Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Dilemma/Topic

A person whom you know closely, such as a friend or a relative, is known for their high-conflicting personality. However, their actions do not harm you, and their help is crucial for your success. Is it acceptable not to antagonize the behavior of this person if their efforts benefit you?

Thesis statement/position

I will propose my point of view based on utilitarian values, therefore, the primary choice will be to punish one’s wrongdoings if they bring less total good than harm. If the consequences of actions of this high-conflicting person lead to more damage, it is my duty to prevent them from occurring. However, it might be more beneficial to take a position of inaction and avoid antagonizing a person whose assistance is crucial for my success without causing significant losses for others.

Argument 1

The primary reason for the potential ignorance of one’s wrongdoing is the positive consequences of their actions that outweigh the total harm they bring.

Objection 1

Others may point out that the cost-benefit tradeoff, in this case, will be valued by a person who directly benefits from inaction, making them more likely to choose inaction over following the norms of society. Acceptance of harmful actions is easier to make when there is no direct harm involved for a person who makes judgment (Gawronski & Beer, 2016).

Rebuttal 1

People in these situations have to make judgments based on their perception of potential consequences. It is not possible for them to make completely objective decisions, as there is a personal interest involved for all sides of the conflict. Mulgan (2014) argues that “moral outlooks that are too demanding, impersonal, or alien could not be effectively internalised by human beings” (p. 53).

Argument 2

The rule-based reasoning can be inapplicable when the person has to deal with misconduct related to their friends or relatives.

Objection 2

The ignorance of rules can lead to an increased chance for an adverse outcome. Using Kantian and deontological ethics allows the person to avoid taking a portion of responsibility for the mistakes of others and decreases the overall non-compliant behavior (Hess et al., 2019).

Rebuttal 2

Deontological ethics do not include interpersonal relationships and the long-term effects of such an action on the well-being of all involved sides. The study by Hess et al. (2019) shows that the “most commonly chosen pathways to resolving a friend‐reporting dilemma do not involve compliance” (p. 561).

Argument 3

The consequences of one’s actions play a crucial role in the moral decision-making process since they cause a response from the society that defines the need for correction.

Objection 3

Despite the perceived benefit for society, a person can choose not to adhere to societal norms due to the lack of concern regarding others. The importance of an adverse outcome for others will decrease, and motivation to comply with the rules of society will plummet once personal gains are involved (Hirsh et al., 2018).

Rebuttal 3

A person is more likely to make a choice against their relative if there is a strong influence from the community. There is a positive link between social connectedness and a preference for the greater good among people who are involved in moral dilemmas (Lucas & Livingston, 2014).

Any additional points

Most of the studies regarding this topic review it from the position of an organization that aims to prevent ethical misconduct and failures to report such cases among their employees properly. This proposal focuses on personal relationships instead of organizational culture.

References

Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2016). Social Neuroscience, 1-7. Web.

Hess, M. F., Treviño, L. K., Chen, A., & Cross, R. (2019). . Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(4), 546-562. Web.

Hirsh, J. B., Lu, J. G., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018). . Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 43-59. Web.

Lucas, B. J., & Livingston, R. W. (2014). . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 1-4. Web.

Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding utilitarianism. Routledge.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, July 2). Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-benefiting-from-high-conflicting-personality/

Work Cited

"Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality." IvyPanda, 2 July 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-benefiting-from-high-conflicting-personality/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality'. 2 July.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality." July 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-benefiting-from-high-conflicting-personality/.

1. IvyPanda. "Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality." July 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-benefiting-from-high-conflicting-personality/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality." July 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-dilemma-benefiting-from-high-conflicting-personality/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1