Dilemma especially personal dilemmas emanate from the conflict between the individual’s conviction of rightness or wrongness and the legal, professional or societal stipulation of the same notion of rightness or wrongness. This is then determined by the individual’s interpretation of goodness or badness. Moral rules and guidelines are mainly universal while laws governing states are peculiar and range from one state to the other. The nature of dilemma facing me as an investigator is of the employment of the moral, personal, and psychological guidelines instilled in me as an individual versus what is stipulated by the police department, where I work as a law enforcer thus professional ethics (Pitman, 2004, p6).
The dilemma I am faced with is whether to accept gratuity extended to me by a restaurant cashier who does not want me to pay after realizing I am a law enforcer. However, my department is against accepting such generous gifts and acts as it will interfere with the process of conducting my duty. People who are generous to the police will expect favours in return. This will subject an officer to turn a blind eye when such people break the law and thus the law enforcer’s mandate and requirement to execute the tasks with optimal objectivity will have been interfered with.
Having been raised in a society, I was taught not to turn down generous offers like the one extended by the cashier and in return, I should be appreciative by saying thanks. However, my work ethics will portray this as an act encouraging corruption. Applying the utilitarian method in ethics, which state that an ethical act is judged by its result, I was tempted to accept the gratuity. First, I had not asked or demanded the favour; two, it was the restaurant’s policy that law enforcers should not pay; Three, I did not show off as a law enforcer and my identity was revealed circumstantially; Four, my personal beliefs and ethics and that of my society was for me to accept such gratuity, and finally, such offers would have greatly aided me in my saving endeavour. Judging from the utilitarian point of arguing, I could not have committed any wrong if I had accepted the offer.
The act extended to me was good. However, the deontological theory in ethics emphasizes the call of duty (Kant, 1996 p45). That is, individuals should execute their duties as stipulated by the work ethics without minding the consequences. This theory states that there must be goodwill instead of focusing on the consequences as stated by the utilitarian theory. If I follow my deontological calling and abide by the stipulated ethical and legal guidelines of my duty then I am prohibited from accepting such gratuity. The deontological call then comes against my personal utilitarian beliefs. I am torn between accepting and turning down the offer.
Hedonism ethical theory focuses on pleasure attainment. If I accept, I would have been happy that I had saved money and done according to the wishes of the cashier so both parties would have been happy. However, the police department would have been offended as this according to them was portraying a negative image of officers in the eyes of the public. I was born in a situation that demanded a decision from me (Barry, 2007, p5).
On ethical grounds, good intentions, like the one the cashier had, do not make a morally bad action good. However, when encountered with a dilemma various scholars have proposed various ways of helping an individual to make the right choice. For example, if both decisions are bad, it is better to choose the less evil choice and if both decisions are good, it is better to choose the one with the higher magnitude of being good. If either actions or decisions are indifferent, then it is advisable to choose the one that suits the context or the situation in question (Mkufya, 1982, p78).
To please both parties and not afford collision of personal ethics and professional ethics I decided to pay. This was after I deliberated and came up with a conclusion that law enforcement appeared, given the context and repercussions foreseen, more important than personal feelings. For my actions to portray goodwill I paid for the price of the meal and gave the waiter a 20 per cent tip, this also showed I appreciated their efforts. This satisfied the department, but I was hurt as I made a loss in the prevailing hard economic times.
Personal dilemmas in professional life are very frequent in society due to the diversity of society. Morality and legal issues do conflict in a number of instances calling for the use of wits by an individual. Personal decisions pertaining to personal dilemmas especially in the professional field vary from one individual to the other and there is no conventional way of tackling them. Whichever decision is made the consequence is almost of the same magnitude as the one overlooked (Vincenzi, 2009, p4).
Reference List
Barry, D. (2007). The Dilemma: a play in one act. California: The Four Seas Company.
Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mkufya, W. (1982). The Dilemma. New York: Press and Publicity Centre.
Pitman, J. (2004). The Dilemma. New York: Pan.
Vincenzi, P. (2009). The Dilemma. New Jersey: Little, Brown Book Group Limited.