Banking bailouts among other forms of protectionist practices have a long history in the US despite the many ethical issues associated with such interventions. The basis of helping banks when under financial crisis is mainly justified through the argument that failure to rescue them would lead to greater calamity. For instance, bailing out organizations in the banking sector would prevent the economy from undergoing unwarranted depression. These arguments have drawn sharp criticisms from the opponents of such approaches. The objections to bailing out the banking sector are pegged on various ethical theories. However, the banking bailout could be justified through utilitarianism and the social contract theory as explained in this paper. From a utilitarian perspective, bailing out the banking industry serves the common good of the majority of the people by preventing the widespread economic problems associated with depression. According to utilitarian ethics, “a policy is deemed good if the result is the greatest good for the greatest number” (McGee 4). In other words, economists would argue that any policy that results in a positive-sum game or creates more winners than losers is good. For instance, bailing out banks would prevent many investors who have put in their money through shares and deposits into such entities. Additionally, if the banking sector is not bailed out thus ultimately leads to an economic depression, millions (the majority) of people will be affected negatively. This argument explains why such bailouts are necessary and ethical. However, critics of this position would point to many inherent flaws in this perspective. The first counter-argument is that the negative attributes associated with such a protectionist approach to a financial crisis are the multiplier effects on various groups in society. The money that the government uses to bail out these corporations comes from people’s pockets or from another industry that is performing well financially. As such, if the government uses a billion to rescue the banking sector, it has to obtain this money from somewhere else in the economy. Therefore, the contentious issue that arises is what happens to the industries where these monies have been acquired. Such sectors would probably suffer negatively and have a multiplier effect on those affected. Similarly, even if the government uses deficit funding and pumps in the needed money from the central bank, it means that the consumers’ purchasing power reduces significantly. Nevertheless, despite the challenges highlighted in the preceding paragraph, banking bailouts are ethically sound. First, such economic rescue plans create a negative-sum game, as implied above; however, such results would have the least negative effects than any other option. For instance, while a bailout might contribute to a significant GDP drop by say 200 billion dollars, doing nothing about the situation would ultimately cause a drop of GDP by over 600 billion dollars. In this case, from a utilitarian perspective, using 200 billion dollars to save 600 billion dollars is the best intervention measure. The greatest good, according to utilitarianism, would be realized by saving the economy from sinking into a depression. In the long-term, banking bailouts prevent unprecedented job losses and poor living standards. Ultimately, the crime rates remain low because people remain in employment, and the