Should Patricia Dunn Have Been Forced to Resign - Term Paper Example

Should Patricia Dunn have been forced to resign? Investigators perform a variety of tasks for different and different reasons. Today, a greatdeal of information is available via databases of public and private records. There is no truth to the thought that databases have all of the information, nor are they as accurate as an investigator needs them to be. There is an art to investigating that has been with us since the earliest beginnings, and it is sometimes the most valuable tool in our lives. This is commonly referred to as pretexting. Pretexting is a crime and is often described as identity theft. Thus the notion that it is used for good has no relevance anymore. In simple terms, pretexting is lying, plain and simple. It has been successful and popular because it is discreet and innovative as well. Pretexting is an old art for that is much like martial arts. It has been refined and adapted to modern uses. Like martial arts, it is a weapon that is kept secret, is not for everyone and is used to spar with our enemy to ultimately win. It is also a weapon that is dangerous in the wrong hands or when misunderstood and misused. This investigative technique is constantly under attack and is now essentially illegal for most common uses and investigative needs. Regardless of the intent, it is illegal to conduct investigations using these techniques as Patricia Dunn had done. Similarly, martial arts were a direct result of traditional fighting methods being made illegal. There are several ethical issues to investigations, and particularly pretexting. Given the nature of pretexting, for instance, verbal telephone scams, impersonation or computer generated checks, the related rise in identity theft, and carelessness on the part of some less scrupulous colleagues, key components and methods used in pretexting have become illegal. Pretexting should be avoided either directly or indirectly in investigations (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003). There is always that time, as in the case of Patricia Dunn, when a piece of information is vital to have and pretexting is thought to be necessary, because it is for a good cause or purpose. One question that should bother people is: is bending a rule or two the right thing to do? The obvious answer is a nay. That is exactly what contributes to the past and current overzealous enactment of legislation. Technology today, for instance, automated phone number captures, instantaneous record updates; have one significant thing in common: they create a permanent record. For example, the old trick of calling the customer as telephone company representative for information may seem harmless. Calling the telephone company as the customer with a billing problem creates a record that may have a negative impact on the customer. There are many pretexts that have been used in print and on television. We should never consider using any of those; simply because of the methods, others because of the originating purpose. Like magicians, most investigators never reveal the best tricks or turn on their colleagues, while others purposely paint the worst image possible for several reasons, usually greed or a legal deal. The reason why same tricks are used is simple; the investigators want to shock the public. Many people do not want to hurt an important case messing up; they therefore decide to do something illegal. These people, like Patricia Dunn should avoid this illegal practice. Instead they should be observant and they will be amazed at what they learn and begin to develop for their own use. Instead of pretext, they will learn ways their companies can legally help them. Turn what was a pretext into a resource and tool that is now legal. Companies are beginning to learn that they need to help each other, and pretexting is truly not needed anymore (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003). The correct behavior is typically thought to reside above behavior require by the law. It should be clear noted however, that in several respects the ethics and law overlap. To appreciate this, Patricia Dunn need to recognize that the law embodies notions of ethics. That is, the law may be seen as a reflection of what society thinks are minimal standards of conduct and behavior. Both law and ethics have to do with what is deemed appropriate or acceptable, but law reflects society’s codified ethics. Therefore, if Patricia Dunn has broken the law or has violated a regulation, she is behaving unethically. The society should be open to the possibility, however, that in some rare cases the law may not be ethical, in which case standing up to the law might be the principled course of action (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003). In spite of this frequent overlap between law and ethics, the society continues to talk about desirable ethical behavior as behavior that extends beyond what is required by law. Viewed from the standpoint of minimums, the society would certainly say that obedience to the law is generally regarded to be a minimum standard of ethical behavior. In ethics scandal involving Patricia Dunn, the company’s lawyers had concluded that pretexting was legal but did not pay much attention to whether the technique was ethical. However, doing pretexting illegally should not be encouraged. It is important to note that the law does not address all realms in which ethical questions might be raised. Thus, there are clear roles for both law and ethics to play. Patricia Dunn should know that illegal corporate behavior, of course, comprises business practices that are in direct defiance of law or public policy (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003) . When Patricia Dunn made a decision about what is good using the conventional approach, there was room for variability on several accounts. Three key elements compose such a decision. First, the society observes the decision, action, or practice that has been committed in the workplace setting. Second, the society compares the practice with prevailing norms of acceptability-that is; society’s or some other standard of what is acceptable or unacceptable. Third, the society must recognize that value judgments are being made by Patricia Dunn as to what really occurred and what the prevailing norms of acceptability really are. This means that two different people could look at the same behavior or practice, compare it with their beliefs of what the prevailing norms are, and reach different conclusions as to whether the behavior was ethical or not. This becomes quite complex as perceptions of what is ethical inevitably lead to the difficult task of ranking different values against one another (Sarathy and Robertson, 2003). If the society can put aside for a moment the fact that perceptual differences about an incident does exist, and the fact that we might differ among ourselves because of our personal values and philosophies of acceptable behavior, the society is still left with the problematic task of determining society’s prevailing norms of acceptability of business practice. As a whole, members of society generally agree a every high level of abstraction the Patricia Dunn’s behaviors were wrong. However, the consensus tends to disintegrate as we move from general to specific situations (Scarre, 1996). Patricia Dunn may have thought that her actions were good. It should be noted that according to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on the theory of utilitarianism, and individual should only get involved in those acts that bring pleasure to other people. Patricia’s acts of pretexting could have actually led to massive damage to the company since crucial information could have been leaked to the media. Utilitarians have also devoted careful attention to the analysis of happiness, and while many believe that it involves more than the attainment of pleasant experiences and the avoidance of painful ones, specific accounts of it vary. Some, particularly those influenced by developments in economics and decision theory, have concentrated altogether the idea of happiness as the proper goal of moral action (Scarre, 1996). Conclusion Based on the moral good of everyone and actions that bring happiness to all, it was right for the Hewlett-Packard to sack Patricia Dunn. A worthwhile activity specifically, is in accordance with human excellences of mind and character, rather than in pleasant amusements; happiness, more over, is more properly ascribed to life as a whole; a life exhibiting a certain structured and successful directedness on suitable ends than to individual phases of it. The utilitarian theory also states that morally right decisions and actions were those which promoted happiness. It is true that Patricia’s actions led to more controversies and fears about the leakage of company information to the media. This is very dangerous both to the management and to the business prospects. The utilitarians (JS Mill and J Bentham) believed that the happy and moral person is the one who pays close attention to his or her self development, who works hard to improve his talents, refine his tastes and increase his sympathies, In short, a person who desires the conformity of his own character to his standard of excellence. Morality should conform to the greatest happiness principle and should consist of the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments (Scarre, 1996). References Sarathy R.; Robertson C.J. (2003). “Strategic and Ethical Considerations in Managing Digital Privacy”. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2), 111-126. Scarre G (1996). Utilitarianism. London, Routledge. Pp 1-10. Read More