Reflective Writing Assignment
The first topic I will be discussing from this class that I gained a deeper understanding of is the concept that loyalty can be malleable depending on the circumstances. The idea of loyalty, more specifically rational loyalty was largely discussed within some of the readings from the whistleblowing section and explained that loyalty does not mean always showing absolute favor to an entity. For example, rational loyalty helps explain that because loyalty is seen as a moral trait to have, loyalty only extends to entities that are moral or acting in moral ways. To break this down further, this means that loyalty to a company or organization would only go as far as supporting them in moral ways, and exposing their wrongdoings would not express a lack of loyalty since the organization wasn’t acting in a moral manner. Loyalty is also further redefined in these readings as something that can be applied to the proposed ideals of an organization rather than an organization in and of itself. That is to say, if an organization has a mission statement that explains its due diligence in helping the community or being open and clear about their policies and actions, exposing them for going against such statements would be acting in a way that is loyal to the organization’s mission statement. This class has contributed greatly to deepening my understanding of loyalty as a concept especially within organizations. One takeaway I have from this for guiding my future self is that I should always remember to understand where my loyalties lie, and understand that loyalty isn’t something that should hold me back from doing the right thing, but should rather be something that keeps me on the right path in all stages of my life.
The second topic I will be discussing from this class that I gained a deeper understanding of is the concept that companies don’t have traditional social responsibilities. The idea of social responsibility explains the duties or actions expected of an entity in respect to society and the purpose that those entities serve, typically the role it serves to help better society. This topic was largely discussed in the section about corporate social responsibility and some of the readings explained that companies are not held to traditional social responsibility, but rather their own unique social responsibility. This unique social responsibility is more specifically described as that of improving the companies profits and return on investment rates rather than conforming to the traditional role of social responsibility. Even despite companies having social responsibilities that aren’t standardized, they still serve their own important role in society, that is serving to create jobs as well as producing goods and services that benefit society in their own way. This class has contributed greatly to deepening my understanding of social responsibility as a concept especially within respect to companies. One takeaway I have from this for guiding my future self is that I should always remember that there are outliers and exceptions within all facets of life, such that I should never become complacent in my judgment and should always be ready for the unexpected.
The third topic I will be discussing from this class that I gained a deeper understanding of is the concept of freedom to and freedom from. The concept of freedom to and freedom from explain the two different types of freedoms and how they apply to individuals. Freedom to laws outline the actions that are allowed to be taken by individuals under their jurisdiction. They typically detail positive and negative actions and how those play out in society with regards to the laws themselves and their legality. Freedom from laws explain that individuals are free to do the actions explained previously without interference from certain outside factors. These outside factors can be a variety of things but most typically mean from government involvement, interruption from other individuals, or extenuating circumstances. These articles go on to explain the importance of these two types of freedoms and how they pertain to data privacy and privacy laws in general. This class has contributed greatly to deepening my understanding of the two types of freedoms as a concept especially within respect to companies and their involvement. It was extremely interesting and helpful reading from the section on privacy and learning about how these two types of freedom, although different, are just two sides of the same coin. One takeaway I have from this for guiding my future self is that I should always remember to look at the bigger picture, such that I should always try understanding the nuance of a situation or idea before acting upon it, similar to how knowing both types of laws allows one to better understand its purpose as a whole.
Whistle Blowing Case Analysis
Introduction
Collateral Murder is a video that displays clips recorded from an aerial warcraft that was on a mission in Iraq. It focuses on two main instances in which the aerial warcraft guns down armed forces on the ground and in a building. In both instances there are collateral deaths which are more or less unnoticed by the soldiers until after the fact if not outright ignored for the supposed sake of the mission. These videos of the aerial warcrafts perspective and the mission have audio included from the soldiers who often use inappropriate or cruel language when talking about the ongoing acts, even going so far as to treat the casualties as kill counts in a video game as they boast about them. The video also has separate elements that include a government representative and an analyst voice their perspectives on the video and its impacts. In this Case Analysis I will argue that deontology shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing
Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty
The central concept that Vandekerckhove explains in this excerpt is that the current definitions of organizational loyalty and whistleblowing are contradictory. The excerpt goes on to explain that the current definition of organizational loyalty is inadequate and that it should instead be viewed as rational loyalty to the mission statement of the organization. What this means is that since most organizations have mission statements that typically explain their values and continued good relationships with society however that may be, the loyalty towards such mission statements would not contradict the act of whistleblowing. This is because the act of whistleblowing is typically done with the intention of exposing the wrongdoings of an organization to the public, which would not contradict with the loyalty to the mission statement of the organization. Applying this concept to the case of Manning whistleblowing, Manning is an employee of an organization, in this case the US government, and acted in a way that showed their rational loyalty to the mission statements of the organization as well as whistleblowing by releasing the information directly to the public.
Manning felt morally obligated to release government documents to the public in an effort to raise awareness about the wrongdoings of the US government. Believing that any internal whistleblowing would most likely be covered up and therefore never reach the public’s view, she decided to take it directly to wikileaks in an effort to ensure that the information reached the public’s view and that it was accessible to the public for the debate that was sure to come after. Assessing this situation under the scope of deontology it can be seen that Manning had all the right intentions with her actions, believing that what she was doing was for the sake of the public and was rightfully exposing the wrongdoings of the US government by leaking the documents. Regardless of any of the potential consequences that these documents could have on her life and on the reputation of the US government, she decided that it was best for the public to know what was really going on. As such, Manning acted in a morally correct manner under the lens of deontology as she had the right intentions and was acting on behalf of her duty and obligation to the public welfare. To take it a step further, look specifically at Kant’s categorical imperative which explains that individuals should always respect the humanity of others as well as acting in accordance with rules that can be held for everyone. Manning explains that a large part of her decision had to do with no longer seeing all these incidents and wrongdoings by the US governments as statistics or necessary lesser evils, but rather as the individual people they represent, no less important than anyone else. This was largely because of her experience learning about the people in Iraq and their lifestyles and then later on meeting them. Furthermore, Manning acted in a way that attempted to hold the US accountable for what they had done in the same way that the US attempts to hold everyone else accountable for what they do. Allowing this to go on without the public knowing would be unfair and morally wrong under the guise of deontology and more specifically Kant’s categorical imperative.
Although Manning was morally correct under the lens of deontology in having the right reasons for acting in the way she did. The correct course of action was most likely a more moderate one that employed more extensive thoughts on the matter. Such that, instead of making such a risky decision, one that could have led to the loss of life of US military soldiers as well as citizens ultimately, by leaking classified documents with sensitive military information. It would have served much better for her to have handpicked the most important and least sensitive to military functions like the collateral murder video depicting the murder of innocent individuals being caught in the blast radius or undetected when firing. By taking the time to sift through what was important for the public to see, and what could potentially jeopardize the life of US soldiers or citizens, she could have drastically decreased the potential risks while still making the same impact on the public and still exposing the wrongdoings of the US government. This approach would also still be the correct one to take since it would still be enforcing the ideologies of deontology and Kant’s categorical imperative, while also displaying a slightly higher sense of responsibility in the situation given the potential repercussions it could have had.
Care and Loyalty in the Workplace
The central concept that Oxley and Wittkower explain in this excerpt is that loyalty needs to be redefined to more properly fit for organizations such that it is shown through an individual’s care for the organization which can be displayed in a variety of ways. The excerpt states that some of the previous definitions for loyalty to an organization have been explained as contractual obligations to the company for certain actions, a sense of mutual self-interest, a set of feelings or emotions towards the organization, or an attitude geared towards willingness to sacrifice certain aspects for the companies sake. Oxley and Wittkower detail how these are outdated definitions and a more appropriate definition would be explaining loyalty towards an organization as a foundation of care or concern for the organization which can be shown in a number of ways. This is more typically seen through interpersonal relationships between coworkers and affiliated clients or members of the organization but also through other notable acts such as whistleblowing. Applying this concept to the case of Manning whistleblowing, Manning can be seen as an employee to an organization, in this case the US government, and acting in a manner that displays care for affiliated clients, in this case US citizens, by whistleblowing.
As explained by Oxley and Wittkower, Manning as an employee of an organization can have loyalty through care and concern for an organization and still whistleblow since it is immoral to show strict loyalty or partiality to an organization who is committing wrongdoings. This is because although loyalty can be seen or defined as a moral value, it is only moral when the loyalty is directed at a moral entity, an organization committing immoral acts would no longer fall under that categorization, and reporting such wrongdoings would be morally right as per their explanation. Assessing this situation under the scope of deontology it can be seen that Manning had all the right intentions with her actions, believing that what she was doing was for the sake of the public and was rightfully exposing the wrongdoings of the US government by leaking the documents. Manning believed the public, and especially US citizens, deserved to know the truth behind the military operations ongoing in Iraq and in doing so was willing to risk her livelihood by leaking government documents that proved such. Manning in this instance is acting in a morally correct manner under the lens of deontology, as she acted out of a sense of duty and obligation to the public rather than a partial and strict sense of loyalty to the US government. This can be more closely observed through Kant’s categorical imperative which explains that individuals should always respect the humanity of others as well as acting in accordance with rules that can be held for everyone. This is because Manning explained that a large portion of her decision to whistleblow and expose the US government’s wrongdoings had to do with how she viewed the victims of the US government. Manning could no longer see the victims as just another number being added to a statistic and ignored for a supposed greater cause, which displays her respect for the humanity of others. Similarly, Manning acts in a way that attempts to hold the US government accountable with the same rules that everyone else is held accountable for by exposing the wrongdoings which the US government would have undoubtedly hid from the public and gotten away with. Allowing this to go on without the public knowing would be unfair and morally wrong under the guise of deontology and more specifically Kant’s categorical imperative and as such it was morally correct for her to whistleblow.
Even though Manning did the right thing morally through the lens of deontology and more specifically Kant’s categorical imperative, there was still room for a more careful approach to the entire situation. Whistleblowing was the correct approach to take but there are some slight changes that would have drastically improved the decision as an entirety. That is to say that Manning probably should have been more cautious in her actions. By taking the time to hand-pick which content should be leaked to the public, she could have still exposed the wrongdoings of the US government while also minimizing the potential security threat that further release of documents could have caused. This approach is still morally sound through the lens of deontology and more specifically Kant’s categorical imperative since it was ultimately the same decision with just slightly more caution taken to mitigate the negative impacts it might have.
Conclusion
This case analysis has explained how deontology shows us that Manning acted in a moral case of whistleblowing. More specifically, Manning did it out of loyalty for the United States and what she believed was right. This was detailed through some of the main concepts of Vandekerckhove, Oxley, and Wittkower which attempt to explain their own respective definitions of loyalty as it applies to organizations. An opposing view that was considered while writing this case analysis, was the view which attempted to explain that this was an immoral case of whistleblowing through the lens of consequentialism. This opposing view would more than likely lean into the argument that the consequences of Manning’s whistleblowing, being the risk to US national security as well as potential problems in the war that occurred from it, did not outweigh the discussion brought about by it. This opposing view definitely has a lot of strong points and made it a worthy consideration, but it was ultimately decided against because the argument for it being a moral case of whistleblowing through the lens of deontology had the most stick to it. That is to say that Manning herself said a lot of things in her interviews that would implicate her sense of reasoning more closely than that of deontology since it was brought about by a sense of duty and obligation to the public. The readings also seemed to lean more towards a strong deontology argument for the morality of the whistleblowing.
Professional Ethics Case Analysis
Introduction
The Code I’m Still Ashamed Of is a selection written by Bill Sourour which explains his introduction to software development and his coding experience. Bill Sourour focuses on one particular experience he had in which he was instructed to develop a website for a pharmaceutical company. One of the features displayed on this particular website was a quiz targeted at teenage girls which would supposedly ask them a series of questions and then recommend a particular product based on their responses. While developing this quiz feature on the website, he noticed that regardless of what responses the quiz received it would always recommend one particular product, unless the user specifically checked yes on questions pertaining to potential allergies to the medicine or already being a user of the product. Bill thought nothing of it at the time but was informed that the pharmaceutical company appreciated his job on the website so much that they invited his team out for a steak dinner. Before heading to the steak dinner, Bill was informed by one of his fellow employees that there was a recent death caused by symptoms of the product that was being recommended on the website he developed. Shortly after this, he found out that his sister was taking the medication and quickly advised her to stop taking it. With someone close to him almost being a victim of the very product he helped in essentially marketing, he began to question the morality of the whole debacle and shortly thereafter resigned. In this Case Analysis I will argue that virtue ethics shows us that the code was morally problematic because it allowed for exploitative marketing of a potentially harmful product, and that Sourour should have refused to develop the website because of its deceitful nature and the potential negative impacts it could have on users.
Code of Ethics
The central concept that the Code of Ethics explains is the collective responsibility of all members of an organization to conduct themselves in a way that is ethical and professional. This excerpt explains this as all members of an organization are expected to act in a way that reflects strong ethical principles while also maintaining the expected level of professionalism during any given instance. The Code of Ethics goes on to classify eight moral imperatives: contributing to society and human well-being, avoiding harm to others, being honest and trustworthy, being fair and taking action to not discriminate, honoring property rights, giving proper credit for intellectual property, respecting the privacy of others, and honoring confidentiality. The Code of Ethics clarifies that these imperatives are not absolute, in cases where the law or other ethical imperatives mention such. Applying this concept to the case of Bill Sourour, it can be seen that he violated the Code of Ethics in allowing the companies to take advantage of customers via exploitative marketing practices. This specifically violates the ethical imperatives of being honest and trustworthy as well as being fair and taking action not to discriminate. This is because Bill Sourour acted in a way that Bill Sourour wrote code that was purposefully deceitful to the customers and was discriminatory in targeting teenage girls as it viewed them as a vulnerable or gullible group of people who the product best fit.
Bill Sourour is also guilty of violating the ethical imperatives of contributing to society and human well being as well as avoiding harm to others. Despite doing so unknowingly, he is still responsible for the exploitative marketing of a product that is potentially harmful to its users for not doing his due diligence in researching the product before releasing it, especially considering the nature of the marketing practices utilized. This instance of unethical behavior lines up in a way that goes against the virtue ethics in that he did not act in a virtuous manner. Virtue ethics focus on the individual carrying out an action rather than the consequences of the action or a higher sense of duty associated with it. Bill Sourour did not act in a virtuous manner since he failed to display many of the commonly recognized traits of virtue like honesty, compassion, integrity, fairness, and prudence. Bill Sourour failed to be honest by developing a website that made use of deceitful and exploitative marketing practices. He also failed to be compassionate in acknowledging the potential pain and suffering caused by developing the website. Bill Sourour failed to show his integrity by being negligent in his work and allowing for such wrongdoings to take place. He failed to be fair by allowing for discrimination in the website via marketing practices that were meant to target a seemingly vulnerable group. He also failed to be prudent by not taking the time to be cautious and understand the potential harm that the website he was developing could have on society. This more specifically means that he failed to act in a way that recognized the issues with the website he was tasked with developing and subsequently failed to respond in a virtuous manner. Bill Sourour failed to act in a virtuous manner and therefore was immoral in feigning ignorance to the situation as it developed despite later reflecting on the situation via his post.
The correct course of action given this situation would have been to first question the morals of the tasks that were assigned to be completed. After discerning that there were significant issues associated with the task that was being asked to complete, the issues should have been brought up to superiors and then further evaluated. Feigning ignorance to the potential problems that could be caused by going through with the tasks shows a general lack of care as well as a set of weak moral values. Not developing the website would have shown his ethical responsibility and being able to explain why he can’t to his clients and superiors would display his professional responsibility as well. This approach would have been the correct one to take per virtue ethics since it would have demonstrated his ability to respond the right way to this specific situation even if it means going against what is expected of him typically being the completion of the tasks he is assigned, since they violate ethical imperatives.
Confidentiality: A Comparison Across the Professions of Medicine, Engineering and Accounting
The central concept that Armstrong explains in this excerpt is confidentiality and how it applies to professional fields. More specifically, this excerpt explains that within professional fields there is often a monopoly of knowledge in professional fields and this monopoly is allowed under the pretense that it is in the public’s best interest. Armstrong goes on to explain this concept as a social contract of sorts that works to benefit both parties. This is explained as a binding force or mutual understanding of sorts in which if the professional fields are not acting in the best interest of the public through their monopoly of knowledge protected by confidentiality then that confidentiality can be breached. Applying this concept to the case of Bill Sourour, it can be seen that he assisted the pharmaceutical company in breaching the social contract so to speak, in that he enabled them to act in a way that wasn’t in the public’s best interest. This is to say he aided them in developing a website that made use of exploitative marketing practices in an attempt to sell potentially harmful products.
This is another instance of unethical behavior that lines up in a way that goes completely against the virtue ethics in that Bill Sourour and the pharmaceutical company did not act in a virtuous manner. Virtue ethics focus on the individual carrying out an action rather than the consequences of the action or a higher sense of duty associated with it. Bill Sourour did not act in a virtuous manner since he failed to display many of the commonly recognized traits of virtue like honesty, compassion, integrity, fairness, and prudence. Bill Sourour failed to be honest by developing a website that made use of deceitful and exploitative marketing practices. He also failed to be compassionate in acknowledging the potential pain and suffering caused by developing the website. Bill Sourour failed to show his integrity by being negligent in his work and allowing for such wrongdoings to take place. He failed to be fair by allowing for discrimination in the website via marketing practices that were meant to target a seemingly vulnerable group. He also failed to be prudent by not taking the time to be cautious and understand the potential harm that the website he was developing could have on society. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical company was negligent in all the same respects and in fact displayed many vices in their actions, most prominently greed. The company displayed greed by making use of deceitful and exploitative marketing practices, targeting a potentially vulnerable group, and selling potentially harmful products. This more specifically means that they failed to act in a way that recognized the issues with the website Bill Sourour was tasked with developing and subsequently failed to respond in a virtuous manner. Bill Sourour failed to act in a virtuous manner and therefore was immoral in feigning ignorance to the situation as it developed despite later reflecting on the situation via his post. Whereas the pharmaceutical company acted in a more vicious manner since it was the one who tasked Bill with the website development and was aware of the issues present as well as the potential harm it could cause to others.
The correct course of action from the company would have been to act in a way that was in the public’s best interest, rather than posing a problem to society by making use of exploitative marketing practices on their website to sell a potentially harmful product. Whereas, the correct course of action from Bill would have been to outright refuse to develop the website after discerning that there were significant issues associated with it. The issues then should have been brought up to superiors and then further evaluated. Feigning ignorance to the potential problems that could be caused by going through with the tasks shows a general lack of care as well as a set of weak moral values. Bill deciding not to develop the website would have been in the public’s best interest. Similarly, the pharmaceutical company never proposing plans for creating a website that makes use of exploitative marketing practices would have also been in the public’s best interest. This approach would have been the correct one to take per virtue ethics since it would have demonstrated Bill’s ability to respond the right way to this specific situation even if it means going against what is expected of him typically being the completion of the tasks he is assigned, since they violate ethical imperatives. On the flip side, the pharmaceutical company deciding to act in the best interest of the public would be correct per virtue ethics and based on the social contract defined in Armstrong’s excerpt.
Conclusion
This case analysis has explained how virtue ethics shows that Bill Sourour should have refused to develop the website because of its deceitful nature and the potential negative impacts it could have on users. More specifically, Bill Sourour should have refused to develop the website because the code was morally problematic, as it allowed for exploitative marketing of a potentially harmful product. This was detailed through the main concepts of the Code of Ethics as well as Armstrongs excerpt on professional fields and confidentiality as it applies. An opposing view that was considered while writing this, was the view which attempted to look at the situation through a more ethics of care ideology. Such an approach would take a different stance on the morals of the situation entirely as it would most likely argue that per care of ethics Bill should take the companies side because of his loyalty to the company or at the least give them the benefit of the doubt and overlook the one situation that seemingly occurred. This argument, although it has some strong points, seemed to lack certain logical foundations. Specifically, using ethics of care in a business environment seems to miss the mark entirely as ethics of care tends to be more applicable to situations involving interpersonal relationships and how those should be handled on a micro and macro level. As such it was decided against since it wasn’t as well fit as virtue ethics seemed to be.