The Main Ethical Principles - Essay Example

?Ethics study case Ethics study case The main ethical principles Beneficence is one of the most applicable ethical principles and it defines the need to restrain from causing harm to other members of the society and their rights and property. The principle also identifies a person’s intention in a subject action. An act that causes harm but lacked an intention into such harm do not contravene the principle of beneficence while as act that is associated with an ill intention of causing harm is considered to have breached the principle even if the intended harm does not materialize. The case illustrates two applicable facts into principle of beneficence; the employer’s act not to remove or cover the asbestos rich cables threatens harm on the employees’ lives while an act of whistle blowing threatens the organization’s corporate image and legal liability. Confidentiality is another applicable principle to the case and defines the obligation to maintain privacy of a person or institution’s sensitive information and whistle blowing puts the principle at stake. Lawfulness, another applicable ethical principle, defines the knowledge of laws and their implementation and applies to the organization that should be aware of and uphold health and safety laws and yet ignores the rules. The organization’s failure to remove or cover asbestos pipes is wrong because it contravenes principles of beneficence and lawfulness. The conflict is prioritization of the interest to safeguard the job, employees’ lives, and the organization and it affects the department’s employees at individual level, their families and the society at group level, and also the organization (Pfeiffer and Forsberg 15- 19). Options in resolving the problem from different ethical perspectives Utilitarianism defines ethics from an act’s consequence. Acts resulting in more benefits to a larger section of the society are considered ethical while acts resulting in net harm to a larger section of the society are unethical. A ‘consequentialist’ approach would therefore consider impacts of health risks to the employees, their families and community and the consequences of whistle blowing on the organization. Diseases that can result from exposure to asbestos, effects of the diseases on the employees such as death and incapacitation, and consequences on families and the society would however be more harmful than the company’s financial loss in lawsuits and from poor corporate image. This is because loss of lives or body parts is more significant than financial losses that the company may incur. This justifies ethics in whistle bowing. The scope of deontology ethics that is based on rules and obligations also justifies whistle blowing that is supported by established laws on health and safety at the work place. This is because the organization has decided to operate contrary to the rules that establish its duty to ensure a safe work environment. The general obligation to ensure safety of other members of the society also justifies whistle blowing in the case. Virtue ethics, with its basis on character such as respect of people’s lives and welfare and integrity also identifies whistle blowing as the solution towards protecting the employees’ lives by justifying an employee’s integrity and strong personality in raising the red flag (Brooks and Dunn 182- 188). My perceived solution My perceived solution to the case is to expose the condition to relevant agencies for appropriate measures. This would involve a formal communication to the organization’s management of intentions to seek external interventions towards protecting employees’ welfare. I would then write to both the State Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency to inform them of the asbestos exposure at the workplace and the organization’s position against removing or covering the asbestos cables. I would then submit a copy of each letter to the organization’s management before remittance to the agencies. The proposed approach to resolving the problem does not breach ethical principle of confidentiality because the agencies are stakeholders to the case and are entitled to workplace information that affect employees’ health and safety. It however promotes beneficence by ensuring mitigation of threats to the employee’s health. Further, my perceived solution facilitates the organization’s observation of existing laws on employee’s health and safety at the work place. Further, the approach is supported by ethical theories of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics that facilitate ethical principles of beneficence, fidelity, and adherence to law and obligations. The most challenging aspect of the case The most challenging aspect of the case is the employee’s interest in the job because an employee is vulnerable to his or her employer. Seeking to resolve the ethical problem exposes the proactive employee to harsh treatment by the organization’s management. The organization’s lack of intention to remove or insulate the involved pipes and the hinted cost of such a move indicate that it will try to use managerial initiatives to stop the employee from raising the issue with the agencies. Examples of initiatives that the management may use are intimidation, threats of demotion, or even being fired from the organization. This identifies threats of job security and frustration at the workplace. The employee is vulnerable to accusations of insubordination and breach of confidentiality and the argument that these can warrant his sacking. The management can also threaten the employee with a transfer to a junior department or position in order to frustrate him for his intentions. These managerial options may convince the employee to refrain from whistle blowing in order to protect his job and the associated income from the job. I have faced a similar condition at the workplace in which the management failed to protect its junior employees from gender based discrimination by some of its top officials. While members of the organization, especially young female workers complained discrimination from some of the departmental managers, the organization’ top leadership refused to take an action and this forced a group of employees to seek legal intervention. Current workplace issues such as mandatory longer working hours and disregard to recommended minimum wages for casual workers are similar ethical cases that are contemporary. Employers take advantage of the fact that some categories of employees are desperate for jobs and they overexploit these employees. Works cited Brooks, Leonard, and Dunn, Paul. Business and professional ethics: For directors, executives, and accountants. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2009. Pfeiffer, Raymond and Forsberg, Ralph. Ethics on the job: Cases and strategies. New York, NY: WADSWORTH Incorporated Fulfillment, 2005. Print. Read More