The Moral Obligation of Duty - Case Study Example

The situation in which Jim finds himself is entirely within the limits of what a person in his position could anticipate in advance (Pollock, 2003, p 150). Each vocation has certain conditions within which professionals are expected to act. An FBI agent is trained to deal with people of questionable morals and with situations in which members of the public are in danger of some commercial loss. Jim would have been trained by the FBI to work undercover. The latter has the fundamental aim of witnessing and recording a criminal transaction with the objective of collecting conclusive evidence.

The task assigned to Jim must have the principal objective of collecting evidence that can be produced before a jury in a court of law. Jim's action in the situation under review is to act on behalf of his employers the FBI and to do everything that can reasonably be expected of him, to further the aims of his employers. Jim is obligated to fulfill the task given to him by his superior officers in the FBI. Jim would have a binding contract of employment that enjoins him to discharge his given responsibilities and tasks.

The principle for any person working undercover for a law enforcement agency of the government is that he or she must strive to collect incriminating evidence against the person under surveillance-Peter in this specific example.Supporting arguments The FBI has adequate resources and contacts with stock market authorities and financial institutions to ensure that people cheated by stockbrokers under suspicion are protected from permanent and major harm. The situation that Jim finds himself in with respect to Peter and the women would not be without precedent with respect to the FBI's operating procedures.

Agents such as Jim would have systems of both periodic and emergency contacts with support staff and with people to who they are responsible within the organization. Jim would probably have real-time audio contact with the FBI, given the conventional state of electronic surveillance technology. It is therefore unlikely that the woman chosen by Jim to appease Peter as far as selecting a victim is concerned, would come to any permanent material harm (Pollock, 2003, p 197). The choice before Jim to ask Peter to cheat all the women is more likely to arouse the criminal stock broker's doubts that Jim perhaps represents a law enforcement agency, and make Peter take guard.

The damage to the victims would also be greater in this alternative, albeit it might only be transient, based on the arguments presented earlier. Therefore, it is better to select one victim, than to ask Peter to cheat all the women.