Introduction
The organization under consideration is a small real estate company based in the United States known as Morgan Brown Real estate Company. It deals with real estate investment and usually assists its clients to sell or purchase houses anywhere around the country. It is currently confronted with three ethical dilemmas that will be analysed under various ethical theories and approaches.
Ethical dilemmas facing Morgan Brown
Morgan Brown is generally an ethical real estate company because they posses a strong code of conduct and try their best to deal with day to day challenges in an ethical manner. However, because of the nature of the industry that this company operates in, it often faces a series of ethical dilemmas that sometimes force it to result to moral theories and values that govern different professionals within diverse business environments. (Cornman, 1992)
An example of such a situation is when the company realises that it is going to represent a seller and a potential buyer for the same property. In other words, there may be a scenario in which the seller and the buyer both require services from this company. Usually, such a scenario arises when the seller has already secured business with Morgan Brown and then another client comes to them asking to purchase a certain piece of property that belongs to another member. The latter issue may present an ethical dilemma to the company when the company plans on taking sides with the property’s seller in order to get a greater commission.
According to the theory of utilitarianism, the moral worth of any action is supposed to be judged by its ability to increase the overall utility or the amount of happiness experienced by every person. In this regard, the latter theory opposes pursuance of any form of self interest. Utilitarians often try to ensure that the needs of society or a greater number of people are met compared to those of individuals.
In order to apply this theory effectively into the case study, there are a series of issues that must be well understood first. Firstly, there is a need to know exactly what will be beneficial to a certain individual even when that individual does not understand it herself/ himself. Also, the theory necessitates an examination of exactly what actions will cause the greatest pleasure but this is sometimes not possible. Lastly utilitarianism dictates that greater emphasis ought to be given to the action rather than the intentions of the actor. Consequently, one can do the wrong thing even with the right motive or vice versa. (Shaw, 2007)
In the case of the latter ethical dilemma, it would be more effective and honest for this particular company to accept the fact that favouring one client over the other could lead to a tarnished company image. Consequently, this could ruin subsequent businesses for them. To a utilitarian, the overall pleasure for Morgan Brown would be much lower if it got more commission for one transaction and then lost clients for other transactions. This means that in the long term, favouring the seller would not be effective. On the other hand, one must consider what will happen to the other party within this ethical dilemma i.e. the client. The client’s overall good would be substantially reduced if his real estate representative chooses not to tell him the honest truth about his or her investment. Therefore, in the eyes of a utilitarian, taking sides or hiding the truth from a client would not maximise the overall good and it would be favourable to loose one transaction than all of them.
Another ethical principle that may be applicable in this scenario is rights ethics. This theory was formulated by John Locke who clearly stated that all individuals have the right to property, liberty and life. Consequently, people have the duty to defend the rights of others and at the same time, have theirs protected. In the case of Morgan Brown’s ethical dilemma, rights ethics would dictate that this firm has the right to protect the rights of both the property sellers and the property buyers. As a result, it needs to protect these rights by remaining neutral. Therefore after analysing this dilemma under the two ethical theories, it has been found that the best way forward is to avoid conflict by not taking one client’s side over the other.
Another ethical dilemma that frequently confronts the Morgan Brown Company revolves around the issue of having dishonest property sellers. In certain scenarios, property sellers may approach the company and claim that they have carried out house repairs or that they will carry them out in the course of their properties’ purchase. After a while, one can find that respective sellers have not carried out the repairs despite Morgan Brown’s promises to buyers that the repairs will be made. This places the company in an ethical dilemma where they may have a difficult time deciding what to do when such a thing happens. In order to place the latter matter in context, one must result to ethical and moral values such as Kantian ethics.
Kantian ethics is founded on the categorical imperative in which all actions in moral law must be applied to society at all times and irrespective of the person under consideration. (Ryder, 2001) Additionally, one must act in such a manner that the actions they carry out are motivated by the universal law of humanity. This means that people ought to ask whether the action they are supposed to perform are in line with a maxim (rule) that can be applied universally. Secondly, the categorical imperative requires that all human beings be treated as ends in themselves and not means towards achieving certain ends. Consequently, one must never use other people irrespective of what they stand to gain from it. Thirdly, one must behave in a way that makes them law making members.
Given the latter assertions, then the real estate firm needs to think of the maxim and universality of their actions i.e. would the company keep doing the same thing to other people if they approached them with the same scenario? The answer to this question would be no. Morgan Brown would not be acting in accordance to this categorical imperative since they would be using their client as a means and not an end if they decided to keep silent about an unhappy client. The company needs to behave in such a manner that it depicts universal laws. This means that it needs to enact polices that would protect the buyer from such unscrupulous sellers. In fact, Morgan Brown usually stays accountable for their actions even when they were not the ones who initially caused the mistake in the first place.
However, a utilitarian approach to this ethical dilemma would bring in a different dimension to the matter. A utilitarian would claim that more pleasure would be realized if the happiness of many people was prioritised over that of a fewer number. When Morgan Brown does nothing about property sellers who do not carry out repairs it is likely that their image will be tarnished and fewer consumers will come their way. In the end, the customer who was cheated out of repairs will be unhappy and so will Morgan Brown. Here, it is only the unscrupulous seller who will be content. The best way forward would be to think of the good of the client as this has a direct effect on Morgan Brown’s interests.
Another ethical challenge that often confronts the firm is the challenge of dealing with low property values. If a client’s housing value would have to be a few thousand dollars more than was earlier stated so that one can manage to cover all the costs that emanate out of the prepayments within a loan scheme, this means that during the process of appraising the house prior to loan approval, the value of one’s property would have to be raised a little in order to meet the loan criteria. Such an issue would be more tempting when the client seems decent and dependable. This challenge would require the wisdom of another ethical theory known as duty ethics.
Duty ethics could offer a balanced perspective on this matter. The latter theory was brought out by a German theorist called Immanuel Kant where he asserted that one should carry out their respective duties irrespective of the consequences that may emanate from such actions. The two major concepts governing duty ethics are that individuals should follow orders given from outside and their internal obligations too. This perspective requires that humans should act without considering their feelings as Kant felt that feelings cannot be depended on i.e. moral alienation. (Kenny, 2005)
In the real estate firm’s case, Duty ethics would demand that the company should carry out its duties irrespective of whether their client seems decent and dependable or not. The real estate firm’s duty is to ensure that it only approves credit worthy loans. If the firm was thinking of raising the value of a client’s property and increasing one’s stated income as possible options, then this would be stepping outside their duties thus implying that they would be acting unethically. (Frederick, 2003) Rights ethics would require that that the rights of all parties under consideration be accorded. For the firm, it is their right to deny people who have not met their loan criteria any mortgage scheme. This means that customers should not expect Morgan Brown to bend itself backwards for such individuals as it would be violating its rights if it does so. However, Morgan Brown firm often follows their conscious and they rarely pursue shortcuts when dealing with ethical dilemmas of such a nature.
Recommendations and conclusions
There are a series of ways in which this company could deal with the problem of having conflicting clients (buyer and seller issues). First of all, it could refer one client to another real estate agent who does not have a direct stake in the seller’s property but one who still operates within this firm. However, because the new agent would still be looking out for the company’s interests, then it would be difficult for him or her to remain neutral. This means that the best way forward is to direct the client to another real state company altogether.
It should be noted that the second ethical dillema facing Morgan Brown is often handled fairly by the company. But some of the recommendations that the company can adopt include; checking house repairs during the entire transaction and ensuring that it does not close any transaction until it has ensured that all the repairs have been carried out. Alternatively, the company has the option of charging their sellers a down payment for the repairs that are yet to be completed in their buildings and then refunding this amount once all the repairs have been completed. When a seller opts not to complete it, then Morgan Brown should use the sum given as down payment to do the repairs themselves.
The last issues concerning overestimating property values would not be supported by most of the ethical theories hence the firm should denounce proceeding with the transaction. Instead, the company needs to advise such clients why they cannot enter into such a loan scheme. Such clients should also be directed to an investment counsellor who is likely to give the same opinion on the matter or to persuade them to do the same. On top of this, there is the option of looking for a roommate with whom to share expenses. It could also be feasible to offer such houses for rent thus get an easy solution to solving such a problem.
References
Cornman, J. 1992. Philosophical problems and arguments. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishers.
Shaw, R. 2007. Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Frederick, R. 2003. On liberty. New York. Routledge.
Ryder, R. 2001. A modern morality. Chicago. Centaur Press.
Kenny, A. 2005. What I believe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.