Conversing On Ethics Morality And Education â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Conversing On Ethics Morality And Education? Answer: Introducation The society is governed by laws that are legislated as well as moral principles that regulate conduct personal conduct. The body of moral principles and values can be referred to as ethics and can be used by individuals and organizations in the course of conducting business. Ethical dilemmas arise when three conditions manifest in a situation. The first is that the situation should present alternatives of action while the second is that the best course of action should be chosen amongst the choices given. The third is that no matter what choice is taken, some ethical principles may end up being compromised. In the ethical case study at Fabio, the best decision is for Brockley to confess to Iris and be prepared for any outcome that may ensue. Case Study: Question one Relevant facts- The case study at Fabio presents a number of facts. Harry is presented as having a reputation of being competent as a programmer internally and externally. He also has extensive knowledge of all the problems concerned with Fabios security infrastructure. He manages to develop anti-virus software that shows the potential of having market success. Jill is presented as neither making the decision without consulting her superior nor giving Harry the opportunity to test the product he was offering. Jills boss, Brockley supported her decision based on the negative bias he had formed towards Harry. Iris Bigg the owner of the company has learned about Harry under the pseudonym Lock Smith and wants to hire him. Ethical issues- The first ethical issue is whether it was right for Harry to develop the anti-virus software privately and for him to present his product to his employer while still employed? (Kilpatrick, 2010). His actions could lead to other employees copying his actions and this may reduce focus on organizational productivity at the expense of personal gain. The second dilemma is the decision by Jill to not only reject the offer by Harry but also to dismiss him without giving him the chance to test his product. Brockleys action to validate Jills action was unethical based on his negative bias toward Harry and poses an ethical dilemma. Both of their actions could lead to Harry instituting legal action for wrongful dismissal. Stakeholders involved- Harry is representative of one group of stakeholders in his personal capacity as well as that of fellow employees. The outcome of the case will affect him and the employees and set a precedent. The other stakeholders are the management and what actions the company owner might take. This will affect their future code of conduct in the future while dealing with employees. The third stakeholder is Bigg who stands to lose if Harry institutes legal action against Fabio. He also stands to lose on the opportunity of employing a talented person who has shown himself to be innovative and therefore an asset in the field of IT. Question two: Four-step Ethical Analysis and Decision Making Process Step 1. Understanding the Situation Facts of the case Harry is a bona fide, competent and currently employed at Fabio. He is acknowledged internally and outside of Fabios for being knowledgeable in IT security issues. He has managed to privately develop anti-virus software using his own resources. He approaches Jill who is his immediate superior with the proposal to sell his software that not only rejects it but also terminates his contract. Harry has been out of employment for two weeks but is promoting his software on the internet under the pseudonym Lock Smith. The action of Jill is validated by Brockley who is the overall boss and immediate superior to Jill. Biggs learns about Lock Smith through a private head-hunter and wants to hire him not knowing that he is Harry, his former employee. Facts involving ethical issues The first ethical issue is whether it is right for Harry as an employee to work privately, develop software and propose to sell to his employer. This could raise issues of conflict of interest and personal integrity as an employee (Varelius, 2015). Should he have resigned first or should he have freely given the product to his employer? Jill rejects the offer without the courtesy she would have extended to an outside vendor. She is condescending in her attitude and adds insult to injury by terminating Harrys employment (Quade, Greebaum Petrenko, 2017). She acts unprofessionally by taking a unilateral decision without consulting her senior and only reports the issue later. Brockley displays personal bias and does not take time to review the facts leading to the termination of Harrys contract at Fabio (Ellard, 2007). As the overall manager of the IT department, he displays the lapse of judgment based on personal misgivings on a product that could solve the companies IT security problems. Stakeholders in the case The first stakeholder is Harry in his private capacity and as a representative of the other employees. His job is a programmer and is expected to offer his expertise to his employer with their best interest at the forefront (Molnar, Kletke Chongwatpol, 2008). He stands to suffer professional reputation as an employee who used his employers time and resources to pursue his own private gain. As the representative of other employees, his fate will determine how employees will be handled by Fabio in the future should they take on the same course. The management is the second stakeholder in the case study. This includes Jill, Brockley and other managers in the company. The determination of the case will result in management changes which may curtail some of their authority as well as the dismissal of others. Their relationships with employees and their professional codes of conduct will be affected by the outcome of the case. The role of management is to oversee the daily company operations, encourage employee participation and refer issue beyond their authority to the senior management or the owner. Biggs who is the owner is the last stakeholder in this case. He stands to lose in several ways. He would have a lost talented, innovative employee if Harry declines his offer to come back and work for Fabio. Harry might end up working for a competitor and this may put his company at a disadvantage. He also stands to lose financially if Harry institutes legal proceedings for unfair dismissal and the company is forced to pay him damages (Armstrong, 2014). He would suffer financial lose as the substantive owner of the company. Step 2. Isolate the Major Ethical Dilemma The major ethical dilemma in this case study is centered on Brockley who has been asked by the owner to find Smith Lock and offer him a position at Fabio. This puts Brockley in the difficult position of having to decide whether he will own up to Iris as to what transpired at Fabio that led to the dismissal of Harry or not (Perugini, Constantini, Hughes De Houwer, 2016). There are consequences of the decision he will make which will harm some individuals including him. Consequentialism If action in step II is done, Brockley and Jill stand to be harmed in terms of disciplinary action or being dismissed. If action in step II is not done, Harry stands to be harmed in suffering professional reputation. Iris also stands to be harmed in losing a valuable employee. The least harm will be experienced if step I is taken. In the worst case scenario, both Jill and Brockley may be fired. At the very least, they may face disciplinary action. This is better when compared to the alternative of Harry suffering damage to his reputation and suing Fabio. At the same time, he may decide to work for Fabios competitors. This is based on the utilitarianism concept of taking the action that will benefit other employees as well as us (Toppinen, 2016). Owning up gives him the chance to remedy his error of judgment and clear his conscience. At the same time, the expertise and innovation that Harry will bring back will benefit Fabio as a company and the employees as a whole. If action in step II is done, Harry stand to benefit by coming back justified and as a valuable employee. Iris also stands to benefit by getting back an innovative employee who could have gone to work for her competitor. The employees will also benefit from the expertise Harry will bring back at Fabios. If step II is not done, Harry will benefit by either going to work for Fabios competitor with better remuneration, suing the company or both. Fabios competitor will also benefit in case he decides to work for them in bringing confidential information that will work to their favor. According to the theory of altruism, an individual may take the action that produces the most benefits for everyone except for himself. In this case, Brockley deciding to own up the truth and trying to find Harry would yield the most benefit to everyone else. Iris may benefit by getting back a valuable employee, Harry gets the opportunity to clear his reputation and work in a company he likes. The employees benefit in the knowledge that future dismissals will have to follow the laid down company due process. Consequentialism Comments: Minimum harm is based on the concept of altruism where actions result in others even at the expense of harming the person doing the action (Andric Tanyi, 2016). Maximum benefit results are based on the utilitarianism theory that the action is justified if it avails maximum benefits for all. Rights and Duties: Harry had the right to know what the company policy is with regards to employees who privately developed their own privately resourced products. He had the right to privacy at the same time in controlling personal information. He had the right to intellectual property as set out in the law (Lambert, 2009). Iris had the right to know what her employee had developed while working for her. Duties: Jill and Brockley neglected their duties to do justice in handling Harry. They were also negligent with regards to practicing nonmaleficence and beneficence towards Harry (Valerica Daniel, 2011). Iris has the duty to make appropriate reparation to Harry for the loss of employment that covers two weeks. Comments on Rights and Duties: The actors in the case study have duties and rights which may be reciprocal by nature according to the theory of deontology (Juth, 2014). Jill has the duty to do justice while Harry has the right to the same. Kant Categorical Imperative: If action in step II is done, Brockley and Jill will be treated with disrespect. If action is not done in step II, Iris will be disrespected indirectly in the show of insubordination by Brockley. The best alternative is for Jill and Brockley to suffer disrespect which may be temporary. The owner of the company may decide not to dismiss Jill and Brockley. If she discovers that her order was disrespected, she will most probably fire both without a second thought. If action in step II is done, Harry will be treated differently from the other employees as one with more value. Jill and Brockley may be treated by the employees with less respect compared to other managers. If action in step II is not done, Brockley will be treated unlike no other manager has been treated. Not only may he be fired, legal proceedings may be instituted against him. The best alternative is to be treated with less respect rather than face the prospect of being fired and being sued at the same time. If everyone did action in step II, the benefit will be to Harry, Iris and the company at large. Employees will benefit in having a more stable and secure working environment. If nobody took action, nobody stands to benefit. The best alternative is for everyone to take action: Iris, Harry and Brockley. Step III Discussion The ethical dilemma in this case study has different outcomes which may have positive or negative outcomes. While consequentialism may focus on the outcomes of actions, it has shortcomings with regards to moral character and its development (Betzler, 2008). The consequences of actions in themselves have no content that is ethical. Kants Categorical Imperative assumes that all involved in the case have the same respect for moral law. This assumption in the case makes room for different outcomes and voids the principle of consistency. The rights and duties theory presents the challenge of the reciprocal nature of rights and duties. One persons duty is expected to be the right of the next person. The reciprocity should be founded on goodwill and this may not be the case in most cases. Goodwill may be equated to a person being of good intention or meaning well (Silber, 2012). Goodwill in turn assumes the person has moral worth in doing good. Sibel (2008), states therefore that the rights and duties theory becomes difficult to enforce in an environment that is diverse such as the workplace. Making the Decision The best decision that can be made in this case study is for Brockley to own up to Iris first before embarking on locating Harry. Not being frank and forthright may result in consequences which may be direr. While meeting Iris, sending a reconciliatory message to Harry with his final intentions should also be done. Iris has the right to know according to the theory of deontology what the material facts are (Figar Dordevic, 2016). At the same time, Brockley has the duty to do justice to Harry by confessing to Iris, be truthful and act with integrity. His actions will be in alignment with the theory of teleology of minimizing the harm already done and maximizing benefits for all psychology Harry returns. Steps in the decision making process Brockely approaches Iris with the view to confess and own up. This is based on egoism and how the decision affects him. Konczal (2012), states that this is the starting point to work towards self-improvement in the future in ethical behavior. Send a message or emissary to contact Harry with the message of reconciliation and intention to hire him back. This is the utilitarianism assumption that this action has significant impact on other people (Bialek Wim De, 2017). Prepare himself and Jill psychologically for any outcomes which may be disciplinary. Accept the decision that Iris may take and accept it as his duty to do justice. This may involve making appropriate reparation to Harry or sacking Jill. Ethical dilemmas occur when the decision taken may end up compromise some ethical principles. The case study at Fabio presents an ethical dilemma that primarily rests with Brockley. There are diverse outcomes that may result depending on the choice he may make. Utilizing the different theories of ethical behavior may help in coming to the best decision in this case study. This involves listing the facts, the stakeholders and the different theoretical postulations. The best decision in this case is for Brockley to confess to Iris, approach Harry with a reconciliatory tone and be prepared for any outcome which may affect him. References Andri?, V., Tanyi, A. (2016). Multi-Dimensional Consequentialism and Risk. Ethical Theory Moral Practice, 19(1), 49-57. doi:10.1007/s10677-015-9658-5 Armstrong, J. (2014). Rethinking the restorativeretributive dichotomy: is reconciliation possible? Contemporary Justice Review, 17(3), 362. doi:10.1080/10282580.2014.944796 Betzler, M. (2008). Kant's Ethics of Virtue. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bia?ek, M., Wim De, N. (2017). Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for deontological reasoners' intuitive utilitarian sensitivity. Judgment Decision Making, 12(2), 148-167. Ellard, G. (2007). MORAL JUDGMENTS AND BUSINESS ETHICS. Vital Speeches of the Day, 73(5), 193-196. Figar, N., ?or?evi?, B. (2016). MANAGING AN ETHICAL DILEMMA. Economic Themes, 54(3), 345-362. Hurley, P. (2017). Why Consequentialism's "Compelling Idea" Is Not. Social Theory Practice, 43(1), 29-54. Juth, N. (2014). The Right Not to Know and the Duty to Tell: The Case of Relatives. Journal of Law, Medicine Ethics, 42(1), 38-52. Kilpatrick, P. (2010). The Relationship Between Technology and Ethics. Vital Speeches of the Day, 76(12), 567-570. Konczal, E. (2012). Everything You Need to Know About Business Ethics. [Newmarket, Ont.]: BrainMass Inc. Lambert, J. (2009). Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights : A Concise Guide for Businesses, Innovative and Creative Individuals. Farnham, England: Routledge. McGavin, P. A. (2013). Conversing on ethics, morality and education. Journal Of Moral Education, 42(4), 494-511. doi:10.1080/03057240.2013.817330 Molnar, K., Kletke, M., Chongwatpol, J. (2008). Ethics vs. IT Ethics: Do Undergraduate Students Perceive a Difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 657-671. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9646-3 Perugini, M., Costantini, G., Hughes, S., De Houwer, J. (2016). A functional perspective on personality. International Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 33-39. doi:10.1002/ijop.12175 Quade, M. J., Greenbaum, R. L., Petrenko, O. V. (2017). 'I don't want to be near you, unless...': The interactive effect of unethical behavior and performance onto relationship conflict and workplace ostracism. Personnel Psychology, 70(3), 675-709. Sibel, G. (2008). The relation between work ethics and work morality and the factors effecting work ethics in work-life. International Journal of Human Sciences, Vol 5, Iss 1, P 373 (2008), (1), 373. Silber, J. (2012). Kant's Ethics : The Good, Freedom, and the Will. Boston: De Gruyter. Toppinen, T. (2016). RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM (AND KANTIAN CONTRACTUALISM) AT TOP RATES. Philosophical Quarterly, 66(262), 122-135. doi:10.1093/pq/pqv065 Valerica, M., Daniel, M. M. (2011). RESPONSIBILITY FOR ETHICS IN ITC. Annals of the University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 20(1), 814-820. Varelius, J. (2015). Is the Non-rivalrousness of Intellectual Objects a Problem for the Moral Justification of Economic Rights to Intellectual Property? Science Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 895-906. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9574-4