Only on failing to get results, he began attacking the management through his new Website, to bring the public’s attention to injustices at ExtremeNet. Based on Allen Lopez’s selfless and continued concern for his subordinates, the ruling is that Lopez should be allowed to continue working for ExtremeNet.
According to moral absolutism, some actions are morally wrong to perform, “even when performing them would bring good results” (Timmons, 2002, p.80). Similarly, Kantian deontology states that a good person’s tendency to follow moral rules will prevent them from breaking the rules even for the sake of ensuring good outcomes (Darr, 2005). Thus, it is against professional ethics for an employee to cause the ridiculing of his company, his seniors or his colleagues, with subsequent decline in the company’s profitable functioning.
Further, Allen Lopez could have chosen to raise awareness about discrimination among the lower level employees who were laid off, and organized collective action against the management’s approach, to avoid publicity. The ethical concept of “loyal and faithful service” (Mead & Sagar, 2006, p.141) to one’s organization was violated by Lopez. Therefore, Allen Lopez should be asked to apologize at his satirical Website to the executives of ExtremeNet, for ridiculing them and the company, and subsequently remove the satirical Website from the worldwide web.
Utilitarian teleology states that it is wrong to steal, to lie, etc. However, it allows “exceptions in the odd cases where the rules interfere with happiness rather than promote it” (Garofalo & Geuras, 1999, p.61). Similarly, according to moral relativism, right and wrong depend on the moral code of a culture (Timmons, 2002). The executives at ExtremeNet should raise the levels of the company’s ethical culture, so that they can expect the same ethical behavior