Assignment 2 Suggested Length 750 To 1000 Words Ethical Theo

Assignment 2 Suggested Length 750 To 1000 Words Ethical Theories To A

You work in the Ethics Department for ABC Company (ABC). Your department is dedicated to advising its employees about their ethical obligations in the corporate setting. You are an internal consultant who provides advice and recommendations for action to employees of the firm. All communications you receive in this capacity are confidential.

Luke, an employee of ABC, approaches you with a scenario involving the development of land recently purchased by ABC to build an adult entertainment retail store. The plan involves the store being located on the corner of a neighborhood where Luke’s brother, Owen, resides. Luke knows that once the project plans are made public, the property values in the surrounding area will decrease significantly. ABC intends to announce the project publicly in one month. Luke is committed to confidentiality but also has a close relationship with Owen, who recently received an offer to sell his house at an “okay” market price. Owen is contemplating whether to sell now or wait for a potentially higher market value in the future. Luke is uncertain about his ethical obligations regarding confidentiality and whether he should disclose Owen’s situation.

Your task is to analyze this situation using only the ethical theories of Utilitarianism and Universal Ethics (Kant’s categorical imperative). You are to prepare a memo that evaluates the ethical issues involved and provides recommendations based on these two moral frameworks. Your analysis should consider what is ethically permissible and what course of action best aligns with each theory, given the facts presented.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The ethical dilemmas faced by employees working within corporate environments often involve conflicting obligations—such as loyalty to the company versus moral duties to others. In the case of Luke, he faces a complex situation that involves confidentiality, potential economic impact on a neighborhood, and personal relationships. Applying ethical theories like Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics enables a structured approach to understanding what actions are morally permissible or required. This paper explores these perspectives in the context of Luke’s dilemma and offers recommendations aligned with each moral framework.

Utilitarian Analysis of the Ethical Dilemma

Utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering (Mill, 1863). From this perspective, Luke must consider the consequences of either maintaining confidentiality or disclosing information about Owen’s potential sale. The primary concern involves the impending development of an adult entertainment store that is expected to lower property values significantly, thereby causing economic harm to the neighborhood and its residents.

Keeping the project plans confidential benefits ABC by preventing premature disclosure that could lead to community backlash, project delays, or reputational damage. However, this secrecy could also cause personal distress for Owen if he intends to sell his house now rather than later, potentially missing out on a better deal. Disclosing Owen’s potential sale would introduce transparency, possibly influencing his decision, and might mitigate the harm caused by the development if it leads to a reconsideration or alteration of plans, promoting greater overall welfare.

Conversely, revealing Owen’s private information without consent violates confidentiality and could undermine trust within the company, leading to long-term harms such as reduced morale or increased scrutiny. Additionally, violating Owen’s privacy might cause personal harm or familial discord, which reduces overall happiness.

In conclusion, utilitarian judgment might favor maintaining confidentiality to protect the company's interests and the neighborhood's stability, thus maximizing overall happiness. Nonetheless, if disclosure could prevent a greater harm—such as community destabilization or personal hardship for Owen—then transparency could be justified. Therefore, Luke should weigh the potential consequences of disclosure versus secrecy, considering whether informing Owen might contribute to a greater overall good by possibly delaying or modifying the development project.

Kantian Ethics (Universal Ethical Principles) Analysis

Kant’s categorical imperative emphasizes acting according to principles that can be universally applied, respecting the inherent dignity and autonomy of individuals (Kant, 1785). Central to Kantian ethics is the duty to uphold honesty and confidentiality and to treat others as ends, not merely means.

Applying this framework, Luke has the duty to maintain confidentiality about the project plans, as failing to do so would involve using company information in a way that cannot be universally justified. Moreover, disclosing Owen’s potential sale information without consent would violate the Kantian imperative to treat individuals as autonomous moral agents deserving respect and honesty.

Furthermore, Kantian ethics would argue that Luke should not act on personal desires or relationships—such as informing Owen about his sale opportunity—if doing so involves risking his professional duties or violating truthful principles. Instead, he should uphold a universal maxim consistent with honesty and respecting confidentiality, which means not sharing private information unless authorized or mandated by a superior.

However, Kantian calculus also includes the duty to respect human dignity. If divulging Owen’s potential sale could lead to his well-being—such as arranging a better deal or avoiding community harm—then failing to disclose might conflict with this duty, especially if withholding information results in preventable harm to others.

In essence, Kantian ethics would prioritize adhering strictly to the principles of honesty, confidentiality, and respect for individual autonomy. Luke’s moral obligation is to honor his confidentiality duties and avoid using personal relationships to justify breaches of professional ethics.

Recommendations

From a Utilitarian perspective, Luke should consider whether sharing Owen’s potential sale information might lead to a better overall outcome—such as delaying the project, altering development plans, or enabling Owen to make an informed decision that could mitigate personal or community harm. If disclosure could promote greater happiness or reduce suffering, it may be ethically justified.

In contrast, from a Kantian perspective, Luke should uphold his confidentiality obligation, respecting both his employment commitments and Owen's autonomy. Any breach of confidentiality would violate the universal principles of honesty and respect, potentially setting a precedent for unethical behavior.

Ultimately, the best course of action depends on the anticipated consequences and moral duties involved. Luke could consider seeking guidance from his supervisor or legal counsel within the company, ensuring that any decisions align with both legal obligations and ethical standards. If the company’s policies allow for disclosure in specific circumstances, such action might be justified. Otherwise, the Kantian imperative would suggest maintaining confidentiality despite personal conflicts.

Conclusion

The ethical analysis of Luke’s situation—using Utilitarianism and Kant’s categorical imperative—reveals contrasting but valuable insights. Utilitarianism might permit disclosure if it enhances overall welfare or prevents greater harm, whereas Kantian ethics mandates strict adherence to confidentiality and respect for individual rights. Both perspectives underscore the importance of weighing consequences against moral duties. Ultimately, Luke’s responsibility is to act consistently with moral principles and professional obligations, prioritizing actions that promote the greatest good without violating fundamental ethical duties.

References

• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, 2002. Cambridge University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Gert, B. (2004). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development. Harper & Row.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Warren, M. (1992). Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Princeton University Press.
• Gensler, H. J. (2017). Aristotle's Ethics. Routledge.