Duties of Fidelity Essay -- Business, Duties of Reparation

Ross major facie duties speak of fidelity, repair, gratitude, justice, beneficence, non- maleficence and self-improvement. Even though Ross has explained apiece duties, it is still enigmatical that how these duties stinker be implied in marketing activities. If we look at each transaction, it is not easy to implement every duty in a situation unless it needs so. One has a major facie duty (not) to do a certain action if and only if there is some moral demand for one (not) to do it (Baumrin, 1965). Therefore in order to execute these duties, perceptiveness the circumstances is very important. It is understood that prima facie duties are expressions referring to a feature of speech by certain individual act-tokens rather than by certain act-types (Atwell, 1978). A sense of which duties are towards the bottom of the scale and which duties are towards the top is to be made sure in order to achieve every duty (Robinson, 2010).Duties of fidelity are the duty of keeping up hollers. The company should not promise anything to their customers that they cannot execute. Promise can be anything related to product quality, size, and so on Breaking a promise can bring down the judge for the products as there will be no trust for the products in the market. Keeping up promises will encourage the customers to buy the product. According to prima facie duties, one cannot be blamed if he undertakes to make the right pick and it does not produce a good act (Meyers, 2009). Duties of reparation are only essential when one cannot keep up the promise or when unintentional errors happened. If the product is damaged then the product is to be recalled and repaired or new products have to be issued to the customers. Cash Payments can in any case be made fo... ...tilitarian can increase the costs for the company but they are responsible to do so because, the fault is not caused by customers. Whether a persons action is morally justifiable, is a deontologi cal head teacher whether the act is good is ultimately a consequentiality question (Meyers, 2009). According to my hitch of view what Maruti Suzuki did was correct but these faults are not supposed to be happened from a company like these. Instead of repairing faulty cars new cars is to be provided immediately when they recalled faulty ones. Also they should have taken additional efforts to swear out customers when they were waiting for their car to get repaired. They should have given bonus packages to their customers for the mistake happened. Even though it can add total cost for the company, it can support them in maintaining their customers and good will in the market.