Personal Ethical Dilemma - Essay Example

? I once had a part-time job where one of my co-workers was stealing from the store in question. I was not completely aware of all of the different scams she was doing, but was aware of one in particular – one she defined for me. Often, when a customer came to her cash register, and management was not around, she would inform the customer that the cash register printer was not working, and therefore, she would be unable to provide them with a printed receipt and only a hand-written one. Since it was a store where the items bought were not really returned or very rarely, most of the customers would just waive off the receipt. In turn, she would not enter the order but only pretend to, and she left the cash register draw just slightly open. So, if the item was $ 18.00, she would provide the change for a $ 20.00 bill from the cash register, and then just replace the $ 2.00 from her own money. That is, so the register would add-up properly at the end of the work day. So, she would pocket the $ 18.00 and this was unquestionably stealing. My personal values were such that I would not have done what she did. I was in the same position as her, but never took advantage of the advice that she gave me about stealing. However, there was conflict with these feelings because I never told on her or turned her in to management. We were not close friends, or did not socialize outside of the workplace, but did get to know each other pretty well. We spent enough time together on the job such that I got to know and like her. Conversely, we both worked for an organization and a manager which we had little regard for. The wages were low, the working conditions were often strained, and the manager was often verbally abusive and generally unlikable. So, the conflict in question was defined by my ethical belief that stealing was wrong, and yet, I did not act as a whistle blower or act dutifully as an employee and inform the organization that they were being stolen from. Consequentialism looks at the outcomes of behaviors rather than the intentions. Socially, we very often evaluate individual actions on how their intentions were. So, for example, while lying is generally wrong, if your grandmother asks you what you think about her hideous looking dress, and you tell her she looks nice, your intentions are good even though the result is an immoral act. A consquentialist position looks at only the outcome or the consequence of the act. In terms of my own personal ethical dilemma, the consequence of my co-workers actions were unquestionably immoral. In terms of the other stakeholders, the organization was being stolen from as a consequence. And, knowing that she was doing this makes me complicit to some extent. My obligations in an employee/employer relationship are directed toward the organization and not the employees. Generally, utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism. It argues that the aim of individuals is happiness, and an action or behavior therefore, either maximizes or diminishes the greater goal of happiness. Further, we should maximize the greater happiness for the greatest number of individuals [Perry, 1993, p. 531]. In this instance, while the employee was maximizing their own happiness, they were doing so at the expense of someone else – namely, the employer. However, as a dilemma, it raises the question as to whose happiness I ought to consider? While I had little regard for the organization, I should have turned in the employee on this ethical model because the consequence was that one agents happiness came at the expense of an others. In terms of the greater good for the greater number, there were only two goods to consider – the individual stealing and the organization that was incurring the loss. If the business had gone bankrupt because of the theft, obviously a greater number would be effected, however, it was not a substantial amount of money so that it can't be said that a greater than two stakeholders were to be considered. Under a deontological framework, one should not will an act that cannot be willed universally. There is an inherent right for equal treatment, and thus, the obligation in this instance is to the whole and not the individuals. In the case of my coworker, I would not want to will that everyone steal. The consequence or the outcome of this would be chaos and obviously, it would damage aspects of the economy as a whole, promote a general mistrust, and so forth. If I do not want to will that everyone steal, then, I cannot will that for one particular individual. Obligations and duties would be defined in this framework such that I ought to have turned my coworker in. Where the consequentialist framework left me in a position where I had to say that someone's happiness was being compromised, there was not a set of obligations built into the framework. While I could see that the rule utilitarianism justified my own not wanting to steal, it did not lead me to the point where I felt obliged to turn someone else who was doing it. Where there are rights and obligations attached to a moral framework, the outcomes are different. With deontological ethics, I am in a position where I have a duty to turn them in because of my obligation toward the whole or the universal. Virtue ethics is associated with the goal oriented theory of morality established by Aristotle. According to Aristotle, ethics must be established with a clear sense of the aims of human existence, that is, when do set out to accomplish a task, we do so with the end of doing that task well-- we aim at the good. Further, he argues that if all actions aim at some end, some ends are for the sake of themselves and some ends are for the sake of another goal. He privileges the aim of "happiness"[Perry, 1993, p. 614] as an aim which is done for its own sake. In other words, we might strive to make money in order to afford goods and leisure time, but, the aim of these latter are for the sake of happiness. That is, the aim of earning money, is for the further aim of purchasing goods, but the aim of purchasing goods or freedom (time) is for the end of achieving happiness. So, if there is no aim beyond happiness, then, this is the most clear goal for human existence for Aristotle. Aristotle has a much more definite view of what constitutes happiness, and this is linked with his notion of virtue: "happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue" [Perry, 1993, p. 616]. Virtue is synonymous with "excellence" [Perry, 1993, p. 616] for Aristotle, and he expands on this notion by arguing that it is a concept that correlates with the development of the potentialities of the nature of man, and since man is essentially a rational animal, the good for man is an activity of the soul which behaves in accordance with reason [Perry, 1993, p. 616]. He further defines such rational activity as the mean between extremes: virtue is concerned with passions and actions, in which excess is a form of failure, and so is defect, while the intermediate is praised and is a “form of success”, therefore, virtue is a kind of mean and one that aims at what is “intermediate"[Perry, 1993, p. 621]. In relation to my coworker, she was unquestionably not acting with virtue. Her passions were driven by greed and by contrast, a moderate or mean behaviour would be to simply take the income from the organization and not an income that derived from an 'excess'. In terms of my own dilemma over whether to whistle blow on this particular individual, this ethical framework, I cannot say that I was acting in accordance with virtue by not telling on her. The virtue in the work situation, would have been based on a definition of excellence defined by my job role within the organization. Acting with an aim of excellence, I would have unquestionably had to turn her in. When we do a task or meet an obligation, a virtuous one would be to aim to do that according to the very best of our abilities. Within an organizational framework, I was not aiming at excellence as prescribed by the organization, and therefore, I was not being virtuous – and, neither was my coworker. Cognitive bias had a lot to do with my decision. In thinking about the consequences to myself as opposed to others, I decided in this dilemma not to tell on my friend. While there was the lingering ethical question over whether I should be a whistle-blower, that was the only consequence to me. The greater consequence was to the employer who I had no particular like for, and it is a cognitive bias because: “people tend to choose the alternative that they personally prefer rather than the one that is more just” [chpt 5, p. 134]. I was younger then, and had a more “conventional” rather than a “post conventional or principled” [chpt 5, p. 126] approach to ethical dilemmas. I was aware enough to know that I did not want to do what my coworker was doing, which is why it is at least a 'conventional' cognitive perspective. However, I did not really weigh the 'greater good', or what I would have wanted to will universally, or, what qualified as a virtuous action. A more advanced sense of justice and right conduct is a post-conventional cognitive sense, and I had neither been exposed to these ideas, and I did not come up with any of these concepts on my own. That said, the cognitive bias within me did make this a personal decision. I liked the person who was stealing even though I did not like what she was doing. I separated the person from their actions in this sense. Further, it is a problem of cognitive bias because I did not like the way the employer treated me. Again, I did not see any question of justice in the abstract, but only saw the situation in terms of how I viewed the coworker and in turn, the employer. Further, the consequences were entirely focused on personal reasons. I knew that the consequences were negative for the employer, and potentially for my coworker, but because I was not doing the stealing I did not associate any consequences with myself. I learned a great deal about my dilemma in this analysis. While I knew it was wrong, I had a conventional sense of the situation. I had no tools to think abstractly about what was right even though I knew that what the person was doing was wrong. Using the framework of deontological ethics, I now look at what is universal or what kind of society I want to live in. I most definitely not want to live in a world where it was permissible for everyone to steal, and so I would have acted differently as I would in future situations like this. If I had to go back in time, I would have let the employer know about the coworker, and likewise, in the future, I understand how much cognitive bias plays or influences moral decisions. In the future, I will have a much higher regard than just myself and aim to evaluate moral decisions on more postconventional notions like the 'greater good for the greater number', and the 'categorical imperative' which says that one should not will for the individual what they do not will for everyone universally. With a framework or two, I feel like I can now better evaluate moral situations and make a choice or decision based on 'reason' rather than my own personal 'cognitive bias'. Works Cited: Perry, John and Bratman, Michael (Ed.). 1993. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press. Course Readings. Chapter 5. A PERSONAL ETHICAL PROBLEM APPROACHED THROUGH DIFFERENT ETHICAL MODELS OR FRAMEWORKS. Read More