source of rightness: consequences. An act is right if it produces the greatest balance of good over harm for everyone affected. Question it asks of a decision: which option leads to the best overall outcome? Kind of answer: comparative and quantitative, often favoring the option that helps the most people, even at a cost to some.
Deontology, in the tradition of Kant. Source of rightness: duty and rules that hold regardless of outcome. An act is right if it respects persons as ends in themselves and could be willed as a universal rule. Question: does this act use anyone merely as a means, or break a duty such as honesty or promise-keeping? Kind of answer: permissions and prohibitions, sometimes forbidding an act with good results.
Virtue ethics. Source of rightness: character. An act is right if it is what a person of good character, honest, fair, generous and prudent, would do. Question: what would a good person in my role do here, and what would doing this make me? Kind of answer: a judgment about the kind of person or business one becomes.
Justice as fairness. Source of rightness: fair distribution of benefits and burdens. An act is right if it treats people fairly, especially those with the least power, under rules everyone could accept without knowing their own position, the test Rawls (1971) described as choosing from behind a veil of ignorance. Question: who bears the costs and who gains, and would the rule be accepted by those who bear them? Kind of answer: attention to distribution and to the worst-off.
Where Two Frameworks Disagree
Consider a pharmacy that can stay open during a storm only by having one pharmacist work 20 hours straight. A utilitarian analysis may favor keeping the pharmacy open, since many patients need medicines. A deontological analysis may object that requiring the pharmacist to work that long treats her merely as a means to the outcome and exposes patients to error. Both frameworks take the patients seriously; they disagree about whether a good outcome justifies what it asks of one person. Frameworks that always agreed would not be different frameworks.
The Scenario
Hernandez Hardware is a composite family-owned store near Tampa, Florida. Two days after a major hurricane, most of the county is without power. The store has 40 portable generators in stock, bought before the storm at $700 each and normally sold for $950. A supplier offers another 40 at $1,000 each, delivered in three days. Customers are lining up. One employee suggests pricing the remaining generators at $1,600, because people will pay it and the store lost a week of business. The owner, Luis, must set a price.
Putting One Framework to Work: Justice as Fairness
The framework asks who bears the costs and who gains under each option, and whether the rule would be accepted by those who bear its costs.
Option 1, price at $1,600. Who gains: the store, which earns an extra $650 per generator on the current stock, about $26,000. Who bears the cost: buyers who need power for medicine, refrigeration or medical equipment and can afford $1,600, and, more sharply, buyers who cannot, who go without. The rule "sell to whoever can pay most in an emergency" would not be accepted by people who did not know in advance whether they would be the ones with money or the ones with a parent on oxygen at home. It fails the test.
Option 2, keep the price at $950 and limit each household to one generator. Who gains: more households get power at a price close to normal, and the limit spreads the scarce stock. Who bears the cost: the store gives up windfall profit, but it still earns its normal margin. The rule "keep ordinary prices and share scarce goods in an emergency" is one people could accept from behind the veil, whatever their position.
Option 3, keep $950 on current stock and price the new shipment at cost plus the normal markup, about $1,250. The higher price reflects the supplier's higher cost, not the storm. Who bears the cost: buyers of the second shipment pay more, but for a real reason, and the store does not profit from desperation.
Answer: under justice as fairness, Options 2 and 3 are acceptable, and Option 1 is not. Luis should keep $950 on current stock with a one-per-household limit and price the new shipment to reflect its actual cost. The framework's attention to the worst-off, the buyer who needs power and cannot pay a premium, drives the answer.
The Law Points the Same Way
Florida law also limits the first option. During a declared state of emergency, it prohibits selling essential commodities, such as generators, at an unconscionable price, meaning a price that grossly exceeds the average price for the same item in the 30 days before the emergency, unless the increase is attributable to additional costs the seller incurred (Fla. Stat. § 501.160). A price of $1,600 against a normal $950 would likely draw scrutiny; a higher price on the new shipment tied to its higher cost is the kind of increase the statute allows. The ethical analysis and the law converge here, but the ethical answer does not depend on the law: Option 2 would be the fairer choice even in a state with no such statute. The course text notes that legal compliance sets a minimum, while ethical reasoning asks what a business should do beyond it (Crane et al., 2019).
What the Other Frameworks Would Say
The chosen framework is not the only one that reaches this answer, but the others reach it differently, and the differences are instructive. A utilitarian would count outcomes: the extra $26,000 of profit against the harm to households who go without power, including spoiled food and risks to people who rely on electric medical equipment. Most utilitarian analyses would find the harm larger, though an economist might argue that a high price rations generators to those who value them most and draws in more supply. A deontologist would ask whether charging $1,600 treats storm victims merely as a source of profit, and would likely say it does. Virtue ethics would ask what charging $1,600 would make the store in the eyes of a community it has served for years; a good neighbor does not profit from a disaster. The frameworks converge on the conclusion but disagree on the reason, and that matters for harder cases where they would not converge.
References
Crane, A., Matten, D., Glozer, S., & Spence, L. J. (2019). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Fla. Stat. § 501.160 (2025).
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Reading the BU 217 Unit 1 instructions
Unit 1 asks you to explain major ethical frameworks and apply one to a business decision. Expect to describe each framework's source of rightness, the question it asks and its weakness, show where two frameworks disagree, present a scenario, apply one framework in depth, note relevant law and compare what the other frameworks would conclude. Students often ask which frameworks to include. Utilitarianism, duty-based ethics, virtue ethics and justice as fairness are the usual four. Keep each description parallel, so the reader can compare them. Choose a scenario with real trade-offs. Apply your chosen framework to every option, not only the one you favor. Check whether law reaches the same answer.
Inside the BU 217 Unit 1 example
The overview opens with four parallel blocks, one per framework. The disagreement section shows utilitarian and duty-based reasoning reaching different answers about a pharmacy staying open in a storm. The scenario section describes the store, the hurricane, the generators and three pricing options. The application section takes justice as fairness through each option, naming who gains, who pays and whether those who pay would accept the rule. The law section explains that Florida prohibits unconscionable prices on essential commodities during a declared emergency. The final section shows a utilitarian counting outcomes, a duty-based thinker asking about honesty and a virtue ethicist asking what a good merchant would do, and notes where each lands.
Reading the BU 217 Unit 1 rubric
Herzing's rubric for an ethical frameworks overview usually covers accurate descriptions, comparison, the scenario, depth of application, legal context and reflection on other frameworks. Applying one framework carefully to every option is the heart of the grade, since this course treats frameworks as tools to use rather than terms to recite. Description points reward accuracy and parallel structure. Comparison criteria look for a real case where frameworks disagree. Scenario credit goes to genuine trade-offs. Legal points reward a correct statute. Reflection on other frameworks is often credited when it explains differences in reasoning rather than only conclusions. Crane and colleagues' Business Ethics text, Rawls's A Theory of Justice and Florida's price gouging statute support the paper.
BU 217 Unit 1 help: mistakes that cost points
Frameworks papers in BU 217 Unit 1 often slip by defining frameworks without applying any of them. Another frequent problem is applying a framework only to the option the writer prefers. Students often describe frameworks unevenly. The disagreement example is missing. The scenario has an obvious answer, which hides trade-offs. Relevant law is ignored. Other frameworks are mentioned without saying how they reason. Weaknesses of each framework are skipped, though knowing where a framework fails is what lets a manager choose the right one for a given decision. Finally, run every option through the chosen framework, because graders reward a paper that shows the framework doing the work rather than decorating a conclusion reached in advance.
Get a BU 217 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 1 instructions and the rubric posted in your BU 217 classroom, with the scenario if one is attached. We write a custom example that describes each framework on the same terms, shows two of them disagreeing, applies one to the facts and names what that approach handles badly. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 217 papers and business management samples
- BU 217 Unit 2: Legal environment paper
- BU 217 Unit 3: Contracts case
- BU 217 Unit 4: Employment law scenario
- BU 217 Unit 5: Stakeholder analysis
- BU 217 Unit 6: Corporate responsibility paper
- BU 217 Unit 7: Real case analysis
- BU 217 Unit 8: Recommendation with defense
- BU 242 Unit 1: Customer value concepts paper
- BU 245 Unit 1: Audience analysis exercise
- BU 302 Unit 1: Organizational setting profile
- BU 321 Unit 1: Descriptive summary set
BU 217 Unit 1 questions, answered
How many frameworks should the overview cover?
Whatever the instructions name, commonly three or four drawn from the course reading. Coverage matters less than accuracy: an approach described in two sentences that capture its actual question is worth more than a page reproducing a textbook. Where the count is left open, treat the ones your section reads and skip anything the classroom has not introduced.
Does applying a framework mean I have to agree with it?
No, and saying so is often the strongest move available. Apply the approach honestly, reach the answer it gives, and then state where you think that answer goes wrong and why. What loses marks is applying a framework and quietly steering it toward a conclusion you already held, which shows in the reasoning even when the wording hides it.
Can the scenario be one I invent?
Usually yes, unless your section supplies one. Keep it short and specific: a decision, the people it touches, and enough facts that a framework has something to grip. Anything real from a workplace, including what a colleague or a manager did, is off limits for coursework. A constructed scenario labeled as constructed carries no risk and works exactly as well.
Where can I find a free BU 217 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full BU 217 Unit 1 ethical frameworks overview is free on this page, four frameworks explained and justice as fairness applied to post-hurricane pricing. An overview with another scenario can be written to order.
What are the main ethical frameworks in business?
Utilitarianism, which judges consequences; duty-based ethics, which judges actions by rules; virtue ethics, which asks what a good person would do; and justice as fairness. This sample explains and applies each.