* Question 1 * Utilitarianism
According to the theory of Utilitarianism, the decision which will produce the best consequences would be broadcasting the prank call as the greatest amount of pleasure will be produced through this decision. The extent of the happiness will be the listeners of the radio station being entertained at the time the prank is broadcasted, which is a huge number of people (Low, 2013). Owners of the radio station will also be happy when the amount of listeners that tune into the radio channel at this particular time increased to listen to the prank calls made by the radio DJs. This extent of happiness will far exceed the extent of unhappiness caused by this prank call, which are only the nurses being pranked and/or the characters being imitated in the prank call. We can also take another feature for the calculation of the amount of happiness being generated, for example, the duration of happiness (Low, 2013). The duration of the unhappiness is longer than happiness because people who are unhappy tend to take a longer time to recover from that unhappiness. The happiness that the listeners have only will last during the few minutes of the broadcast or maybe a few minutes after as well. The total amount of happiness will still outweigh the total amount of unhappiness because the extent of happiness far exceeds and dominates the net amount of happiness. Therefore, it will be ethical to broadcast the prank call based on utilitarianism.

* Kantian Ethics
Based on Kantian Ethics, the duty of the radio station is to gain listeners by letting listeners enjoy listening to the radio station and also have a higher rating as compared to other radio stations. To be morally permissible, the rule: ‘if I were to broadcast this prank call, I will be able to entertain listeners and gain higher ratings.’ is able to conform to the categorical imperative of universal acceptability (Low, 2013). We can will this to be universal because that is the duty of a radio station and universally, anyone with the duty of a radio station will accept this rule. But by broadcasting the prank call does not conform to the second imperative of respect which is using the nurse as the focus of the prank call to entertain the listeners of the radio (Low, 2013). The duty of the nurse is to take care of patients and administrative work in the hospital. She would have no link to the entertainment industry, unlike music which the main purpose or duty is for entertainment, radio station will be able to use music as a mean to entertain listeners and still conform to the imperative of respect. Thus the nurse is simply the means of the duty to entertain listeners if the radio station were to broadcast the prank call. Therefore by only conforming to the imperative of universal acceptability and not conforming to the imperative of respect, the radio station should not broadcast the prank call. * Virtue Ethics
The virtue of courage can be identified from the Aristotle moral virtues in the context to determine whether to broadcast the prank call. This is because there will be a significant personal challenge as whether the manager of the radio station has the courage to remain firm in being socially ethical and go against the idea of broadcasting the prank call which will be the unpopular decision because the prank call can help to entertain and increase the popularity of the listeners. The vice of deficiency of courage is cowardice (Fisher and Lovell, 2013), which in this case the radio station will follow the norm of the past and broadcast the prank call just to increase ratings of the listenership because that will be the popular decision as well. As the mean of the virtue courage is closer related to the vice of excess of rashness (Fisher and Lovell, 2013), the decision made will also be going against the broadcasting of the prank call but without making the proper measures, for example deleting the prank call on purpose. Therefore the radio station should not broadcast the prank call.

* Question 2
If I were in the position of the 2 DJs, I would have acted the same way as them after being told that it was ‘OK’ to air the prank call. In doing this, I would be in stage 4 of Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development because (Low, 2013). Understanding my role as a DJ is to make and record a prank call, I am doing my duty as a DJ. The decision to air a prank call goes through other departments and the rules of the organization I am employed as DJ dictates I submit to their authority on whether a prank call is aired or not. I work for this organization, therefore, I am under their authority. Since it was approved by the authority placed over me as a DJ, I am respecting their authority by airing the prank call.

* Question 3 * (a)Stakeholders
The stakeholders in Southern Cross Austereo are the employees, customers, communities and financiers. The employees will be the DJs and the other departments in the radio station because they use the skills they have to help the company function and in return for benefits and salaries. Customers “exchange resources for the products and services of the firm and in return receive the benefits of the products and services” (Beauchamp, Bowie and Arnold, 2009). Coles group, Woolworths, Telstra and Optus are the customers as they engage Southern Cross Austereo to do advertisements. The financiers would be the shareholders of the company as they shareholders will own either stocks or bonds which help to finance the company and in return for financial benefits. The community is the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) which is a statutory authority within the federal government portfolio of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. They are the one that grants permission and rights to the radio station and in turn will benefit from the economic and social contributions of the radio station (Beauchamp, Bowie and Arnold, 2009).

* (b)Opinion
In my opinion, I would apply the viewpoints of Milton Friedman, and agree that that radio stations should focus solely on high ratings to attract advertising therefore pressuring their DJs to “dream up even more outrageous stunts in a quest for publicity and ratings” as long as the stunts adhere to Australian broadcasting law.
In the viewpoints of Milton Friedman, the firm should always place the shareholder’s interest as the responsibility of business is to generate as much profits as possible (Beauchamp, Bowie and Arnold, 2009).
The DJs and managers of the firm identified as employee stakeholders are the agents for the shareholders and their responsibility is to get to their main purpose of achieving higher profits by attracting more customers to advertise on their stations with the high listenership and ratings they can achieve. The managers as the agents to the shareholders should making decisions and ideas to generate profits. The funds being set up and donated to the family of the deceased should not be the responsibility of the firm as it would be deemed as social tax to the shareholders, because this donation is a decision made by the agent and it uses the shareholder’s money. If the agent feels bad for the family and wants to compensate, they can do so at their own expense. If there is a fund to help the family of the deceased, it should also be the responsibility of the government or a social community. By setting up the fund and donating to the family, the agent would become employee of the public and not of the firm (Beauchamp, Bowie and Arnold, 2009).
Therefore by applying the viewpoints of Milton Friedman, the radio station should focus solely on high ratings to attract advertising customers to generate as much profit as possible for their shareholders (Beauchamp, Bowie and Arnold, 2009).

References 1) Low, Rouhshi. Business Law & Ethics. 2013. Australia: Wiley 2) Beauchamp, Tom L., Norman E. Bowie and Denis G. Arnold. Ethical theory and business. 2009 8thed. Upper Saddle R; N J: Pearson 3) Fisher, Colin and Alan Lovell. Business ethics and values. 2003 3rded. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall