ETHICAL VIGNETTES 4
Often,we face situations that evoke more than one ethical perspective thatneed to be addressed. Such moral dilemma portrays our variedunderstanding of ethics surrounding a case. The vignettes highlightedin the three cases have more than one ethical issue that should beconsidered to ascertain whether the decision made was right or wrong.It is notable that the differences in values, experiences,objectives, and beliefs have great influence on our inclinationtowards a given ethical perspective.
Inthe first case, the bank requires all employees to open an accountwith the company. The move is a policy requirement for all employeesupon their recruitment. It is true that the bank has policies thatmust be followed by the employees. From a legal perspective, thesystem can be challenged by the employees as it infringes theirprivacy and employee rights. Lawsuits may have adverse effects on thebank’s reputation and performance. Legislations guard the interestsof all individuals equally. While the bank is guaranteeing theemployment, it is not supposed to coerce the employees into acceptingthe policy that is not instituted properly. Upon their recruitment,the employees agree to abide by the directive hence the decision isagreeable to the staff. Nonetheless, the policy hinders the employeesfrom undertaking their personal wishes, by opening an account at thebank of their choice. Compelling the employees to open accounts withthe bank is morally wrong as the employees have the free will on howthey should have their money. What matters most is to examine whetherthe bank is losing anything by eliminating. The bank is wrong when itsays that the employees who do not abide by the directive will facedisciplinary action. Conversely, duty ethics requires the employeesto abide by the policies formulated by their organization. Ethically,the policy is not wrong as the employees are informed about thedirective before their employment.
Inthe second case, an office administrator is using the social media toexpress her emotions in the workplace. Her Facebook posts are read bythe employer who gets dissatisfied with the nature of the messagepassed by the lady. From a legal perspective, the lady is right asshe does not mention the name of the company or the boss hence theposts do not offend anyone. Still, no one is disallowed to expresshis or her emotions on Facebook as long as they abide by theplatform’s rules of communication. Morally, the lady was wrong inher actions as the message was intended for the place of work. She islikely to portray a negative image of the employer hence ruin thereputation. It would have been morally right for the lady to expressher dissatisfaction through the right channels. Cyber-loafinggenerates ethical implications where one must observe the privacy andcontent of information. The employer cyber-stalked the officeadministrator hence intruded the privacy of the employee. The messageon Facebook informed his decision to terminate the lady’s servicesto the firm. Still, the lady was ethically wrong to post a messagethat put the organization bad light. Losing a job hurts the employeeand the dependents hence the action is not beneficial. Further, theemployer will have to recruit another individual to fill the gap.
Inthe third case, a printer manufacturer uses ‘region coding’ toprotect its business interests. The policy by the firm is legallyright as the practice by other printer manufacturers is not codifiedin any law. As such, the legality of the policy cannot be questionedas the firm has its reasons for using the approach. Morally, it iswrong for the company to negate from the conventional practice agreedby the manufacturers. The company appears to protect its interestswithout regarding the implications on their competitors andconsumers. It is wrong for the company to prevent consumers frombuying cartridge ink at lower prices from other regions. The usersneed to have the free will to choose or buy products at reasonableprices and place. It is ethically right for the manufacturer to adoptthe policy since it protects the business interests. According to thecompany, the move allows it to stabilize the prices within thevarious regions. After all, every company has its business objectivesand plans that guide its operations. Nonetheless, the policy may notbe effective in the long-run as the firm is likely to lose clientswho prefer cheaper products.
Inthe last case, I would send the top-secret information to ourcompany`s research department for analysis. I do not believe it iswrong to use the information for the benefit of our company since thedisgruntled employee was not coerced or threatened to reveal theinformation. Our company can use the information as part of marketintelligence hence understands what our competitors are doing.Nonetheless, the matter can be legally-challenged if the company hadalready patented the idea.
Inconclusion, the contest between legal, moral, and ethicalperspectives of a situation or decision creates a dilemma. It may notbe easy be easy to identify whether an action is right or wrongwithout examining the implications for the stakeholders. The threevignettes highlighted above portray the dilemma we face because ofcompeting for ethical principles. We need always to try to elucidateactions that bring optimal benefits to the majority. It is alsoobservable that the legislations and policies created need to observethe fair and legal procedures enshrined in the society.