An Ethical Dilemma
ADMN 2306 FA802 Assignment #2
Jeremy Butterworth
The term Ethics asks us to “pay attention to something beyond ourselves”, which shows how important that ethics is when determining the character of an individual. The first chapter of the test book briefly summarizes the robust predicament Professor Ballistico is currently faced with. The findings that Professor Ballistico found in his research created an ethical dilemma because he is now being required to make a decision based on something that will not just affect himself, but everyone around him too.
Professor Ballistico is in a challenging situation that is requiring him to determine what is considered to be right and what is fair. This is a great example of relativism because in this situation what is right for one side, might not be right for the other party involved. Relativism often suggests that there is often more than one right standard, which is evident in this case because what is considered to be right to Foodcorp could be different than what Professor Ballistico, BigCity University, and consumers. This situation is tough for Professor Ballistico because of the variables given within this case. The trouble in this case is similar to many other ethical issues because there is not inevitably one correct solution.
The main ethical concern in this case is based on the topic of loyalty versus honesty. Quite often, many people confuse the two terms and view them as words that can be used in an interchangeable fashion. It is quite ironic that people see them as interchangeable because these two words are what is causing Professor Ballistico to be divided on what his decision should be.
The term honesty is defined as being truthful to everyone at all times. In contrast, loyal is to devote or commit to something. If you are cogitated as a loyal individual then you support another individual and have their back. The thing that separates loyalty from honesty is that you do not have to be an honest person to be considered loyal. Sometimes for the person, team, company, etc., that you show loyalty to, you are only showing this loyalty because it is for your best interest to not tell the truth on their behalf. This is a great example of utilitarianism because this term is defined as doing something based on actions that are deemed right because they are useful or benefit the majority.
When determining what character is considered to have a higher importance, honesty or loyalty, there is a key ethical question to be answered. The answer could depend on morals/beliefs of the individual.
In this case, Professor Ballistico is required to choose whether he should be honest with his findings and share his research, or to be loyal to Foodcorp, the company that supplied the funding for the University’s research center. Many people, based on their ethical background, would argue that honesty is the most essential trait to have and that Professor Ballistico must share the information he learned with consumers. The problem with sharing his findings with consumers is that if he does not tell the company, then it would most likely destroy the relationship between Foodcorp and BigCity University.
Regardless of what decision is decided, many people are going to be affected. On one side, Ballistico, his research assistant, BigCity University and anyone else involved with the BigCity research center will be obstructed by the decision made. On the other side, anyone that is currently associated with Foodcorp will be affected. The people from Foodcorp who have the potential to be affected include: employees and their family members, customers, and any investors/shareholders.
Since Foodcorp has invested a large sum of money into BigCity University, I believe that the professor has an ethical obligation to inform the corporation of his findings before stating them in a publically. Even though Professor Ballistico’s findings would most likely be headline news, publishing the research without telling the company that invested a large sum into the research center would be the wrong thing to do because the research was discovered in the building that Foodcorp helped build due to their investment.
Since Foodcorp is an important investor to BigCity University, I would provide them with the opportunity to make the information public because that way you are not going behind their back. If Ballistico was to make this information public without first telling Foodcorp, then Foodcorp would be seen as untrustworthy by consumers. If seen as untrustworthy, it will have a negative affect for the companies’ image, along with their relationship with BigCity University. However, if Professor Ballistico gives them the opportunity to address the issue and inform their consumers about it, then they could potentially save face and maintain a positive image.
By performing that action, the Professor implodes the risk of Foodcorp either not informing their consumers or worse, telling them that the research found by Professor Ballistico is false. If Ballistico has any sense after speaking with FoodCorp that they are not going to do what he wants them to do, then he has no choice but to make his findings public in order to potentially save himself from false accusations.
If I was in the position that Professor Ballistico was in, I would expect Foodcorp to act ethically in regard to this issue and address it with their consumers. The statement made by Foodcorp in relation to their donation to BigCity University would indicate that they are interested in a better society. The case stated that Foodcorp said “As a good corporate citizen we should give something back to society by funding academic research for the benefit of future generations”. Because the issue was previously unknown to them, they have every chance to still be considered good corporate citizens.
According to the textbook, “to think or act ethically is to take case of the basic needs and legitimate expectations of others as well as our own.” A basic need for all humans is healthcare, which could have a negative effect to it if all the additives in the Foodcorp products are causing a significant increase to the risk of allergies. It would be considered unethical to not inform consumers about the risk that was found in the findings.
I believe Ballistico is not overstepping any boundaries because he is giving the corporation every opportunity to reveal the now-identified problem to consumers. By being the one to tell Foodcorp about the problem, he is now putting the ball in their court to make the right decision.
I believe that the decision comes back to the course concept of virtue. Virtue is behavior that shows high moral standards. The ethics of virtue relates to character traits that need to be developed and sustained, which is something that Ballistico needs to establish. I learned that the company Southwest Airlines practices virtue well from my fellow class mate Lindsay Mackay in the discussion post, in which she stated, “Their belief is that if they treat employees right, then the employees will treat the customers right”. (L. Mackey, post, October 31, 2017) Southwest airlines is a great company with great values, which is something that Ballistico should preach to FoodCorp.
If Foodcorp decided that they are going to take the unethical route, then the Professor has the ethical obligation to take care of the basic needs of others. If Foodcorp has a chance to act in an ethical manner with an insignificant financial setback and they decide not to act ethically, then it is clear that the University should explore other options by finding a partner who is honest and ethical. By giving Foodcorp the ability to release the findings themselves and they still do not take it, it shows that they do not care about the findings that state the negative aspects of the additives. This shows they do not care about the health of their consumers. Big City University should not be in a partnership with a company that does not support ethically correct values.
References
L. Mackey, post, October 31st, 2017