Ethical Dilemma
Discuss about the Consequentialism and Its Critics.
Nirmal tested the extreme logic feature of the artificial intelligence program on the system of Moonlight at his home without taking any kind of permission from his manager or any other person at higher position in the company. The bank account details of the employees were also used by Nirmal for testing. After completing different tests at home, he approached to her manager Julie and offered the program to Moonlight at discount price. Julie denied to use and buy the program because she believes that this program is dangerous and can create problems for the company and it would make decisions by not considering human oversight.
Later, Nirmal decided to become a consultant on his own. He released his program on different social media sites and started providing help to the users for using the program and its features. He published the program under the name Know-IT. He started consulting as Khan Jones. He became busy as he used to work during the day for Moonlight and as consultant on social media in evening. When Julie found that Nirmal is Khan Jones then she immediately fired Nirmal from the company. The manager of Julie, Harold Simpson supported her decision with no review of case. Harold receives a mail from the owner Mary Smithers about Khan Jones and ordered Harold to find Khan Jones hire him to bring his expertise to the company.
Hence, the ethical dilemma in the case is for Julie and Harold Simpson as they knew that Nirmal is Khan Jones and Julie fired Nirmal when she found that Nirmal has published the program under the name Khan Jones. The situation was difficult for Julie and Harold because it was the order of the owner to find and offer position to Khan Jones (Allen, 2018).
Understand the Situation
1A: List and number the relevant facts
- Nirmal developed an artificial intelligence program.
- He tested his program on company’s systems.
- He offered his program to Julie.
- She denied to buy the program.
- Nirmal decided to open his own company of consultation
- He published program under the name Kahn Jones
- He used to work during day in Moonlight and in evening as consultant
- Julie fired Nirmal when she gets to know that Nirmal is Khan Jones
- Harold Simpson supported her decision without reviewing the case.
- Testing program on company’s system by Nirmal without any permission was ethically wrong.
- Using bank account details of the employees for testing by Nirmal was ethically wrong.
- Julie has not discussed to top management about program developed by Nirmal and denied to use or buy program which affected Nirmal.
- She fired Nirmal when she gets to know that Nirmal is Khan Jones which affected Nirmal and the company as the company lost a bright data scientist.
- Harold supported Julie’s decision without case’s review which further created problem for Harold(NASW-MA. , 2017).
- They both have not informed owner of company about this case and their decision of firing Nirmal.
- Nirmal
- Julie
- Harold Simpson
- Mary Smithers
- Employees of the company
Now that the owner of Moonlight ordered Harold to find and offer Khan Jones a position in the company, it is difficult for Harold to do so as he has the information about who Khan Jones is as he was fired by Julie. No such information was provided by Julie and Harold to the owner about Nirmal and his program and also about firing him from company which was ethically wrong (Houser et al., 2006).
Firing Nirmal from the company without discussing with owner or top management was wrong because he was not working as consultant on social media for the program during office hours. She also has not discussed about Nirmal’s program to company’s top management. Although, Nirmal used bank details of the employees and also tested the program upon the company’s systems which was wrong and he should be warned by Julie for such actions. Julie should have discussed and informed the owner about Nirmal’s program and about firing him from the company.
Four-step Ethical Analysis and Decision Making Process
As now, the owner of the company do not know about Nirmal and his program hence, Harold and Julie should inform the owner that they know who Khan Jones is and that they fired him from the company. They should also inform owner that he tested the program on the company’s system without any permission and other details.
Firstly, Nirmal should have taken the permission to test program on company’s system and using the details of employees’ bank account to be clear on his side. This might have increased the concern of Julie towards his program.
Julie should have informed about the program developed by Nirmal with top management to understand the positive and negative aspects and the perception of people about the program.
Julie should have consulted with top management about Nirmal working as consultant on social media and about firing him from company to make a better decision for the company (Scheffler, 1988).
Julie and Harold should have informed the owner about every detail related to Nirmal, his project and firing him from company as this would have not resulted in ethical dilemma for Harold and Julie. (Ethics Unwrapped, 2018).
- Firstly, it was the duty of Nirmal to take the permission from the manager for testing the program upon the company’s system. He also used the details about the bank details of the employees which was wrong.
- Secondly, Julie fired Nirmal without discussing the matter with the other people of the company and the owner. She has not even discussed with the other about the program that is developed by Nirmal and denied to buy or use the program for the company.
- Julie should have discussed about firing him from the company with the top management(Wariboko, 2013)
- Harold supported the decision of Julie of firing Nirmal without any review of the case but it was his duty to review the case.
- Julie and Harold have not provided the information to Mary about the Nirmal’s program and about firing him and also that they know Nirmal is Khan Jones but it’s their duty to inform owner about all these things.
First of all it was not wrong that Nirmal was developing the program but the wrong part is – he tested the program upon company’s system and used the details of employees’ bank account.
In context to denying to buy or use the program, Julie has not even discussed about the program to owner or any other member of top management (Paton, 1971).
Firing Nirmal was wrong as he was not doing the consultation work during the office hours.
Julie and Harold should have told the owner about the Nirmal’s case and Harold should have reviewed the case by his own (GKTODAY, 2018).
- If Julie and Harold will inform to owner about the actions of Nirmal then Julie and
- Harold along with Nirmal will be treated as disrespect.
- If Julie and Harold will not inform to owner then they only will be treated with disrespect.
- Informing the owner about the case is preferable.
- Nirmal will be treated unlike other if they inform owner about the Nirmal’s case.
- Julie and Harold will be treated unlike others if they will not inform owner about all the things.
- Informing owner about the whole case is preferable
- There are benefits if Julie and Harold tell everything to owner as Julie can justify her decisions.
- Not informing owner will result in disrespecting the owner and his orders and there are no benefits of it.
- Providing information to owner is preferable as it will clear out everything to the owner and she can think about and can make decision whether should hire or not hire Nirmal in the company again as per the benefits of the company.
As it is analysed that not informing the owner of the company about Nirmal’s case resulted in Ethical dilemma for Harold and Julie which affected the company on the whole. It is the duty of Chief executive to investigate the case by his own to understand the decision of Julie of firing him. Not considering the program developed by Nirmal and not discussing it with the members of the company and the owner is wrong as this is important for the company to retain brilliant employees in the organization ethically. But it is important to consider ethics of the company and the duties that should be performed.
Make a defensible ethical decision
Julie and Harold should tell the owner about who Khan Jones is and the related information. Julie should justify her decision of firing and should also provide with the details that why she did so and what actions of Nirmal made her do so. She should justify that she denied to buy or use the program as it was a dangerous program.
List the steps needed to implement your defensible ethical decision
- Julie and Harold should coordinate and decide to meet as per the convenience of the owner.
- In the meeting they should provide her with all the details related to Nirmal, his program and Khan Jones.
- They should present all the reasons for the decision about firing Nirmal from the company.
References
Allen, K., 2018. What Is an Ethical Dilemma? [Online] Available at: https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/What_Is_an_Ethical_Dilemma%3F/ [Accessed 05 May 2018].
Ethics Unwrapped, 2018. Consequentialism. [Online] Available at: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism.
GKTODAY, 2018. Kant’s Categorical Imperative. [Online] Available at: https://www.gktoday.in/academy/article/kants-categorical-imperative/ [Accessed 05 May 2018].
Houser, R., Wilczenski, F.L. & Ham, M., 2006. Culturally Relevant Ethical Decision-Making in Counseling. Sage.
NASW-MA. , 2017. Resolving Et5hical Dilemmas. [Online] Available at: https://www.naswma.org/?114 [Accessed 05 May 2018].
Paton, H.J., 1971. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Scheffler, S., 1988. Consequentialism and Its Critics. Oxford University Press.
Wariboko, N., 2013. Methods of Ethical Analysis: Between Theology, History, and Literature. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
