When presented with an ethical dilemma, we are forced to choose between one or more choices, none of which fix the issue in line with generally recognized moral standards. In an ethical dilemma, a person is required to make a decision that is at odds with society standards, such as the law or religious beliefs, as well as with their own internal moral perceptions of good and evil.
Today’s reality has obviously produced ethical conundrums around information access and privacy due to the corporate sector’s reliance on digital communications. While working at a firm during the summer, I once found myself in a circumstance where I had to access information from a partner’s laptop when he was out of the office. I used to be friends with him, and he previously gave me the data to access his laptop if necessary. During this situation, I learned that he was saving customers’ personal information on the computer, which was obviously against corporate policy.
Putting this dilemma into the ethical systems is important in revising the previous action and how it will possibly change after the process. The consequentialist framework, the responsibility framework, and the virtue framework are the three major frameworks that help people make ethical decisions (Bostyn et al., 2018). No one of the three ideas is flawless; if it were, a perfect theory would have long since displaced other flawed theories from the field, even if each of the three ideas helps make ethical judgments.
The future effects of potential acts are what consequentialism focuses on, taking into account the individuals who will be directly or indirectly impacted. In a particular circumstance, outcomes are desired, and it is crucial to remember that acting ethically will provide the best results (Bostyn et al., 2018). In this situation, stored data can be used for identity theft or other illegal activities with dire repercussions. The people whose information the manager saved could become victims if he is not made aware of the situation. There was no indication or sign that the information would be exploited, yet even vile deeds may have positive effects on individuals.
When it comes to the framework of duty, the emphasis is on the responsibilities and obligations we have in a particular circumstance while taking into account the ethical requirements that have been put out. This concept also emphasizes doing the right thing no matter what happens; therefore, it leaves room for someone to act morally even if the outcome is not good (Turner & Passmore, 2018). The retention and storage of consumer card information in this case clearly violate both corporate policy and customer privacy, which has an impact on the ethical obligation. Employees must notify management of policy infractions according to the company’s code of ethics. As a result, according to the ethical responsibility of reporting, it is required to do so even if the colleague is a friend.
The aim while discussing the virtue system is to pinpoint personal qualities that might inspire in a certain circumstance. Because a person is concerned with his character and what others would think of him as a result of his behavior. This approach permits the diversity of human experience, but it also makes moral quandaries more challenging to answer because there may frequently be more dispute about virtues than moral behavior (Turner & Passmore, 2018). It is morally right and righteous in the current circumstance to maintain the secret and not identify the coworker. Since a colleague trusted me with his computer data, this will keep both the virtue of trust as well as the reliability of friendship.
In response to the situation, my actions were aimed at getting the common good for both company and my colleague. I told the company’s manager about the whole situation, and eventually, the colleague was not fired but got a warning. The key point of the action was to be in line with the company’s code of ethics and, at the same time, show the wrongdoing of the colleague’s action to himself.
When looking at the course of action taken in relation to the aforementioned ethical frameworks, the duty ethical system would probably claim it as moral and rightful. The key idea is the emphasis on obligation and duties and the long-term consequences (Bostyn et al., 2018). In the given situation, the logic was to be in line with duties stated in the company’s ethical guidelines, as well as the possible long-term consequences of a colleague’s actions. Even though the moral outcome for the colleague/friend was not good, the key factor was the obligation to the company’s codes and guidelines. Therefore, the duty framework is probably fitting the best in deeming the morality of the action taken.
After analyzing the situation and ethical dilemma faced, I would not change the overall idea of the actions taken. However, I would probably first speak to the colleague privately, trying to convince him of the fact of his wrongdoing and appealing to the virtue framework. This will be, arguably, the best approach to handle this dilemma. Overall, the ethical dilemma faced showed the multiple approaches that can be applied and different strategies for how to get out of the situation.
References
Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084-1093.
Turner, E., & Passmore, J. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and tricky decisions: A global perspective of coaching supervisors’ practices in ethical decision-making. International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 16(1), 126-142.