Ethical Dilemma under the Category of Saying Things That Are Not True, While You Know They Are Not True - Essay Example

It is evidently clear from the discussion that from a philosophical dimension, the action to be taken should follow the doctrine of utilitarianism. Drawing on this doctrine, the action to be taken should be that which is of benefit to the greatest number of people. Hence, considering our case, the appropriate action would be to testify that there was no sign in place. In this case, the insurance company would compensate the client who would, of course, benefit together with her family. Neither the supermarket nor the employees would experience the loss.

From a legal perspective, it would be necessary to follow the established rules of a country. Under this perspective, rules are meant to promote justice and order. The most appropriate action to take under this perspective would be to stick to the principles and let the lawyer sue such that the case can be determined in a court of law. In trying to solve ethical dilemmas, individuals often use rationalizations or try to justify their actions rather than logically analyzing the situation. The following are some of the rationalizations that can occur in Jenny’s case.

Here, we assume that since our decisions have no apparent harm to anyone, then it is rational to act upon them. For example, it is possible to assume that since it is the insurance company that will pay the compensation, then there is no harm to anyone. However, as Jennings notes, there is still harm in doing so. This is also a possible rationalization. This is possible especially if the supermarket’s culture accommodates such practices. For instance, the supermarket may have had other cases involving customers which were all solved through unethical means such as corrupting officials.

As a manager, one may be tempted to seal the deal with the attorney to avoid further consequences.