Charles E. Harris, Jr

If Judy's assessment of Catherine's prospects as Chief Engineer in Quality Control are correct, the long-range consequences of Catherine's not getting the job are probably better than the long-range consequences of Catherine's getting the job. If she fails and has to be removed, her promotion will not increase the number of women in senior management. In addition, her failure will reduce the chances of other women being promoted to senior positions in the future.

This still leaves open the question of what Judy should do. Presumably she is not directly involved in the promotion decision, and she may not even be asked for her opinion about the promotion. Thus she will have to go out of her way to make any effort to affect the decision process. What obligation does she have to do this?

Generally speaking, our obligation to prevent an unfortunate consequence (especially where it does not involve the loss of life) is weaker than our obligation not to directly participate in wrongdoing. Our obligation to do what we can to prevent environmental damage in the rain forests of Brazil is not as strong as our obligation not to engage directly in environmental pollution ourselves. On the other hand, we do have some obligation to try to prevent unfortunate consequences when we are in a position to do so, especially if there is relatively little cost to ourselves. In this case, the primary cost could be the damage to the friendship between Judy and Catherine. If suggestions to those in a position to make the decision about Catherine's promotion could be made discretely, this might be avoided. But Judy would still have to wrestle with the fact that she has undermined Catherine's chances for promotion without her knowledge. This knowledge would almost inevitably limit Judy's ability to relate to Catherine in an open and honest way, even if Catherine never knows the reason for the difference in Judy's relation to her.

Judy might decide to simply tell Catherine that she has suggested that Catherine is not the person for the promotion at this time. This would probably damage the relationship in the short run, but it might provide the basis of a stronger and more honest relationship in the future. This option would have the advantage of satisfying more moral demands: it would prevent potentially serious damage to the cause of gender equality at Darnell and it would preserve a healthy, honest friendship between Catherine and Judy.

An honest and informed commitment to the cause of gender equality might require that both Judy and Tom express their partial agreement with the male engineers who believe that Catherine is not qualified for the promotion. They could say that, even though they support gender equality, they agree that Catherine is not the right person for the promotion. Catherine would probably eventually hear about this conversation. But if Judy and Tom told Catherine of their position, this would not be a problem.

Gerald's dilemma is not a problem in professional ethics. Rather, it is a problem in personal ethics which is generated by his professional training and his professional aspirations. Like all dilemmas, Gerald's problem involves a conflict between two competing obligations. On the one hand, he wants to be true to his own moral ideals, which include his belief in the superiority of organic farming. This belief is probably related to a general commitment to environmental causes about which he and his father care very deeply. On the other hand, he feels morally bound to do what he can to save the family farm. No doubt this sense of moral obligation is also related to strong emotional ties to his family and to the land where he was raised. Probably his family has lived on the farm for several generations.

Gerald's predicament has all of the earmarks of a classic moral dilemma. He feels himself pulled in opposite directions by powerful emotional forces and by persuasive moral considerations. Yet he apparently cannot satisfy both of the demands. He feels that he would do something wrong no matter what he does. Yet he cannot do nothing. "Doing nothing" would presumably be to continue in school, but the decision to stay in school might well involve sacrificing the family farm. So he is forced to decide, and yet both decisions seem wrong. A classic moral dilemma!

Such dilemmas can produce a sense of panic which often results in paralysis of thought as well as of action. We are inclined to either freeze up or to decide irrationally. "Just put two numbers on two pieces of paper and place them in a basket, "1" for staying in school and "2" for getting the job with Pro-Growth. Then pick one of the numbers and act accordingly." We all know that neither of these methods of deciding is appropriate, so we need to think more carefully and critically.

One way of escaping from the dilemma is to argue that one of the options really is better than the other. All of Gerald's friends appear to adopt this tactic. They argue that taking the job with Pro-Growth really is better than abandoning the family farm to its fate. Furthermore, the arguments of Gerald's friends are all of a certain type: they are all utilitarian arguments That is, they reason in terms of the consequences of the two courses of action. The consequences are evaluated in terms of human happiness or well-being.

Allen, Bob, and Don argue that, with respect to the environmentalist perspective, the consequences of Gerald's taking the job will be no worse than the consequences of someone else's taking the job, and they may even be more desirable. If Gerald does not take the job, someone who is less sympathetic with environmental considerations might take it. Thus, by not taking the job, Gerald may both harm the environment and fail to do what he can to save the family farm. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, this is a powerful argument.

There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is a difficulty even from the utilitarian standpoint. We have to ask whether Gerald's three friends have correctly assessed all of the consequences of the course of action that they recommend. If Gerald makes his reservations about pesticides known to the interviewer, it is possible he/she might reply, "You know, we have a small unit that is attempting to develop products for use on organic farms, so we will be in a position to take advantage of this market when it develops. We could put you in this unit." Or, perhaps Gerald's criticism of pesticides might prompt the company to set up such a unit. Again, if Gerald goes to work, there is the chance that he might never finish his degree. Finally, Gerald's friends might have underestimated the chances of saving the family farm by other methods.

A second problem with the recommendation of Gerald's three friends is that it fails to take into account the effects that following their recommendation might have on Gerald himself. This is perhaps a type of consequence, but it is a consequence of a different order. It is an effect on Gerald's sense of integrity, on Gerald's status as a free moral agent who lives in terms of his own moral convictions. In terms of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, their recommendation requires that he treat himself as a "mere means" to some higher good, namely the salvaging of the family farm, and that he do this by violating his own conscience. Should one ever violate his conscience in order to achieve some supposedly "higher" end? This is not always an easy question to answer. Sometimes people do feel justified in doing this. For example, a legislator may agree to support a piece of legislation which he thinks is wrong in order to gain passage of another piece of legislation which he thinks is vastly more important. Is this justified? If so, is this analogous to Gerald's situation?

Before attempting to answer these difficult questions, it might be well to investigate in a more careful way whether there is any way to satisfy both of the moral demands that created the dilemma in the first place. If we can satisfy both of these demands--even in a modified form--we might come out better, from a moral standpoint, than trying to satisfy one and reject the other. Here is where one's imagination comes into play.

These two demands--saving the family farm and not violating one's conscience--might be satisfied in various ways. Could Gerald get a loan on the basis of his good job prospects? If he could do this, he could save the family farm without violating his conscience. Could he take a short-term job with Pro-Growth? This would require his violating his conscience to some extent, but it would also allow him to save the family farm. Could he encourage his family to sell off part of the family farm in order to pay the debts on the remaining part? This would require at least a partial fulfillment of his obligation to his family without violating his conscience. Or perhaps he could both get a short-term job with Pro-Growth and encourage his family to sell part of the farm. This would require a partial violation of both of the original moral demands, but also allow him to respect those demands in a modified form.

If we knew more about the specifics of the situation, we might be able to think of additional compromises. But of course there are those who say that such moral compromises are wrong. Moral demands are absolute and unqualified. If this is true, then we must go back to our earlier considerations in order to determine which demand should receive priority. However it is important to keep in mind that most moral demands are not really unqualified. We might be inclined to say, "Never lie." But we all know we cannot hold to this absolute, unqualified norm in all situations. When someone with a knife in his hand who is obviously deranged asks for the whereabouts of our friend, we would be justified in lying. Similarly, we may not be able to hold to a moral requirement such as, "Never in any way violate your conscience." On the other hand, actions that violate our conscience should not be undertaken lightly.

Carl Lawrence has a problem on his first day on the job. He finds that the caustic distribution system does not have as many safety precautions as the acid distribution system. He sees immediately that there are chances for a mishap. The plant manager really should be encouraged to improve the caustic distribution system before an accident, but it is not always a good idea to raise problems on your first day on the job. The manager may be inclined to say, "Look, you don't know your way around yet; don't start out by making trouble." Carl may in fact not have all the relevant information. Perhaps he should begin by trying to find out whether there have been mishaps in the past and making some estimates on what kind of improvements should be made and how much they would cost.

Rick's negligence in leaving the valve open poses a conflict problem for Carl. His obligation to the plant and to the public conflicts with his obligation to his friend, Rick. Carl's dilemma is accentuated by the realization that Rick could make a similar mistake again. If Rick's negligence was due to lack of sleep, there is every reason to believe that Rick may make a similar mistake in the future. In this case, however, Carl must distinguish between the difficulty of doing what is right because it is hard to do from an emotional standpoint and a situation in which he really does not know what is right. Carl may believe that his obligations to the plant and to the public outweigh any obligation to Rick, but still find it hard to fire Rick. But maybe he doesn't have to fire Rick. Perhaps he can find a way to have Rick moved to a part of the plant where safety is not so crucial. Or perhaps he can help Rick find another job. A person should always look for ways to satisfy as many of the moral demands he faces as possible. Carl probably should feel some obligation to help Rick if possible. After all, Rick is a friend, and he is probably trying to do the best he can under difficult circumstances.

Kevin Rourke's decision to take responsibility for the caustic overflow involved considerable expense, but there is no indication that it placed the company in financial distress. His action might have prevented a disaster for the city, for himself, and for the company. One of the ways of analyzing this issue is from he standpoint of utilitarianism, which requires that we act in such a way that we maximize the well-being of everyone affected by the action. A form of utilitarianism that might be especially relevant here is cost/benefit analysis. From the standpoint of balancing costs versus benefits, it looks like Kevin did the right thing. The only complication is that we must balance an actual cost against a possible benefit. Nevertheless, the action seems rational from a cost/benefit standpoint. It is important to keep in mind that, from a utilitarian standpoint, the costs and benefits of everyone potentially affected by the action must be considered. Of course the cost are primarily charged to the company (stockholders), whereas the benefits accrue to the company as well as the managers and employees (who might lose their job if the plant were closed) and the larger population. But then the company created the problem in the first place.

Another way to evaluate Kevin's action is to ask whether we would approve of his action if we placed ourselves in the position of those who could be affected by a caustic overflow. These groups would include the local citizens, other managers, stockholders, and other employers.

It is not possible to consider all of the moral issues raised in this case, but two more deserve some consideration. With respect to Rick's request for a letter of recommendation, Carl must weigh his personal loyalty to Rick against his obligation to fail to inform a potential employer of Rick's liabilities as an employee. A dishonest letter of recommendation can cause another employer to make a decision that is not properly informed. Carl must ask himself whether he would like to be in the position of the potential employer if he (Carl) writes a letter that fails to mention Rick's negligence.

Carl faces an even more serious problem when he is informed that Rick may be employed in one of the "safety areas." This presumably means that Rick is being considered for employment in an area where alertness is at a premium. Without the information about Rick, the employer may be about to make a seriously misinformed decision.

With respect to Nurrevo's accepting responsibility for its own accident, we might first ask whether an individual should accept responsibility for harms he or she has caused, even if he or she could avoid taking such responsibility. The answer to this question is in general clear: if a person does not take such responsibility, he or she is overriding other people's freedom of action by forcing them to pay for a harm they did not cause. Then one must ask whether the same analysis applies to corporate responsibility. That is, are corporations responsible for their actions just like people are?

The first issue in this case is one of fairness. The internal tool and die department at T&D Manufacturing has asked for information about the outside bids before their own quote is submitted. This gives them an obvious advantage over the other vendors. There can be little serious question that this practice would be unfair to the outside vendors. This practice must be kept secret, or many of the other vendors will probably not bid on the project.

The question is whether this unfairness and deception is justified by the loyalty which Purchasing might be expected to show to the "home team." Thus the fundamental moral issue is a conflict between the obligations of fairness and truthfulness on the one hand and loyalty to one's own company on the other. There is no question but that both obligations have validity. The question is what should be done when they conflict.

Sometimes the appeal to loyalty is justified. The appeal to loyalty is often understood as justifying an obligation to something (call it X) simply because it is our X. Now we do have special obligations to our parents or our children because they are our parents or our children. But there are limits to the appeal to loyalty. While the appeal to loyalty may justify providing for our child's college education rather than our neighbor's child's education, simply because he is our child, it would not justify helping our child to cheat on tests, simply because he is our child.

One way to see the limits of the appeal to loyalty is to consider the implications of the principle of universalization, which holds that to be morally permissible, an action must be one capable of being performed by everyone. One of the versions of this principle is the Golden Rule. We can ask whether we would be willing for the internal tool and die department to give our bid to Purchasing if we were one of the vendors. Using still another version of the principle of universalization, we could ask whether it would benefit people generally if supposedly secret bids were revealed to inside bidders. For example, would such a practice promote the tendency of the capitalist system to provide the best goods at the cheapest price? It is obvious that it would be difficult to justify the violation of the canons of fairness and truthfulness by either version of the principle of universalization.

The conflict of obligation in this case could be dealt with by modifying one or both of the obligations by means of a compromise. For example, the inside tool and die department could be allowed to compete on the same basis as outside vendors. This would partially satisfy the demands of the internal department without being unfair to outside vendors. Or, the inside tool and die department could be informed of the amount of the outside bids, and the outside vendors could be told about the practice.

L. Bryan is in a difficult situation. He seems to believe that complying with Max's order is both illegal and wrong. Yet he has little if any power in the company and is in danger of losing a valuable job if he disobeys. Furthermore, he is faced with the necessity of making an immediate decision. He might decide that he just does not want to do something that he considers wrong and that he has already earned as much as most students earn in a summer. If need be, he can take out a student loan. He might also believe that his example of refusing to dump the coolant could have an effect on company policy.

On the other hand, he might decide to dump the coolant down the drain. He might argue that one more dumping will not make that much difference, and it will give him a little more time to make a decision. He might also believe that staying on will have more effect on company policy than merely quitting or being summarily fired. This is a factual issue, having to do with the likely consequences of various courses of action.

There are other factual considerations as well. Is Max's claim that the toxins will settle to the bottom correct? L. Bryan might be able to go to the local library and find the answer to this question. Then there is the question of his chances of changing Max's mind. Max would appear to be the kind of person whose mind is not easily changed. Does L. Bryan know anyone else in the company who might listen to his side of the story?

Suppose L. Bryan discovers that Max's theory about how to reduce the toxic effect has no validity at all. He also confirms his suspicion that repeated dumping of the toxins into the drain is not only illegal, but a considerable source of environmental pollution and a potential health hazard. Finally, he decides that there is no possibility of changing Max's mind. This is the way Max has done things for years, and he is not about to change. The only way Max will change is to receive an order to do so from his superior.

At this point L. Bryan should spend some time attempting to imagine as many possibilities and scenarios as he can. He wants to do something that will not only preserve his personal integrity and protect the environment, but also preserve his job. It may not be possible to do both, but he should at least try. If the company is large enough to have an "ethics hotline" or an ombudsman or an officer in charge of corporate responsibility, he should certainly make use of the opportunities that these resources afford. If not, he should lay his case before Max's superior or the personnel officer.

L. Bryan should think long and hard about how he can approach Max's superior in a non-confrontational way. One possibility is to say that he (Bryan) has a problem with dumping the toxic waste into the drain. This approach avoids pointing an accusatory finger at Max or other employees. He might then ask for advice on how he can handle his problem. He might combine this approach with an expression for the possible legal difficulties that the company might face. If he can do so, L. Bryan should also approach his superior with some specific plan in mind. He should not only point out a problem, but offer a possible solution.

If this is done in a way that is both sincere and non-confrontational and if L. Bryan manages to find a receptive person, he has a good chance of both protecting the environment and protecting his job. If not, he may have to face an unpleasant choice. However, he should try to avoid such choices wherever possible. "Preventative ethics" tries to eliminate the need for making tragic choices.

It is important to see that this attempt to avoid tragic choices is not being less ethically responsible, but more ethically responsible. This is because such an approach would satisfy more moral demands. If he is successful, L. Bryan would not only have protected the environment by means of a change in company policy, but he would also have satisfied a legitimate moral obligation to himself by saving his job.

Before evaluating morally the actors in this drama, it may be helpful to look at Stephanie's way of handling the problem. Even if she did the right thing, did she do it in the right way? One of the important things that young professionals should learn as quickly as possible is that how one does something is sometimes as important--or almost as important--as what one does. The aim of a conscientious professional should be to avoid whistleblowing while still doing the right thing. Becoming a martyr should not be one's goal; rather, one's goal should be to act morally and responsibly while not becoming a martyr. This depends to a great extent on how one goes about doing what he believes ought to be done.

Assuming for the moment that Stephanie did the right thing, how could she have done it in a way that would not be so confrontational? Here is where imagination is crucial. Suppose Stephanie had said,

Adam, I know you are concerned about the employee time it takes to fill out the reports, but I feel so strongly about this that I would be willing to work up the reports on my own time if you will agree to submit them. Even if the company has to pay a fine, we will be on the right side of the law.

Expressions of personal conviction such as this often have a strong influence on other people. However, Stephanie might decide that this approach would never persuade Adam and that another more hard-headed approach might work. She might point out to Adam that these excessive leaks are eventually going to find their way back to regulators. If the company manages to conceal this one, there will be others. And when the regulators find out, the company will be in for some severe fines and its reputation as an environmentally conscious manufacturer will be clouded.

She might even decide that it is ethically permissible to agree to go along with Adam this time on the condition that he consider a different approach next time. Or perhaps she might simply confront him with her own misgivings--without accusing him of anything--and ask to be transferred. This might serve to stimulate his own conscience in a non-threatening way. Or perhaps the company has an ombudsman with whom she could consult.

If none of these ameliorating tactics works, Stephanie (and, later, Bruce) must make more difficult decisions. It is probably safe to assume that the small amount of additional pollutant is not going to be a significant health hazard. One moral issue, however, has to do with whether or not Stephanie and Bruce will participate in actions which are at least minor infractions of the law. There are certainly considerations of self-interest here. Could these two young professionals get into serious legal difficulties if the infractions were discovered?

Let's say that both Stephanie and Bruce decide that a single minor infraction might be something their consciences could accept. They might reason from a utilitarian perspective, which requires that we maximize the well-being of everyone who is affected by the action. From this perspective they might reason that, if they refuse to obey their superior, the harm to their own careers would be so great and the good that would accrue to the public would be so small, that their harm outweighs the public good. (After all, from a utilitarian perspective, their own well-being should be considered as important as the well-being of any other individuals.)

The real difficulty with this solution is that this type of incident will probably be repeated. It is clear to Stephanie and even clearer to Bruce that Adam intends to violate the law on a regular basis. This means that the harm to the public will be multiplied by many similar incidents. Stephanie and Bruce must also ask themselves about the consequences to other managers in the company and to other companies of violating the law on a regular basis. Whatever the final outcome of the analysis, this consideration makes complicity in Adam's actions more difficult to justify.

Scott's problem could be analyzed in either of two ways. First, it could be analyzed as a conflict between his own self-interest and the company's welfare. Second, it could be analyzed as a "line-drawing" problem. That is, it could be analyzed as a problem of determining whether the offer from Larry, the sales representative, constitutes a bribe. We all agree that bribes are wrong, so the question, according to this second mode of analysis, is whether Scott's acceptance of Larry's offer is a bribe - or close enough to a bribe to be morally impermissible.

In this case the second mode of analysis seems to have the potential of giving more insight into Scott's problem. In terms of a conflict between mere self-interest and the legitimate claims of the company, most of us would probably say that the company's claims should have priority. The real issue in this case is whether in fact there is such a conflict, and this issue hinges on whether accepting Larry's offer amounts to accepting a bribe. If it does, then Scott's obligations to the company should prohibit his accepting Larry's offer. In order to determine whether Larry's offer should be considered a bribe, it is helpful to consider a standard case of a bribe. Suppose that Larry, who is not one of Scott's regular vendors, offers Scott a $10,000 check if he will specify Larry's products.

Suppose, further, that Larry's products are both inferior in quality and more expensive, relative to alternative products. If Scott accepts the money and specifies Larry's products, he is accepting a bribe. This might be considered a standard or paradigm case of a bribe. Few would question the judgment that Scott's accepting this offer would be wrong. Bribes are wrong for a number of reasons. First, they corrupt the capitalist system, because competition would ordinarily lead to a person's buying the product that provides the most desirable combination of price and quality. Second, bribery harms the stockholders of Scott's company, because they are not getting the best product for the price. Third, bribery is unfair to the other vendors who do not offer a bribe. Fourth, bribery tends to corrupt both those who offer bribes and those who accept them. It promotes dishonesty, cynicism about human nature, distrust of others, and a purely economic view of human relationships.

Larry's offer to let Scott use his uncle's condo for a minimum fee is not a paradigm case of a bribe. The amount of money involved is probably relatively small, though not insignificant. Furthermore, the offer of a low-rent condo is not made in exchange for any specific promise to purchase particular products. Nevertheless, there are two important similarities to the standard case of a bribe.

First, there is the problem of appearances. It would "look bad" if it were generally known thatScott stayed at a the condo of a vendor's uncle for such a ridiculously low rent. Most people would suspect, probably rightly, that Scott gave his uncle a check for the difference between the usual rent and Scott's payment. Second, it is reasonable to believe that Scott would feel some obligation to specify Larry's products or at least give them special consideration. Many would argue that these similarities with a standard case of a bribe are sufficient to warrant a judgment that Scott should not take the offer. The directive of Scott's vice president raises the issue of Larry's offer in an interesting way. The directive prohibits accepting "incentives." Is Scott's offer an "incentive" if not an outright bribe? There are certainly important analogies between a true bribe and Larry's offer, although there are also differences. Perhaps, the term "incentive" is the proper word to designate Larry's offer. If so, accepting the offer is contrary to company policy.

Lying is not always wrong. If a deranged person wielding a knife asks me where Johnny is, indicating his intention to kill Johnny, I have every right (even an obligation) to lie to the deranged person. Lying to protect an innocent person is often morally permissible. The present case, however, is not a paradigm case of lying to protect the innocent, because the motive of self-interest is present. Furthermore, there might be a value to the company and an intrinsic moral value in setting an example of one who is willing to publicly take the responsibility for preventing the continuation of an action that seems clearly wrong. There is a virtue in publicly facing up to wrongdoing.

Many companies have established procedures for reporting wrongdoing that allow the reporter to remain anonymous. If Michael's company had such a system and he had used it, he might have still felt that he should have had the courage to confront Al, but he probably would have felt much more comfortable about remaining anonymous. This is because anonymity would have been accepted as a legitimate aspect of reporting wrongdoing. However, Michael would still have been forced to lie to preserve his anonymity.

We have two basic approaches, then, to resolving the dilemma that Michael faces. One approach is to report Al's wrongdoing but to remain anonymous, even at the cost of lying. This solution of the problem has the virtue of both stopping the wrongdoing and protecting an innocent person, namely himself, from unjust retribution. The disadvantage is that this approach involves telling a lie. The other approach, confronting Al openly, has the advantage of avoiding the lie and exhibiting the virtue of open confrontation of wrongdoing, but the disadvantage of jeopardizing Michael's position in the company.

There are at least four crucial factual questions in this problem. First, Michael should attempt to assess just how severe Al's retribution against him might be. Would Michael lose his job or forego any further advancement? Could Michael get assurance that he will be protected against Al's recrimination? Second, Michael should attempt to assess how much sense of guilt or self-recrimination he would undergo if he lies to Al. He might feel that he has been cowardly in not confronting Al "like a man," even if he can justify the action morally. Third, Michael should attempt to assess the likelihood of Al's finding out that Michael informed the Contract Procurement Agent of his wrongdoing. If Al is likely to find out about Michael's action anyhow, then Michael might as well inform Al himself. The answers to these factual questions would probably be decisive in determining which of the two alternatives outlined above is most desirable.