Life consists of making choices on a daily basis. The choice one makes is both right and wrong at the same time depending on a specific situation. Regardless what choice a person makes, it will be the right one for that person. Nevertheless, there exist a range of general standards, which label one’s choice as being “right” or “wrong”. According to the definition, ethics is “... is well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards.” (Velasquez et al. 2010). Morality has a very thin line, which entitles humans to make a choice in favor of humanity and reason, rather than impulses and instincts. Nevertheless, being moral and ethical does not always seems to be the right thing to do, especially when there are so many influencing factors, which put the moral reasons and the outcome of an action under a question (Velasquez et al. 2010). This paper discusses the resolution of two situations, which have an ethical dilemma from three perspectives: from the strictly legal viewpoint, a moral and ethical viewpoint, and what is best in the long run for the company.
The first situation exposes one to taking the actions in relation to the top-secret information of a competitor sent by a disgruntled employee. Of course, in such situation there are two derivative implications of actions: either use it, or lose it. Taking a look at the situation from the legal point of view, one might consider the consequences of actions both on a short and a long run. From legal point of view, using the top-secret information, which in addition was not supposed to get into your hands, is completely illegal, even though such mistake was someone else’s. On short run, usage of this information might corrupt the whole competitive system on the market, which might lead to the loss of the reputation of the company and decrease in customers as a result. On the long run, the competing company might undertake strong measures and pull charges against the company in stealing the secrets of the opponent. Defending the interests of the company, the opponents would set up the irresponsible employee as a spy and win this case. For such a reason, the best solution will be simply to delete the file with all the information, send an updating memo to the unfortunate employee about the status of the deletion of the information, and never mention it to anyone in your office.
Second, taking a look at the situation from the perspective of morality and ethics dictates to take similar actions. It is obvious that on a long run, soon after realizing that the employee of the competitor company has made such a mistake, the person will have to report their actions. Therefore, this person will get fired for such an irresponsible action and get replaced for another person. In such a case, the future of this employee will be on the conscience of the receiver. It will be simply unethical to use the mishappening of one person for the benefit of another one. In addition, if anyone finds out that the reason of the success of a company was a simple coincidence of an irresponsible employee from the opposing company, it might decrease the reputation of the company, which might lose the consumers and their faith in the integrity of the company. Therefore, the most reasonable choice would be send the information back without letting anyone know about what has happened, in such a way keeping the place for the employee, continuing a healthy, honest and useful competition between the companies.
Nevertheless, taking into consideration the success of the company, one has to consider trying to use the information. In pursuing such, one contributes to the development of the company in order to win over the competitor might at first seem as a very attractive option for many reasons. First of all, it gives an advantage in analyzing the technology of the company and boosting more innovative ideas, which will help to synthesize a better product by reaching onto the next level. Second, in such a way a company will be on a better exposure for satisfying the customer, as well as grasp the garland on the market. The company recuperates the triumph over the competitor and makes it ahead in the business, leading the other companies behind.
The second situation touches both economical and moral issues. The problem is to choose between the installation of the chemical scrubber facility for the people, who live next to the enterprise, or choose not to, as the EPA regulations of the company do not go over the norms. Addressing such question requires very close consideration of all the aspects of the situation, as it implies not only the consequences for the budget of the company’s pocket, but also the health issues of many potential customers. First, taking into consideration the legal aspect of this situation, one has study all the cases, which fall under the law in this area. First of all, according to the results of the EPA regulations the level if the pollution is satisfactory and no law was violated. Nonetheless, the plant exposes the people, living close to the plant with some chemical pollution. Of course, installing the scrubber would cost the company a lot of money. The people, who complain about their health issues due to the chemical bulking, should not bother the company, as no one forces them to live on this territory.
Second, the moral and ethical approach would suggest the company to go over the budget and find the money to build the scrubber system for removing the pollutants and ash for the sake of the health of the people, who live close to the plant. Analyzing the working process of the company, not only the law and the customer services are important. Such aspects as the quality of the working conditions and taking care of the environment are as well important. Not only these aspects set the mark on the reputation of the company, but also on the long run help taking care about the future of the plant, its workers, the people and the nature, as well as it will be right from the ethical and moral perspectives.
Third, taking into consideration the conditions of the case the best way for the company on the long run would be keeping to work on the same pace, without spending $1 million on a scrubber system for a few reasons. First of all, it is an expensive purchase, which is also very fragile and needs to constantly taken care of, which requires also extra money, which need to be counted into the budget of the company. Second, for now the levels of the chemical bulking into the atmosphere are below EPA regulations, which make the activities of the plant completely legal. As a results, there is no urgent need in this expensive scrubber system, which will be needing replacement every few years anyway. Thinking about the people, the company might lose less money if would buy the territory where the complaining individuals live, in such a way expanding the place for new construction, as well as resolving the health issues.
In conclusion, this exercise has shown that the decision of a person depends on the perspective one places it on. In addition, the goals and the forecasting of the consequences are also the requirements of the decision making process. Also, the decision made from the ethical perspective might look better or worse, and differently if taken from the perspective of the common good, and vice versa. This shows that the decision making process is a complex analysis of the implications from various perspectives, which require to take the most optimal option.