Ethical and Moral Cases CASE 1: WRONG SALARY Truth, transparency, and appropriate communication are the issues

at hand. On the part of the administration, esp. the personnel/human resource, they have an obligation to inform (through proper correspondence/channels) their employees, transparently and objectively, about the schematics and implications of compensations, promotions, salary increases, incentives and the like. E.g., an increase in the salary and promotion ought to be reflected in the employees profile and must be informed as well. Black and white is black and white. Proper and legal paper trails are always significant in dealing with work related matters. Accountability of mistakes on the part of the office must be recognized. The initial relief of the employee was replaced by an unexpected burden. Legally, the office may be sued for this blunder. The oversight and error are technically unacceptable as conduct of professionals; however it is aggravated by the lack of communication. Transparency on the matter is a demand both by the employee and the administration. While on the part of the employee, he/she also has an ought to with regard to the status of his/her job, and the compensations inclusive therein. He/she ought to ascertain rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations, as well as compensations and promotions, well documented and consented. Increments must not be presupposed as implicit in every transaction. Again it is not just receiving passively but the culpability of omission. Moral responsibility does not only lie in the commission of acts, but as well as the omission of what ought to be done. After all, a contract is an agreement, which involves the consent of both parties. Both parties must do their part in resolving the issue. CASE 2: MARKETING STRATEGY The end does not justify the means - an anti-Machiavellian adage in ethics applies here. A good act done with evil means destroys the entire objective goodness of the act. Hence, a good act can become evil through means and circumstances. Rachel is faced with a pseudo ethical dilemma. The horns of the dilemma are not both morally bound, only the decision appertaining to deceit of potential clients. It is a case of professional ethics versus subordination-chain of command. One must not recourse to deceit to win over people. CASE 3: INDECENT EMPLOYEE The philosophy of the Human Person recognizes and appreciates Man as a holistic individual. Although spheres of humanity and aspects of personhood exist, the person is not totally isolated and abstracted separately from his/her intra-, inter-, and metapersonal realms. The human person is not compartmentalized in reality; i.e., his/her private life and social life are not totally distinct and unrelated realities. Man is whole and integrated. Professionally, the company doesnt have a hold on the persons private life. However, the moment the private act becomes public, and has a social impact, then, it is the time the act has repercussions on the other aspects of his/her life, including his/her work. Social and moral obligations pervades in those acts. Indeed, morality is freedom. And it is bounded and judged because of it. But the voluntariness of the human person

has an enveloped responsibility. You are accountable to your acts, whether it affects your person or the other. Freedom has boundaries; we call them responsibilities. CASE 4: BORROWING MONEY Lets start with the title. It is not borrowing, due to the fact that there is neither permission raised nor consent given, even the mere fact of informing was absent. Bluntly, it is an act of stealing. The determinants of morality must be satisfied to clearly declare an act to be good. The object, the end (telos) and the circumstances must all be good and without a shadow of evil to clearly state it as good and morally permissible. Even the intent of returning the money prior to the act is not sufficient to justify the act. Truth be heard! CASE 5: SEXUAL HARRASSMENT As the common saying goes, a mistake could never be resolved by patching it up with another mistake. You will just fall in the fallacy of the slippery slope. It is a quicksand of faults and sins. The most prudent way then, is to confront the reality. Tell the truth. Face the consequences. However and undeniably, this is also the most difficult path. Honesty pays. Truth will be your deliverance. It will also serve as your plea, for them to reconsider your status. Although there is no subtlety in justice, mercy will be your companion. CASE 6: FILTERING AND PRESSURE FROM MEDIA CONGLOMERATES Professional ethics, objectivity and sensationalism for market gain are issues at hand. From the start, the criticism will be judged as unsolicited. Journalists and broadcasters, alike, have responsibilities on every news they air. Even the implications it forbears. However, in this case a contemporary type of Ethical theory may be applied, i.e., Situation Ethics. Situation, then, will be the ultimate criterion in judging an act to be moral or immoral. The circumstances that surround and influence the scenario are taken and weighed, both the physical and moral situation. If Michelle sees it fitting and necessary and the exigency for the public to be informed, then it is her call. The crisis here will be the purity of her objectives and if she acknowledges the undue influence of his superiors making her act tarnished. Regardless of the undue influence, Michelle must objectively evaluate whether the criticism is unattributed observation. Moral judgment is attributed to the person who decides the act and not the one that predisposes or influences the act. CASE 7: UPLOADING PICTURES Was has been done is a form of moral defamation on the part of Edith. On her regard and paradigm she was socially defamed. Indeed, alteration of truth, even it has the faade of truth, is no longer the truth. The act, whether it is intended for fun or ridicule, is also judged by the effect or consequences it bears. They have also committed a fallacy of composition, which she can raise as a rebuttal. Even though, the entire bulk of pictures are socially acceptable, it doesnt undermine the fact that there slipped one picture that humiliated her. The Kantian imperative also applies here. It states that, Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Never use a person to be an object of fun and ridicule.

CASE 8: STEALING AND CHEATING Both are acts of imprudence. Stealing and cheating, exacerbated by damage to properties, lying and deceit, are unmistakably immoral acts. Both are of the same weight. The gravity of their acts lies in the fact that it was premeditated, the intent, and the means are intrinsically immoral. There are no elements of goodness or even an ounce, which may alleviate the evil act. CASE 9: FAMILY ISSUES Argumentum ad Misericordiam are types of arguments most difficult to address and repudiate due to the nature of the fallacy, i.e., the involvement of emotions, pity and misery to compromise and undermine the essence of the argument. And this is the issue at hand. The ethical dilemma here is against his fathers support versus their familys condition. This situation makes us, seemingly helpless to overcome. We could never have the best of both worlds as they say and in this case confrontation to reality is the only escape route. Pitiful as it may seem and loses are assured, nevertheless truth must say its piece. As Aristotle and Plato stressed it, virtue is the highest form of ethics. Doing and knowing what is good entitles man to act accordingly. Confront his father and reveal every repercussion it will entail. Eddie, though young, could still find his own way to support his academics. One must not resort to compromise truth in the face of extrinsic advantage. CASE 10: JOB-HIRING Objectivity and unprejudiced evaluation are needed in facing this case. The purpose of screening and interviews are to assess the potential employees. Hence, the most prudent way for the HRD and yourself is to evaluate the bosss daughter regardless of her stature and relation. As well as comparative assessment on her working experience and attitude if there has been an improvement, neutrality or regress. Objective grounds in accepting or denying her will serve as your defense in justifying your act and decision. Politics is a dirty game to play as well as the passivity of toleration of undue influences. However, in ethics, good must be intrinsically and extrinsically good at all times and never dented or weakened by circumstance.