Adan GutierrezSection 023Alexander VelasquezAssignment #81. No one really doubts that something went wrong at Wells Fargo. Briefly describe what went wrong. (We’ll get to why it was wrong below, so you should describe the issue fairly neutrally here.) Wells Fargo Bank has each employee to meet a quota every month to get a bonus or something in that sort. So employee was taught by their supervisors how to make that quota every month by transferring money from a client and create them a credit card account. While the client has no idea they had an open credit card account. Later the client will receive a bank statement saying he has a new account with Wells Fargo. Then the client ignores it and his credit score will go down because it goes to collection. The bank will still get their money back from that account owed.2. Explain why what you described in question I was immoral from the perspective of a consequentialist/utilitarian view. (Be sure to say precisely which view you are taking.) Who was harmed? How?This situation has the Jeremy Bentham utilitarian because the workers were overall not worrying about the people but more about themselves and their pleasure. Bentham said, “thus a matter of experiencing pleasure and lack of pain,”which clearly states that pain is the less of their worries because clerks will meet their quota and get their check and bonus. My point I am taking is Mill’s because he stands at a point of freedom and understands pain. The pain is shown in the articles when the client has a debt to pay when it’s not their fault and their creditwill go down when it gets reported to the credit bureau. They will get this as a shocked because they will get a letter after the credit bureau collects the debt and the bank receives their money bank from insurance.3. Explain why what you describe in question 1 was immoral from the perspective of a deontological/Kantian View. (Be sure to say precisely which imperatives, duties, rights, etc. you think are involved.) Who failed to comply with their duties, etc.? Whose rights, etc. were violated? How?The person who failed to do their duties is the clerk because we the people should trust your bank and those who work there. They are you source to ask questions about your accounts and understand what they are doing to your account(s). Theirduties are to maneuver you to have your account protected and trust them from the other side of the screen. The people are correct in this situation; the clerks are supposed to keep it honest and their integrity which falls in the moral law. Which explicitly says if you know your moral in stealing and lying is wrong and you stilldo it, that doesn’t follow the moral law because you know it’s wrong. The reason is wrong because you are stilling form your costumers and you are supposed to help them with all honesty. Not creating a credit card account and make them go into credit debit in with the bank and the credit bureau.4. Explain why what you describe in question 1 was immoral from the perspective of a virtue theory/Aristotelian view. (Be sure to say precisely which view you are taking.) Who acted in a vicious (or at least less than virtuous) way? Who was harmed? How?The Aristotelian virtue view I’m taking is eudaimonistic view because “this virtueethic is that it reverses the relationship between virtue and rightness.” In this predicament Wells Fargo got in with their clients, which in their point of view they thought they were doing good by put in their hard-earned money to theiraccount. As the client, you are trusting your bank to hold one’s money and not get frauded by the bank. The client with their kindness of their heart trusted their bankbut find out they were getting frauded by their clerk so they can meet their quota and the client getting a letter that they must pay to the credit bureau. The ones getting harmed is the client because the clerk was being vicious and creating credit card accounts without the client having any knowledge of this predicament.5. Some comments have suggested that the blame for the moral problem you describe in question 1 lies primarily with Wells Fargo’s customer service personnel; other have suggested that the blame lies primarily with Wells Fargo’s management. What do you think? Is this an either-or question, i.e., could it be both? Is your answer to this question informed by one of the ethical theories we have discussed? If so, how? If not, why not?I think it goes both ways because management will ask their workers to meet a deadline how every you must every month. So, the workers go to the extra step and add accounts to current account holders and let them go in debt from accountsthat they don’t know they opened. This one follows Mill’s theory because its freedom to do anything with clients’ accounts while they have no notice. Until they receive the credit bureau card in the mail.6. What should Wells Fargo do to make up for the moral problem you describe in question 1? Is your answer to this question informed by one of the ethical theories we have discussed? If so, how? If not, why not?I think my answer for number 1 is in the theory from Bentham because the banks have the freedom to do anything with your accounts to a certain extend. The clienthas the liberty to choose or accept the accounts and not knowing what comes withit. Wells Fargo went to legal actions with the government and must settle it bypaying it back to the clients and some extra money to for fraud. Wells Fargo at theend must settle with the lost and must repay everyone person back with interest.Work Cited- Athanassoulis, Nafsika. "Virtue Ethics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Keele University, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.- Heydt, Colin. "John Stuart Mill." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of South Florida, Web. 09 Mar. 2017.- Sweet, William. "Jeremy Bentham." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. St. Francis Xavier University, Web. 09 Mar.