You are an employee of a public transportation company. The company operates as a not-for-profit and is in-part publicly funded through tax-payer money. The company has always treated you well and, despite some minor disagreements, you have always gotten along well with upper management. However, though you have always been treated well, the executives of the company have become recently concerned about some of your colleagues. They worry that some employees are not loyal to the company, and there has been some tension between employees and senior executives in the past few months.
Once a year, as part of a major fund-raising drive for a local charity to help the homeless, the transportation company encourages its employees to donate their personal time and money to this charity. This is one of the things you value about working for the transportation company; this chance to give back to the community. This year, however, you discover that a significant amount of the transportation companyâ€™s resources are being used to support the charity. That is, the company is not just asking employees to donate their time and money, it is also donating money it is granted through public-funding for its day-to-day operations. The company is printing posters and sending out flyers for the charity and claiming them as company expenses. The company is also using employees who are being paid on company time to promote the fund-raiser. You worry that this is not an ethical use of the public funds that make up part of the companyâ€™s operating budget.
You have approached your manager about this, but she dismissed your concerns as trivial. She claimed there was no ethical problem as long as the resources were going to charity. But you worry that this use of company resources to promote the charityâ€™s fund-raiser is a betrayal of public trust. You think perhaps you should blow the whistle. It would be simple enough to do anonymously by contacting your local paper. But there is already a lot of tension at work and you worry that, by blowing the whistle, you might lose your job (if you are found out) and that other employees might also be disciplined (if you are not). And, you know that the charity depends on this fund-raiser to provide them the resources they need to support the homeless through the cold winter months. If there were a scandal, the fund-raiser might not be successful.
1) Introduction: Introduce the case study you will write on in general detail. Outline how your write-up will proceed. Tell the reader up front what course of action you will propose.
â€¢ 2) Morally Relevant Facts: have you identified all (and only) the morally relevant facts and explained why they are morally relevant.
â€¢ 3) Moral dilemma: Explain what factors about the case make it a moral dilemma. A dilemma has at least two sides (or competing interests). Explain what those competing sides or interests are, where there is room for disagreement, and why there is room for disagreement (state the morally relevant facts that support each side of the dilemma
â€¢ 4) Possible Courses of Action: Referencing the dilemma laid out in section two, identify at least two different possible courses of action. In identifying these courses of action, you should cite the moral theories that would support each course,.
â€¢ 5) Ethical Defense: Propose a course of action that you believe to be the most ethical. You should cite the moral theory/theories that support your course of action
Can only make reference to : Utilitarianism ( Bentham and Mill ), Kantian, Sissela Bok ( whistle blowing and Professinal Responsibility), Ronald Duska (whistleblowing and employee loyalty), Michael Phillips ( Manipulative advertising)