Considering The Ethical Implications In Bid Selection For CI

considering the ethical implications in bid selection for city subway project

Your Name, Professor Name, Course Name or Course Number, Paper Number, Date

Discuss the ethical issues related to Susan Whitehead's situation regarding the bid for the city subway system, including categorizing the ethical dilemma, examining other perspectives, describing rationalizations, and applying an ethics model to resolve the situation.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma presented in the case involving Susan Whitehead and the city’s subway bid reflects a complex conflict between personal loyalty, professional integrity, and public duty. At its core, the situation hinges on whether Susan has an ethical obligation to disclose her knowledge about her brother-in-law’s company, Customized Transportation Co., and its potential management issues, to the City Planning Commission. This case exemplifies a classic conflict between honesty and loyalty, as well as between individual interests and societal responsibilities.

Categorizing the Ethical Dilemma

The primary ethical dilemma in this case involves whether Susan should disclose potentially damaging information about her brother-in-law's company's management stability to the city, which could influence the bid decision. On one hand, withholding such information aligns with personal loyalty and family ties; on the other, disclosure aligns with honesty and the city’s right to make an informed decision. Consequently, the dilemma may be framed as an ethical conflict between loyalty to family and duty to the public interest. The dilemma is further complicated by the possibility that revealing the information might cost her brother-in-law the contract, potentially affecting his livelihood and the overall integrity of the bidding process.

This scenario exemplifies the ethical conflict often encountered in professional settings—balancing personal relationships with the ethical responsibility to promote fairness, transparency, and the public good. The issue is not merely about the act of disclosure but also about whether withholding information constitutes complicity in unethical conduct, or if nondisclosure is justified to prevent harm to her family.

Examining the Matter from Other Perspectives

From the perspective of public responsibility, Susan’s obligation is to ensure that the bidding process remains fair, transparent, and based on accurate information. If the management instability of Custom Transportation could affect the project's quality, timeliness, or safety, then withholding such information can be considered unethical because it compromises the integrity of the procurement process and potentially jeopardizes public welfare.

From her personal perspective, Susan faces a dilemma rooted in loyalty to her family. She might rationalize that disclosing her knowledge could unjustly harm her brother-in-law or cause familial discord. Alternatively, she could argue that her loyalty to family should not override her professional responsibilities. The company's future, success, and reputation might depend on her decision, and she might also fear retaliation or damaged relationships if she discloses the information.

From the perspective of the contractor, knowing that they are potentially being evaluated on incomplete or misleading information might lead to feelings of unfairness. The economic implications also matter; revealing the instability could favor the second bidder, Worldwide Transportation, and influence the financial outcome for all involved.

The city’s perspective prioritizes fairness, transparency, and efficient use of public funds. In their view, accepting bids based on full disclosure ensures that the city acts within ethical standards and legal obligations, avoiding favoritism or corruption. Suppressing relevant information would undermine these principles.

Possible Rationalizations

One rationalization for nondisclosure is the belief that revealing her knowledge could unjustly harm her brother-in-law's business and personal well-being, especially if the instability is only potential and unverified. She might justify her silence as protecting her family from harm or as preserving loyalty.

Alternatively, she might believe that the management issues are not significant enough to warrant disclosure, especially if her knowledge is uncertain or based on incomplete information. Such a rationalization sees her role as impartial and adherent solely to her duties as a public servant.

Another common rationalization is that disclosure might not change the outcome—the bid might be awarded to the same contractor regardless—or that the city’s decision-makers are capable of conducting their due diligence. These rationalizations minimize her moral responsibility to intervene actively.

However, these justifications often conflict with ethical principles comprising honesty, integrity, and accountability and can be challenged through ethical analysis.

Applying an Ethics Model to Resolve the Situation

Among various ethical frameworks, Kantian ethics provides a compelling approach for this case. Kant’s principle emphasizes acting according to maxims that can be universally adopted and that treat individuals as ends rather than means. Applying Kantian ethics, Susan should evaluate whether her decision to disclose or withhold information could be universalized as a moral law. If everyone withheld such information, the fairness and integrity of public procurement would be undermined, leading to a loss of public trust and potential harm to the community.

Furthermore, Kantian ethics insists on honesty and transparency. Since the potential management issues can affect the integrity of the project, failing to disclose them could be deemed as using her position for personal loyalty at the expense of the public good, which Kantian ethics condemns.

Applying the Utilitarian approach, which considers the greatest good for the greatest number, suggests that disclosure might lead to the overall better outcome. Although it could harm her brother-in-law, it would also promote fairness, prevent potential project failure, and uphold public trust. In this context, the public interest should take precedence, assuming the management issues are significant and could negatively impact the project.

In consequence, the most ethically justifiable course of action, based on Kantian and Utilitarian principles, is for Susan to disclose her knowledge about her brother-in-law’s potential management issues to the city. Such transparency aligns with moral duty, promotes fairness, and preserves public confidence in the bidding process.

Conclusion

The case involving Susan Whitehead encapsulates a fundamental ethical conflict between loyalty and public responsibility. Proper ethical scrutiny reveals that disclosure, supported by Kantian and Utilitarian principles, prioritizes integrity and fairness over personal loyalty. While personal relationships complicate decision-making, professionals in public roles bear the responsibility of acting ethically to ensure societal trust and justice. Ultimately, transparency and honesty are vital to maintaining ethical standards in public procurement processes, and individuals like Susan must navigate these conflicts with moral integrity.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). How Good People Make Tough Choices. HarperOne.
• Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Ross, W. D. (1939). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.
• Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger Publishing.
• Schulman, B. (2000). The ethics of transparency. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 124-132.
• Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, implications, and firm management. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
• Bowden, B. (2009). Public Ethics: How Justice Matters. Routledge.