Background
A case scenario is an effective way to learn ethics and morality. Steve Jobs is an example of a leader who exhibited exemplary ethical conduct. The deontological and consequentialist perspectives could be used to solve ethical scenarios. They could be combined with cognitive moral development alongside the Ethical Lens Inventory to answer moral questions. Through them, a person could make an informed decision, avoiding situations like the blind spot risk.
Nonfictional Leader
Ethical Traits
The selected nonfictional leader is Steve Jobs. Integrity was one of the ethical traits demonstrated by Jobs. Throughout his life, he was a leader of integrity, characterized by his transparency and honesty. As a leader, he was happy to admit mistakes and take responsibility for any shortfalls experienced under his guardianship of Apple (Schwepker et al., 2021). For instance, he quickly acknowledged the antenna’s failure in his iPhone 4 model and sought to compensate the affected customers with free cases.
The second trait I noticed in Jobs was that he was a leader with tranquility and truthfulness. He did not rush after money but ensured that Apple products were efficient. The products’ quality was meant to deliver value to the customers (Metcalf & Moss, 2019). Steve Jobs emphasized the importance of quality over quantity, which led the firm to manufacture highly efficient electronic devices. After Steve Jobs’ death, Apple continued to dominate the tech market due to the company culture he established.
Ethical Conduct Rationale
Steve Jobs exhibited ethical conduct by prioritizing his customers and valuing responsibility. Customer satisfaction was one of his core business values, and he depended on it for long-term success (Knei-Paz & Cohen, 2021). Prioritizing product development meant that Jobs was more concerned about the final product. He needed a product that exceeded the customers’ expectations (Grigoropoulos, 2019). He also had a passion for listening to the feedback that came from the customers, especially comments and opinions. He gathered this information to shape a better user experience.
Deontological and Consequentialist Perspectives
Deontologically, the primary focus is on adhering to moral roles and observing ethical principles. The salesperson adopting a deontological perspective prioritizes the well-being of patients, which includes maintaining transparency and honesty (Metcalf & Moss, 2019). This perspective allows the salesperson to approach the situation from the argument that denying the patient fundamental information is wrong. They need to be aware of the potential risks to make informed decisions (Beresford et al., 2023). Despite the nondisclosure clause, the salesperson would feel morally uncomfortable.
Compared to the actions of a deontologist, a consequentialist is concerned with the results of the actions they take. The consequentialist would first study the situation closely and weigh each outcome carefully before making a decision. Disclosing potential side effects on the population has positive and negative consequences (Schwepker et al., 2021). However, the issue lies in the cost of the artificial knee joint, the healing time required, and the potential for lethal infection it presents. The decision hinges on balancing the two sides of the case.
The side effects of the knee joint in terms of the lethal infection may outweigh the benefits in terms of costs and healing time. When this is the case, the salesperson is obliged to disclose the problem. On the other hand, the benefits of healing time and cost may outweigh the negative effects of the lethal infection (Metcalf & Moss, 2019). When this is the case, the consequentialist may not disclose the negative impact since the overall outcome is positive. Financial and market success for the company is prioritized, as the side effects seem negligible.
Cognitive Moral Levels
The first question seeks to determine which action serves the greater good of society. The question itself is of a post-conventional level. Since the post-conventional level is applied, societal norms are not taken into consideration when answering this question. Moreover, personal interests are often set aside when seeking the greater good (Cassill, 2022). The immediate or present consequences of the action are ignored since the individual is required to think further than that. Therefore, the future situation is envisioned with consideration of the long-term effects.
The welfare of society is the priority. For instance, in the given scenario, the salesperson is likely to consider disclosing the side effects of the artificial knee joint. This is because the salesperson knows the patients must make informed decisions. Instead of choosing for the patients, it is wise and morally right for a post-conventional thinker to let the patients have the information (Schwepker et al., 2021). After the patients are informed, they can decide whether they need an artificial knee joint.
The second question asks the thinker whether they would get into trouble and lose their job by revealing the information. The thinker is on the pre-conventional level at this stage. The motivation for making any decisions at this level is based on self-centeredness (Metcalf & Moss, 2019). Therefore, self-interest, rewards, or possible punishments precede any decision and determine the thinker’s choices. The thinker is filled with fear of negative results, for they want to benefit themselves and prevent any loss.
The third question asks which action would conform to the long-held belief in the principle of justice. The thinker in this question is at the conventional stage of development. Societal expectations, norms, and rules control what individuals choose (Cassill, 2022). Therefore, the community or society gives the laws and the morality. Culture is at the center stage. The principle of justice is the focus since it already has some expectations regarding character. The thinker considers societal obligations, which can be either positive or negative in nature.
The thinker does not think for themselves and is led by what is dictated by the principle of justice. Such a thinker’s established expectations and obligations may require them to disclose the information. However, in other cases, society’s regulations may not require them to disclose such information (Eraldemir-Tuyan, 2019). Therefore, there is no choice for the thinker to make but to follow what has been laid down. In this case, the person may be judged as having made the wrong or right decision since the expectation is already known.
The fourth question seeks to establish the voice of the law and what action a law-abiding citizen would take. The thinker is in the cognitive stage. The primary focus in this stage is the law and the social order required (Cassill, 2022). Therefore, whatever the law stipulates is followed, regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong. The law is meant to maintain some social order as the community desires. Societal obligations and norms are said to have been followed and upheld by individuals who obey the law.
In the case scenario, the salesperson would only disclose information about potential side effects if the law compels them to do so. Nonetheless, they are not under any obligation to disclose (Tamir & Bar-Eli, 2021). On the other hand, if the law does not require them to disclose, they would not. The only thing that makes the person act is avoiding the legal consequences (Bietti, 2020). The question here seeks to determine whether the person would receive some reward (Werner, 2020). The level in this stage is conventional; if the thinker does not reveal, they may get promoted or given some incentive, and in such a situation, they do not disclose.
Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI)
Preferred Ethical Lens and Relevance
My preferred ethical lens is the responsibilities lens. I am highly responsible, especially when making ethical decisions and addressing issues that involve moral dilemmas. Accountability and responsibility are the focus of ethical behaviors in many aspects (Grigoropoulos, 2019). I have the same lens across various settings and interactions during my routine activities. The responsibilities lens is relevant since it allows me to follow rules in various settings. One needs to establish an environment that could support accountability, especially in cases of crisis (Grigoropoulos, 2019). Critical decision-making requires a responsibility lens for effective operations and application.
Primary Value
My primary values are rationality and respect for autonomy, which allow me to work following objectivity. They are concerned with respecting the freedom of individuals to make their own choices in life (Palaiologou & Brown, 2023). I developed these values based on my experience in the healthcare sector, where patients are often denied the right to make decisions about their own care. Prudence is my classical virtue according to the ELI results. The virtue involves making sound decisions in my routine affairs. Prudence plays a significant role in my life, enabling me to make informed financial and career decisions. Whenever I make a decision, I am always cautious of its potential negatives and possible positives.
Two personal values are respect and honesty. These two values are comparable to the primary value of respect for autonomy. While respect for autonomy allows others to make decisions that benefit them, honesty requires transparency in interactions and communication with others. Respect for privacy is a self-identified value that can be compared to prudence, which is my classical virtue. Respecting privacy is more about the ethical aspect of not invading someone’s personal space or information, but prudence involves taking practical steps to protect privacy and minimize potential risks.
Blind Spot Risk
Blind spot risk refers to the ignorance that leads to a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of specific ethical perspectives. The ELI results indicate that my blind spot is the belief that a motive justifies a method. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that I may overlook the actual consequences of my choices. When a person needs more knowledge or awareness, they are in a position to understand the perspective required to achieve the same. While people’s actions may be justified by their noble intentions, some actions can still be unethical.
Mitigating Blind Spot Risk
Mitigating blind spot risk needs self-awareness and reflection on one’s actions. Self-awareness is the first step I can take to mitigate my blind spot. Through self-awareness, I can understand how my actions, thoughts, and emotions align with my expected standards. Consequently, I can take actions that are with good motives and ethical methods. An individual must examine their biases to avoid making biased decisions (Cassill, 2022).
Additionally, it is recommended that they seek the opinion of individuals of a sane mind. Seeking diverse perspectives is another way to mitigate the risk of blind spots. Seeking the views of various individuals and comparing them to make the soundest decision can be a wise move. Such actions allow me to challenge my assumptions and biases.
The second step I can take to mitigate my blind spot is to reflect on my actions. Since I believe that motive justifies the method, I may take actions that are inconsistent with my ethical lens. Consequently, whenever I make a difficult decision that affects those around me, I can reflect on its consequences. Reflecting on my actions enables me to maintain consistent views and perspectives, as my morals remain undistorted (Kaplan et al., 2022). The two steps of self-awareness and reflection are crucial in avoiding the negatives of my blind spot.
Application of ELI
Data privacy is one of the most common ethical issues in the workplace, particularly when handling clients’ personal information. The information from my ELI could be applied to a data privacy situation in the workplace. The responsibilities lens can be used to determine customers’ data privacy (Palaiologou & Brown, 2023). The reasoning skill of rationality can be used to determine how the clients’ data is managed and collected.
The value of respect for autonomy would allow employees to seek consent from the clients before sharing their data. Meanwhile, the classical virtue of prudence allows the making of informed decisions on what to do with the data under protection. Therefore, my ELI results can help in addressing ethical dilemmas related to data privacy in the workplace.
Conclusion
Overall, moral and ethical questions require scenarios and healthy cognitive moral development to be effectively addressed. The motivation is driven by rewards, self-interest, and punishment, which are key components of conventional moral development. Societal rules, the law, potential rewards, and consequences collectively determine the actions taken in various situations. However, the path taken by any decision-maker is solely left to them to make the choice and decide if they need it. Legal consequences such as imprisonment and fines also play a role.
References
Beresford, M., Wutich, A., Garrick, D., & Drew, G. (2023). Moral economies for water: A framework for analyzing norms of justice, economic behavior, and social enforcement in the contexts of water inequality. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 10(2), e1627.
Bietti, E. (2020). From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 210–219).
Cassill, C. K. (2022). Psychological wellness and self-care: an ethical and professional imperative. Ethics & Behavior, 32(7), 634–646.
Eraldemir-Tuyan, S. (2019). An Emotional Literacy Improvement (ELI) Program for EFL Teachers: Insiders’ Views. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1113–1125.
Grigoropoulos, J. E. (2019). The role of ethics in 21st century organizations. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(2), 167–175.
Kaplan, L., Kuhnt, J., Picot, L. E., & Grasham, C. F. (2022). Safeguarding research staff “in the field”: a blind spot in ethics guidelines. Research Ethics, 19(1), 18–41.
Knei-Paz, C., & Cohen, E. (2021). Moral development in young children exposed to domestic violence: The case for the proactive role of the therapist. Journal of Infant, Child, and Adolescent Psychotherapy, 20(4), 425–438.
Metcalf, J., & Moss, E. (2019). Owning ethics: corporate logics, Silicon Valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Social research: An International Quarterly, 86(2), 449–476.
Palaiologou, I., & Brown, A. (2023). Ethical considerations and dilemmas for the researcher and families in home-based research: A case for situated ethics. Research Ethics, 17470161231181860.
Schwepker, C. H., Valentine, S. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. (2021). Good barrels yield healthy apples: Organizational ethics as a mechanism for mitigating work-related stress and promoting employee well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 174, 143–159.
Tamir, I., & Bar-Eli, M. (2021). The moral gatekeeper: Soccer and technology, the case of Video Assistant Referee (VAR). Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 613469.
Werner, P. J. (2020). Which moral properties are eligible for perceptual awareness? Journal of moral philosophy, 17(3), 290–319.