Business Ethical Dilemma - Essay Example

Business Ethical Dilemma BUSINESS ETHICAL DILEMMA Introduction All business workplaces have various conduct s involving regulations and rules that bind employees to ensure the organization works effectively and efficiently. These codes, however, become blurred because of any number of reasons, including principles, beliefs, and relationships when it is time to make a critical decision (Piazza, 2008). These scenarios are referred to as ethical dilemmas, in which persons have to consider right and wrong prior to making a decision and taking action. This paper seeks to examine a workplace ethical dilemma and attempt to solve it. To do this, the essay will start by describing a situation at my friend Mary’s former placement workplace that posed an ethical dilemma. Later, the essay will seek to explain why the situation proved an ethical dilemma, before coming up with an appropriate solution for it. Ethical Dilemma Working for a few months at Sisto Mission Hospital as a content developer and data entry clerk, Mary came across some information that placed her in a dilemma ethically. As she was gathering information as part of her daily routine, her sister’s fiancé’s name came to the screen. His information said that he had recently been tested for HIV and diagnosed to be positive. In addition, the information also showed that Michael was currently under treatment at a local facility, as well as counseling services, for HIV. Mary and her sister and are close, especially since their mother passed away from cancer early in their lives, which has meant that they always look out for one another. Having met her sister at least six times in the last month, Mary was sure she did not know about Michael’s condition. If she did, Mary or her father would have known about it by now. The information comes at an especially crucial moment because her sister is preparing for her wedding in three weeks. Mary am devastated by the information and torn between her sister and family on one side and her job on the other. If she elects not to give this information to her sister with regards to her fiancé’s condition, she can maintain my integrity and get a good reference from her boss. This is important, as this is a prestigious company, which will strengthen her CV significantly. However, telling her sister about Michael’s condition will inform her decision on whether to go ahead with the wedding. She could be able to evaluate her position alongside Michael and make a decision based on reality. Nonetheless, doing this could lead to termination from Mary’s current position and a poor report from her employer. Justification of the Ethical Dilemma Working with an organization’s database exposes one to a lot of privileged and private information. The records in the database at Sisto Hospital contain extensive personal information concerning various clients, including their health records, which is private and confidential in nature. Releasing of information regarding clients can cause irreparable damage to them (Bredeson & Goree, 2012), as it would in Michael’s case. For example, it could limit future employability because employers would be wary of employing a person who could potentially sue for discrimination. The employer could already pre-conceive that Michael may not be up to effective contribution to their company (Bredeson & Goree, 2012). In addition, if this information were to be discovered by insurance companies, Michael’s access to affordable health insurance may be hindered. For this reason, maintaining Michael’s and Sisto Hospital’s confidentiality is a vital part of Mary’s duties. The Utilitarian theory contends that decisions are only ethical if they cause a person to bring the experience of pleasure and goodness to a significant number of persons. It acts to simplify the moral law through a cost benefit analysis that decides on whether a decision is ethical (Gilliland et al, 2007). In deciding whether one is making an ethical decision, one takes total pain that the decision will cause and subtracts it from the total pleasure the decision causes, which results in the total utility of decisions taken. For this reason, the total utility will be taken as the correct decision without regard to the involved happiness. Therefore, the utilitarian theory contends that pleasure must take precedence over what one considers as right or just. Confronted with the issue regarding Michael’s HIV status, an analysis of the total pleasure that will be caused by the action taken will be essential. Facing Michael and insisting he tells the truth to his fiancé will not hurt the organization and will ensure that there is no obligation or rule broken. In addition, it will also work in preventing the spread of an incurable disease if it has not occurred already. Any decision taken in this case will also result in pain, such as the fact that it might upset the person whom the information regards (Gilliland et al, 2007). Therefore, any decision made will result in pain and pleasure for the parties involved. By making a decision to divulge the information, therefore, one of the parties or both of them and the organization will be hurt. The decisions involved in this dilemma will have to ensure that the total happiness that results from the final decision outweighs the total pain (Broad, 2009). Making any decision will include placing the locus of what is wrong or right alongside the consequences of the decision taken over another viable decision. Therefore, the decision in this case moves outside the scope of a person’s interest and will have to take into account the interests of other individuals. This decision will involve pain and happiness, whichever way it is made, and the action taken will be based on the amount of pleasure or pain that it brings to all parties involved. The good is usually associated with pleasure, while pain is taken as evil, and these attributes can be quantified or measured (Broad, 2009). The decision to be made will involve a measure of pleasure and pain with regards to their nearness, certainty, duration, and intensity, while fecundity and purity will also be considered (Carroll, 2009). This means that the decision will have to take into account whether more of pain or pleasure will follow and whether pain will be followed by pleasure and vice versa. In addition, to make any decision in this case, it will also be essential to consider the extent of the resulting pain or pleasure. However, this way of making ethical decisions may involve hedonistic tendencies, which can be adjusted for through emphasis on the quality of happiness that will result from the decision, rather than the amount of pleasure. In addition, it is difficult to quantify qualities, although a distinction occurs between lower and higher pleasures. Finally, the principle of greatest happiness contends that the decision made must seek to promote capabilities of attaining higher pleasure and happiness for the highest number of people, which refers to the extent (Carroll, 2009). Ethical Solution Mary initially came up with three resolutions. The first was to say nothing and keep the information private. This resolution would result in her being the only one who would suffer in the course of this ordeal. It will also be possible to maintain a healthy relationship with her sister, as she would not have to tell her the bad news. Following their marriage, it will be possible to make their decisions and take precautions. In addition, it will also be possible to get a good reference from her boss. Another resolution involves telling her sister the truth in a number of ways. The first would involve telling her about Michael’s status in or away from his presence. However, this poses the difficulty of humiliating her sister, while it is also possible that she will think Mary was being non-supportive of her life at a crucial time. In addition, Michael could also deny knowledge of his status, ruining the relationship between him and Mary. It could also be possible to write a letter to her sister anonymously about Michael’s situation, which will allow her to hide her identity. However, this could lead to problems with her employer because of leaking confidential information if they found out. In the event that either Mary’s sister or Michael came to Sisto Hospital to clarify the information, it could lead to an investigation and eventual admission of her mistake. Her third resolution involves confronting Michael by arranging a meeting or threatening him to tell her or she would. This would have negative results if the confrontation ends with Mary’s sister calling off her wedding or if Michael reports her to the hospital. Nevertheless, because she will have to tell the news to Michael, which he will bring to light, she might keep her job’s integrity and do the right thing. This resolution was her final decision, and she decided to call Michael and arrange to meet him for coffee. She will then break the news slowly to him and let him know that she knows his status. While he will be initially upset due to Mary putting him in a position that forces him to face the truth, she will seek to make him aware that he should not place my sister in this situation if he respects and loves her. In addition, their marriage should not be started on a lie because every relationship relies on trust as its basis. Finally, she hopes to calm him down and manage to persuade Michael to do the correct thing. In the case of this ethical dilemma, the best resolution has been informed by the utilitarian theory, which has led Mary to confront Michael and seek to make him tell the truth. However, when deciding whether the decision is ethical, various aspects require to be taken into account. It is possible to disagree with the decision using Kant’s theory, as it would be morally incorrect. Both theories, however, stress that, in resolving the dilemma, Mary must not consider personal relations. However, this is not practical every time in the real world. Ultimately, it was up to Mary to make an ethical decision when faced with this situation and the final resolution was the best. References Bredeson, D., & Goree, K. (2012). Ethics in the workplace. Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Broad, M. L. (2009). Transferring learning to the workplace: Seventeen case studies from the real world of training. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Carroll, M. (2009). Workplace counseling: A systematic approach to employee care. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif. Gilliland, S., Steiner, D., & Skarlicki, D. (2007). Managing social and ethical issues in organizations. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub. Inc. Piazza, C. F. (2008). Virtues of a cyborg workplace: The ethical challenges of managing a dispersed workforce. Brattleboro, VT: Union Institute & University Read More