The paper describes the concept of ethnic responsibility at work in the philosophical perspective. The analyzed article refers to Eddie, who tackles a hard moral decision by hiding the crime, which is sustained by his employment firm. The controversy of the case concerns the idea that Eddie is forbidden to disclose the truth to the society since he has previously signed a confidentiality agreement and a breakage of the rule threatens the man with a work dismissal. From the other side, the employer is afraid to lose his job, according to his personal financial motivation.
If the issue is discussed from the perspective of a Utilitarian doctrine, it may be claimed that the only possible decision for the employee to make is remaining in his position and providing no information about the threat, which extends from using the cigarettes with addictive elements. The discussed theory offers the mindset, according to which, the improvement of the outer reality is accomplished through making good to oneself (West par. 7).
Consequently, as a Utilitarian, Eddie is interested in minding his personal utility, which, in the given circumstances, refers to his financial standing. In other words, the worker perceives his personal well-being as a top human priority and ignores the needs of the outer world. The primary measurement of correctness, according to the theory, is hidden in hedonistic considerations (“Act and Rule Utilitarianism” par. 6). Concerning the secrecy of confidential agreement, which was signed by Eddie in the moment of recruitment, the disclosure of the production details may result in an immediate termination of the contract (“Employee Non-Disclosure Agreement” par. 3). Therefore, it is, again, the interest of the employer to hide the information from the community.
The opposite decision may be made by Eddie if he follows Deontological ethics. The theory, which stems from Kant’s philosophical opinion, assumes a certain system of moral persuasions. Due to this model, every deed might be verified on the matter of correctness of wrongness (“Kant’s Categorical Imperative” par. 3). In his writings, Immanuel Kant claimed that every person should overtake a personal categorical imperative, which is based on the requirements and the prosperity of the society. The name of the doctrine extends from the word “duty” (“Kantian Duty-Based Ethics” par. 1).
Since the doctrine of Deontology roots in providing equal opportunities to every human being and does not concern self-centrism, the correct deed for Eddie to make, in the circumstances, is to admit the firm’s crime to the society. Moreover, the worker might consider delivering the information about cigarettes’ harmful effects to the community in public. For instance, it may be committed through the transmission of evidence through mass media so that to ensure maximum informative outcomes. In the situation, the confidential agreement does not evolve as a hampering issue since, according to the Kant’s theory, any legal document, which is based on the unjust human treatment, can not be considered to be lawful (“About Duty-Based Ethics” par. 8). Finally, due to the doctrine, Eddie is supposed to get fired from the job at the moment when he discloses that the company encourages adding harmful components to the production.
Conclusively, the analysis of the case reveals that contrastive philosophical ideas stimulate opposite human decisions. Thus, utilitarian considerations promote personalized opinions. In contrast to it, the theory of Kant encourages community-based choices.
Works Cited
About Duty-Based Ethics. 2011. Web.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism. 2014. Web.
Employee Non-Disclosure Agreement. 2013. Web.
Kantian Duty-Based Ethics. 2010. Web.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative. 2012. Web.
West, Henry. Utilitarianism. n. d. Web.