Introduction
Human beings are frequently faced with situations that require them to make decisions under prevailing tough conditions. These conditions can be in their professional areas, their social lives or in times of economic difficulties. The ability to clearly define competing choices helps one to make ethical decisions. For one to make correct choices there is a need to recognize important decisions, observe discipline, and take all involved stakeholders into consideration. In addition, clarity of purpose must be emphasized and modifications need to be monitored closely (Lebar pp. 642-650).
The solution to Phoebe’s case
Phoebe committed a copyright crime by plagiarizing somebody’s work. In addition, she failed to be honest with her tutor on her assignment’s status. The first factor to consider in solving an ethical dilemma is the motive behind the actions. An analysis of phoebe’s case indicates that she lacked respect for other people, such as her lecturer and the author of the work she had copied. Her motive behind submitting a plagiarized paper was to ensure that she met the deadline. Although she was sick, she never attempted to inform the concerned lecturer of what was happening to her. Hence, the motive was right but her actions were wrong. All she wanted was to ensure that she had won in both cases, which she never achieved. Her behavior was not based on principle but was based on the personal ego to achieve (Ross Par. 1-6).
To solve the case the council must also consider Phoebe’s rights. In order to protect her rights, the council should not interfere with her applications on the basis of what Phoebe did. What she did was a mistake but her right to access quality education should not be violated, owing to that she was sick and was previously performing highly. Although she violated the school’s rules, it was not guaranteed that the same would be repeated in college.
The council should also consider her degree of honesty without subjecting the integrity and reliability of the school to prejudice. Phoebe’s act was morally unacceptable. However, she admitted and even went ahead to request an apology to the whole school for what she had done. Although it seemed she knew the consequences of what she did, she never took a step of preventing the same, hence she must be held accountable (Ross Para. 8-9).
It is possible that the responsibilities that were vested in her were many and hence, contributed to her failure to meet the deadline. Phoebe was accountable for her action and even took responsibility to acknowledge that it was wrong. These are values, as Ross suggests that should be followed in solving moral dilemmas. Hence, the council should be fair when handling her case (Para 10 -13).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Phoebe, being a student leader, expects some partiality from the board. Hence, impartiality must be avoided although critical consideration must be made on her present situation. In addition, the consequences of the decision have to be considered. If Phoebe is reported to brown university, she stands a chance of losing the offer. Due to her good performance, the council should give her a different punishment of equal magnitude as other students were given (White pp. 1-4). This will help Phoebe to realize the intensity of her mistake, and hence avoid repetition of the same in the future. In addition to punishment, she should be made to repeat the assignment and submit it within a new deadline.
Works Cited
Lebar, M. Virtue Ethics and Deontic Constraints. Ethics 119(4) (2009): 642–671
Ross, L. J. 2008. The Generalized Structure of Moral/Ethical Dilemmas. Web.
White, T. Business ethics: philosophical reader. New York: Macmillan, 1993.