Ethics

Pat is a worker who has been entrusteda secret of the company,hasadilemmaof answering her close friends question. The question is noteasyto answer. If Pat have confidedto me,I could have just answered to her what I believeisright however, that is not theright way to solve her problem. In her situation, there are many things to consider. She is facing ethical issue that needs to be resolved in an ethical or the most moral way.The question is, how will she determine what is moral and what is notHow will she answer her friends question without sacrificing the other Or is it possible nottosacrificeanything or anyoneGiven that she has many considerations toweigh and then it is best to follow prescriptionsof Linda Klebe TrevioandKatherine A. Nelson (2007) on managing business ethics.
The case study presented two sets of possible ethicalproblems within the workplace. The first one is the relationship between the boss and Pat and the second is the relationship between Pat and her close friend. Considering that Pathas an option not todisclose thelay-offto other co-workerbecause they are her subordinates and this is an organizational issue between two people with higher positions, she still facedwith a dilemmaof her close friends question, who is also an old workerof the company.
That question from a friend made her choose between not hurting her friend and the companys secret. This calls for Pats wise and quick decision regarding her problem. But let us give Pat a chance to have a moment to think about this and help her out.

Pat must make a noble decision.Her answer mustbe in a manner that is fairforthe company, her friend,and for her.To be able to answer this, let usdeal upon four ethical considerations. Let us deliberate her possible answers from a prescriptive approach. This is an approachwhere we can derive the answer of Pat from four ethical theories in philosophy.These theories (Utilitarianism, the Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative by Kant, and Virtue Ethics) apt to answer,analyze, and materialize Patsresponse.

First, let usderivePatsanswer from aUtilitarianApproach.Utilitarianism is aconsequentialisttheorythatbasedits decisions for the end purpose or goal(Nelson and Trevio). The foundation of its decision is for the end result that adheresfor the maximumbenefitsof thesociety meaning, this approach choosesgood consequences over bad for the sake of the society.

This perspective requires people to think not just about their own good, or theorganization, or the family, butit actually requires people to think broadly for the goodness of thesociety(Nelson and Trevio).Let us say that Pat had thought of the pros and cons of the situation,and thenfound out that there were more cons or negative effectsto her, the company and other workers,her decision will be nottoanswer her friend, neither tell anything about the situation.On the contrary, adhering sternly to theutilitarianismapproach requires more time tothink of the pros and cons or theconsequences.

Another thing is that sometimesconsequentialismneglects theminority. This opens another possibility, like what if the same thing happened to Pat Or what if she belongs to the minority
Since we have given Pat her answer, will she stop hereWhat if the situation was reversedWhat ifthis happened to herWill she find the utilitarian approachconsiderable enough or acceptable Then let us look into another perspective.Just because Pat is an old friend her duty is to be honest to her friend. Pat shouldbeloyal and honest, especially if she knowsaboutthe lay-off.

Duty is recognized through the perspective deontology. Duty, which comes from a Greek worddeonis a perspective that base decisions to what is right on broad, abstract universal ethical principles or values such as honesty, promise keeping, fairness, loyalty, rights (to safety, privacy, etc.), justice, compassion, and respect for persons and property. Therefore, some actions would be considered wrong even if the consequences of the actions were good(Nelson andTrevio).The Golden Rule thatprovides animportant deontological guide,Do unto others as you would have them do unto you(Nelson and Trevio)directs Pat into another decision.If Pat will decide through this, she will answer her friend. However it must be noted that the golden rule only adheres to moral premisesor good and ethicalbasis, otherwise golden rule must not be used.

For example, if the situation is that a man committed a crime, he then requested his friend to cover him from the crime. Even though they are friends, the friend must not remain loyal the duty of the friend is to uphold morality and fairness. The premise of the golden rule in a situation is that a highly ethical person will not ask a friend not to abide the law or go against the law because the ethical person would be responsible and would accept the consequences of his or her actions (Nelson  Trevio). But in Pats case, since her friend only demands her answer, assuming that the friend did not do anything wrong to the company, then it is favorable for Pat to tell about the lay-off.

On the other hand, Pat must consider another perspective that is also based on duties, which is thecategorical imperativethat Emanuel Kant suggested.This philosophy suggests,Act as if themaximsof thy action wereto become by thywill a universal law of nature(Nelson andTrevio). Considering categorical imperative when making decisions tells a person to determine whether his or her actions may be considered, or passed as significant for everybody else to follow, for this reason, a person might as well ask if what she or he will be doing can be considered principled and included in the universal law (Nelson and Trevio). If not, then it will not be favorable to a categorical imperative belief. If Pat tells her friend about it, it can lessen her credibility as an employee and if telling her friend would mean a lot of trouble for the company, then this only means that Pat should not answer to her friend because she will break her promise to the company.

The ethical philosophy implies that Pats duty as a friend is not an excuse for not telling secrets. Therefore an effective way of utilizing this deontological principle is that Pat should ask herself before to acting. What if all employees do the same, how will the company grow , Who will the company trust if everyone acted this way or made this kind of decision (Nelson and Trevio). Thus, it is her duty to keep that promise. How will Pat resolve this issue

Pat should decide using Veil of Ignorance. This is a hypothetical veil which pertains to a belief that willpush you to obtain decisionsthat are fair, as proposed by American philosopher John Rawls (Nelson andTrevio). This veil of ignorance has no personal biases which will make fair judgments that donot disadvantage peopledue to making decisions. It is like arriving at themost objective decisions(Rawls, 1971). John Rawls suggested that everybody should be equal in the eyes of the other, meaning identities, status, gender, physical aspects, ethnicity, position, or anything about the person that is not seen, all of these things are transparent under the hypothetical veil of ignorance (Rawls, 1971).

In view of that, Pat must use this veil if she still wonders whether to tell the truth to her friend or not, because this is her friends fate. IfPat believes that she can save her friend then she must tell the truth. Some deontological principles must not be regarded as the total decision, like telling the truth and keeping a promise, just like what Kant said- this can be violated because of another principle that has a good reason(Rachels).

The philosophies presented above gave a justifiable and objective reaction or answer that Pat may deliver to her close friend employee. But, overall this issue just means that the ethical consideration that one person shall deliver must still be based on her moral views. Like virtue ethics implies, Pats answer will be deliberated upon herbutnot on the moral act itself. This is a question of integrity, thus it is up to Patto what extent she will choose to uphold her principles.

Virtue ethics, which is a traditional philosophy since Aristotle, is still used by most business ethicists(Solomon, 1988) willsuggest in Pats situation that her actions still depend upon her character, motivations of telling or not telling, and intentions why not to tell and why tell(Nelson and Trevio)to her friend about the lay-off. This suggests that Pat and her decision have a right to be questioned. Her decision should not be judged, what matters is that what drove her to do so. Meaning, if she chooses one from the other then it is because she has her reasons.

In conclusion, Pats incident is not a rare case this happens to many people.It is important for people toknow the theories that will be useful to them. People must have foundation on ethical philosophies.It is important also that people evaluate every answer or actions toward the others. There are certain standards that existin community that must be followed. This means that it is important to knoweachpersonsethical responsibility. It is important to uphold principle and integrity for the goodness of everybody.

It is also important to know that these philosophical approaches are just few of the many approaches that one can use. These approaches also have their own limitations, meaning none of them can tell a person what she or he will actually do in a situation. These theories do not have the same approaches either, though one of them or even two from the four approaches can relatively solve the problem or loosen the strain that the situation causes. Since that is the case, the philosophical approaches will serve therefore as prescriptions to Pat.