The Numbers of Related Ethical Principles - Assignment Example

Analysis of Blow the Whistle or Breathe Insulation case Part Question: the main ethical principle(s) in the case as you see it. The “blow the whistle or breathe insulation case study” has a number of related ethical principles, which include principle of fidelity, principle of honesty, principle of lawfulness, principle of autonomy, and the do not harm principle. The case presents the particular details applying on the on the case that justify the ethical principles involved. The presence of a vault lined with asbestos-impregnated wallboard and overhead pipes insulated with asbestos in the case relates to the principle of do not harm, which requires a workplace, for example in the case study, manly construction company, to eliminate and avoid the situation of insulating the vault with asbestos that may lead to health issues of the workers. The principle of fidelity reveals itself in the case whereby the manager ignores the commitment to remove and clean up the fallen asbestos insulating the overhead pipes and the vault. The principle of honesty is manifested by the manager’s constant implication that the asbestos cannot cause harm unless they are disturbed, while in reality, the asbestos naturally release particles to the environment causing lung cancer to those exposed. The inspection done by the county inspector on the building violation reveals the principle of lawfulness, which requires the individuals running a company obey the rule of law to uphold a free and democratic society. Rocky the manager for manly construction deserves all the blame from any worker in the company who gets a lung infection because of vault asbestos particles; hence, the revelation of the principle of autonomy. The management forces the workers to work under unhealthy condition posed by the presence of asbestos in vaults, which is a wrong move for the company by threatening to suck any workers who complains of the asbestos. This is wrong because it denies the workers freedom and democratic rights. The main conflict in this case is the differing issue of health risk posed by the asbestos by the workers and the company’s management, which affect the employees, county inspector and the company’s president, Rocky. Part 2 Question: Consider options in resolving the problem from the perspective of the: (a) Consequentialist The process of resolving a problem through the perspective of consequentialist involves the evaluation of the rightness of the consensus among the parties involved in the conflict based on the consequences, also referred to as utilitarianism. Applying utilitarianism to the Blow the Whistle or Breathe Insulation case, there a two options that can be considered. The first option is removing all the asbestos lining the wallboard and overhead pipes. This option is because of the possible negative healthy issues to the employees known to rise from the asbestos. The consequence of developing lung cancer by the employees necessitates the need to remove all the asbestos. The second option is to restrict all the employees from areas with asbestos because of the cost involved in removing all the asbestos, which is a decision that is to be reached upon following the consequences of the company’s financial status in eliminating all the asbestos. (b) Deontologist The concept of agreeing on a decision is based on the duty and obligation of the involved parties in the conflict. The president of manly construction company has an obligation and crucial duty in ensuring that all the employees are subjected to a conducive working environment regardless of the cost of the measures to be taken to ensure the workers safety is prioritized. Consequently, the decision would be to remove all the asbestos, which pose health risk to the employees. In addition, the employees have a duty and obligation to ensure their personal health is upheld by the company pushing for the option of removing the asbestos from the vaults or the employee to resign because of the risks involved in working under the company’s environment. (c) Virtue ethics The virtue ethics perspective of resolving a problem is usually based on the phrase “who am I”. This process, unlike the deontologist and consequentialist approach, involves a decision that is against the wishes of the affected party. The mangers use their guts to reach a decision as indicated by the president of manly construction company using the power possessed to, forcefully, decide that the asbestos will not be removed under any circumstances; hence, the decision made is the manager’s response only. On the other hand, the problem would be resolved by the president of the company assuring the containment of the asbestos particles, after a substantial consultation with the employees. Part 3 Question: What would you do? The solution to the conflicts of the employees and management can be adequately resolved by the correct interpretation and application of the ethical principles. The Do Not Harm principle plays an important role in reaching a resolution to the conflict, which requires an individual to avoid the occurrences that would lead to harming others. In relevance to the case study, the manager, Rocky, has a responsibility to prevent the conditions that will expose the employees from developing possible lung cancer caused by asbestos. The autonomy principle influences the solution of the conflict such that, although the people wish may be the removal of the asbestos, the manager has the autonomy over the employees and any recommendation. This calls for the management to have talks with the employs to lay down the consequence of each step that would be taken to reach an effective solution that favors both the employees’ health and the company’s financial status and carries the blame of any of the sides’ negative results. Honesty is an important principle in a process of conflict resolution. This implies that the company’s management, centrally to Rocky, should provide awareness of the employees on the effect of asbestos to human health rather than providing information meant to favor the situation of the company. Equally important, is the application of the principle of fidelity to find a solution. Fidelity principle necessitates the company’s management to show their continued commitment to the employees for a good relationship, respect between the two parties and loyalty. Moreover, principle of fidelity offers the employees a chance to be aware of the problem arising from the asbestos, which allows them to solve the issue among them before the management proposes a solution. On the other hand, the commitment and pledges of the management to manage the company’s finances have to be considered. Lastly and equally important, it is vital to apply the principle of lawfulness that depicts the freedom and democratic rights of the employees. It would not be necessary to threaten the employees who are against the decision of the management to clean the hanging asbestos residues but to allow them express their views towards the consequences of the decision by management for altering the solution appropriately. The law enforces citation crucial to adhere to for the company to be legal. Substantially, from the review of the ethical principles the best solution for this case would to restrict the use of vault by the employees provided with masks and clothing designed to put out the asbestos from human and ensure regular cleaning and maintenance of the asbestos. This will uphold the employees’ health and, at the same time, consider the company’s financial status. Part 4 Question: What was the most challenging aspect of this case for you personally? The need to choose between finance, job opportunity, and health issues in the case posed a great challenge in determination of the conflict resolution of the employees and company’s management. It is no easy to choose to work in an environment that endangers an individual health and it is difficult to lose a job because of the risks involved in working for a particular company. Likewise, the management cannot afford to spend a considerable large amount of money to make the environment risk free and still it requires the employees to be healthy for an increased production. Fortunately, I have not worked in such a workplace, whereby an individual health risk is at risk because of funding required to reduce the risks. However, almost all company managers use their guts to reach on a solution despite the opinions offered by the employees. In addition, most of the companies aim at maximizing the profits leaving alone the concerns of the workers whereby in case of a right demand, threats are imposed. There are numerous workplaces all over the world with similar situations as the case of “Blow the Whistle or Breathe Insulation case”. For instance, most of the mining company’s worldwide expose the workers to dangerous underground chemicals and possible mining tunnel collapse by improper clothing and poor construction of pillars to support the tunnel from collapsing with a sole purpose of reducing the cost of production. Almost every company entails solutions based on one or more of the ethical principles. Work cited Pfeiffer, Raymond & Forsberg, Ralph. Ethics on the Job, 3rd ed. United States, US: Wadsworth Incorporated Fulfillment, 2005. Print. Read More