Personal Ethics Statement

Katy Canzone February 10, 2013

Part 1: Mini Case The first step in ethical decision-making is recognizing an ethical issue by asking yourself three questions. The first question one should ask themselves when recognizing an ethical issue is, Did someone do something wrong? In this particular case I feel the boss did do something wrong by releasing this information to the employee. The boss may have felt some guilt, anxiety, or stress over the news of the upcoming downturn; by telling an employee he was simply taking some of those feelings and projecting them onto the employee. The news had no professional significance and was shared simply as a way to cope with the news through confiding in someone. The sharing of this news put the employee in a very difficult position. The boss has made it clear she cannot share this information therefore she has a duty to keep the information to herself but also a moral obligation to remain loyal to a boss she highly respects. On the other hand, Joe is her friend, someone who she may want to confide in as well. She now feels guilt, and anxiety, and stress over news she did not even choose to hear. The second question one should ask is, Is this damaging to people or the community? The answer here is yes. News of losing ones job is always damaging. Joes situation makes this news particularly damaging because he is looking to start a family with his wife. The news is also damaging to the community; depending on how large scale this downturn is, multiple people may lose their jobs. The little-league relationship between Joe and the employee also affects the community. If Joe ever finds out the employee knew about the news and did not tell him he would most likely be upset. His relationship with the employee would be negatively

affected and the children on the team as well as the families of the team would notice. Joe may also have to leave little-league after losing his job and focus on finding new work. The loss of a coach and the deterioration of two coaches relationship will definitely affect the community created by a little league team. The third question one should ask is, Does this go beyond legal issues? The answer to this is not totally known but I would assume it is no. There are rules within every company about confidentiality; if an upper level executive is told of a company wide issue, this news is confidential. The boss may not be fired for telling the employee of this information but it would be frowned upon. The boss is aware he should not be sharing this and makes that clear when he repeatedly asks the employee to keep the information to themselves. The second step in ethical decision-making is gathering the facts. The first question to answer is, What are the relevant facts of the case? In this particular case there is very little known. The news of a possible downturn is known, the news that this downturn may lead to the firing of at least three employees, and the news that this downturn will shock the firm. The second question to answer is, What is unknown? In this case we do not know the type of firm this issue is occurring in, the position the employee in question holds at the firm, the length of time Joe has been a the firm, the bosss feelings towards the employee and the logistical facts of the downturn itself-how many people will it affect, when will it come into action, will it actually come into action at all? The third question to ask is, Who has an important stake in the outcome? In this case the only person truly affected would be Joe. The employee may feel even more

guilty if Joe does get fired and in the long run their relationship may be ruined; however Joes life will be most significantly affected if he loses his job. He will have to change his lifestyle and adjust to the aftermath of the loss, the other two characters in this case will not. The last question to ask is, What are the options for action? With this case there are really only two things to do; keep the news to your self, or tell Joe the news. This news is out of the control of anyone in the firm and therefore the solutions are limited. The employee does not have the option to change the minds of executives or heroically save Joes job. Instead, the employee only has control over what he or she does with the information. By telling Joe the information the employee may be helping him to prep for the loss of his job. Joe might be able to take steps to finding a new job, start saving up for the time in between jobs and plan with his wife how they are going to handle the loss. This action benefits Joe but also betrays the trust of the boss. The second action would be to keep the information to your self. This action honors the promise made to the boss to not tell anyone but betrays a perceived friendship between Joe and the employee. The employee probably feels they will not only lose a relationship with their boss but maybe even their job. This will add to the stress of the news and the stress of what to do with the news. By keeping the information to oneself the employee is alleviating stress from one side of the issue but heightening stress on the other side. The only other action one could possibly take would to be to let the boss know how uncomfortable they feel with that information. This action might include asking the boss to let the other staff members know, explaining to the boss that you have a personal

relationship with one of the affected employees and do not want to jeopardize it. By informing the boss of the ethical dilemma he or she has just placed you in you are at least trying to honor the boss and Joe. The boss may simply apologize for putting you in the position or, if the boss respects your enough, may choose to let the other employees know. The third step in ethical decision-making is to evaluate your courses of action. The deontological approach says to act in a way that your actions could serve as a universal law for everyone. Through this approach one would look at each course of action and ask if that is how everyone should handle this situation all the time. The first course of action, for example, would be to tell Joe. The deontological approach would take that action and apply it to everyone; everyone should tell every affected party any news they were made aware of. The utilitarian approach sees the ethical thing to do is find the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The first course of action may not be seen as utilitarian because it is not good for the boss and possible for the employee if they were to lose their job by sharing information. The action may, however, be seen as utilitarian because by sharing the information the employee may be helping Joe, Joes family, and the community; bringing good to more people by sharing than bringing good to just two people by not sharing. The second course of action can be evaluated in the same way. The deontological approach would ask if everyone should keep confidential news to himself or herself all the time. The utilitarian approach would ask if keeping the news to oneself brings more good than sharing the information. Keeping the information will bring good to the boss, will bring some good to the employee by protecting the employees job and the

employees relationship to the boss, and may bring good to the company. If the downturn does not happen then the employee will be protecting the company from unnecessary stress by not sharing the news. The third course of action involves a merge of the first two courses of actions. The deontological approach would ask, should everyone ask the giver of the message to share the message with everyone all the time? By enacting a universal law such as this there would be very little secrets and very little confidentiality. In the work place this could be a big mistake or a big help. On the one hand, news of pay raises and promotions and company trips would be made known to all employees and this may cause jealousy or resentment amongst employees. On the other hand, the environment within the work place would be more open, all levels of a company would be communicating and a stronger community may be built within. The utilitarian approach would evaluate this course of action asking, does this supply the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people? This approach protects the relationship of the employee and the boss, of the employee and Joe, and of the promise the employee made to the boss. The employee would know they tried to help Joe while still maintaining loyalty to the boss. This action provides good to all parties involved. The forth step in ethical decision-making is to pick a course of action and test it. If this happened to me personally I would choose action two, keeping the information to myself. I feel telling Joe the information would be making the same mistake the boss made in the beginning of this case. Joe has no control over whether or not the company decides to fire him. He will most likely not be able to change their minds and keep his job

after hearing news of his possible firing. Therefore, telling him the information will cause him unnecessary stress and anxiety as well as jeopardizing my job and my relationship with my boss. If I told someone I respect of this decision I think they would question my ethics simply because they would be thinking of themselves. Most people in Joes position would probably say they would want their friend to tell them this kind of information. Therefore if I told someone I would keep the information they would see it is negative. However from a professional stand point keeping the information to myself makes the most sense to me and keeps me as far from the battle as possible.

Part Two: Moral DNA I am a teacher and my strength is caring for people as well as being reliable on doing the right thing. My weakness is failing to recognize the deeper moral principles and often deciding to break the rules if I think I know whats best, which is most of the time. I scored highest on the ethic of care meaning I feel the right thing to do is based on humanity and love for others. This evaluation could not be more accurate. I think the best example I could give to show this is how I am with my friends. People tell me all the time they think I would make a great therapist and my response is always, Im way too mean to be a therapist. I think people feel this way because I almost never give advice. I think I feel this way because when I do give advice it is typically not what the person wants to hear. When friends, or anyone, chooses to confide in me I am more than happy to listen. I nod along and try to make them feel as important as I can. I will not, however, say how I feel unless I am directly asked. This is because I know people will do exactly what they want and if my advice does not align with that they will not feel comfortable coming to me for advice again. By simply listening to people I offer them the best tool you can offer someone and that is a companion. I hear the problem and therefore share in the feelings evoked from that problem and am a better companion to the person going through them. When a person asks me for my opinion I am as honest as Abe. I put honest in italics because that doesnt mean I never lie, but when it comes to telling my opinion I tell it exactly how it is. I do not really think about how my particular words my hurt that person; instead I take the opportunity to give them insight they may not have seen before.

My need to love and help and spread compassion sometimes comes off in a very harsh way but it is truly based in good intentions. I want to care for others and be there for others. The number one best way to do that is to listen and the number two best way to do that is to offer an honest piece of advice when asked for it. My weakest moral philosophy is my ethic of reason meaning instead of taking into account the rules and regulations, I judge and act. I ignore the thought process behind actions and rarely practice self-control. This is also very accurate. I am an extremely judgmental person and an impulsive one on top of that. This is reflected mostly in my shopping habits. When I am out shopping if I see something I want, I buy it. I do not think about it or reflect upon it, I look at it and I judge it and I buy it. Two questions I need to ask myself before making those snap decisions is, Do I need it? and Can I afford it? Most of the time the answer to both of those questions is no, but I ignore that reasoning and buy it anyway. If I focus on the reasoning behind the purchases I will have a smaller storage space a larger wallet. The three courses of action play into all three of the moral philosophies, some more than others of course, but all three touch on each. The action of telling Joe the news plays mostly into the ethic of care. The employee cares for Joe and wants to do what is right by honoring the empathy he or she feels for Joe and Joes situation. This action also touches on the ethic of reason; the employee may ignore the thought process involved and follow their impulse to tell Joe the information immediately. This action ignores the ethic of obedience because the employee was giving an order to not tell and then told anyway.

The action of keeping the information to himself or herself honors the ethic of obedience mostly. The employee feels he or she must comply with the orders given to them and be obedient in the eyes of their employer. This action also touches on the ethic of care because the employee clearly cares about their relationship with their boss and feels empathic towards the boss and therefore agrees not to share the information with anyone else. This action also includes the ethic of reason. The employee is able to rationally think through the situation and ignore their possible impulse to tell Joe the news. The third action of asking the boss to share the information with the rest of the staff is mostly reflective of the ethic of reason. The employee thought through possible solutions to their ethical dilemma and came up with one that seemed to protect all parties included. This solution is the most rational of the three. This action also touches on the other two ethics of care and obedience because the employee is caring for both their boss and coworker while obeying their boss request. I chose the action of keeping the information to myself, which does not align with my moral DNA in an obvious way. In my opinion, however, it does. I feel I am protecting Joe by not telling him the information. If I told Joe I would be displacing my negative feelings onto him, causing him to carry the fear and anxiety of news that may not even come true. My moral DNA also told me I weakest in the ethic of reason and this action honors that ethic by ignoring the impulse to tell Joe. My impulse, however, would be to not tell Joe and therefore this decision aligns with my moral DNA as well.

10