Picking Up The Slack Greg And Natalie Have Been In Business
Picking Up The Slackgreg And Natalie Have Been In Business Classes Tog
Picking up the Slackgreg And Natalie Have Been In Business Classes Tog
Picking up the Slack Greg and Natalie have been in business classes together since freshman year. While they’re not close friends, they have always enjoyed each other’s company in class and have been in the same social circle as they’ve moved from lower division courses to where they are now: senior capstone. Greg and a few of his friends invite Natalie to join their group at the start of the term, and they begin to work on their project. Fairly quickly, though, Greg realizes that Natalie isn’t pulling her weight. Any aspect of the project that’s assigned to her has to be redone by other members of the group, she doesn’t pay attention in meetings, and she consistently shows up late or hung over.
Greg and his other groupmates think that Natalie needs to step it up and take this project seriously, but they ultimately agree it would be more trouble than it’s worth to confront her about it. They decide to just push through and let her do her own thing. Natalie continues to participate marginally in discussions, planning, and writing, but makes it clear through her actions that their final presentation is not her biggest priority. After Greg’s group gives its final presentation, the members are asked to write an evaluation on their teammates that the professor will use to determine individual grades. When it comes to most of his teammates, Greg easily gives them all A’s and B’s for their participation and contributions to the project.
However, when Greg comes to Natalie’s evaluation, he is faced with a dilemma. It’s their last big project before graduation, and if he were to evaluate her in a harsh way, it could negatively affect her cumulative GPA. He doesn’t want to throw her under the bus; however, her apathy and poor work ethic put a huge burden on everyone else’s shoulders, and Greg had to personally sacrifice a lot of time and effort to make up for her mistakes or tasks that she left undone. Is it worth giving her an honest evaluation, just so the professor will give her the grade she deserves? Or is giving her a bad evaluation petty and unnecessary, considering that they are all about to graduate and their group received an A, regardless of her performance?
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
The ethical dilemma presented in this scenario revolves around the conflict between honesty and fairness versus compassion and pragmatism. Greg faces a choice: should he provide an honest, perhaps harsh, evaluation of Natalie’s contribution to ensure academic integrity and fairness, or should he soften his assessment to protect her GPA and avoid conflict? This situation highlights the tension between personal integrity and the ethical obligation to support fellow students, especially when their performance directly affects not just their grades but also the fairness of the grading process. The context involves a team project in a university senior capstone course, where individual evaluations influence final grades. Key parties involved include Greg, his teammates, Natalie, and the course instructor. The complexities stem from the fact that the group’s overall success was achieved despite Natalie's minimal effort, and the potential repercussions of Greg’s evaluation could extend beyond grades to personal relationships and ethical standards. This dilemma demands a careful ethical analysis to determine the right course of action, considering both moral principles and practical consequences. The purpose of this essay is to analyze this scenario through multiple ethical perspectives and to reflect on my own moral stance.
Analysis Using Ethical Theories
The utilitarian approach assesses an action based on its consequences, aiming to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering (Sandel, 2010). Applying this theory to Greg’s situation, an honest evaluation, though potentially damaging to Natalie, might promote fairness and integrity within the educational environment. It might also discourage dishonesty or misrepresentation in academic assessments, ultimately fostering a culture of accountability (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Conversely, if Greg chooses to soften his judgment, it could preserve group harmony and protect Natalie's future opportunities, potentially leading to greater immediate happiness but at the cost of undermining moral standards and trust in peer evaluations (Moore & Diekgerdes, 2014). The long-term implications suggest that the utilitarian perspective supports honesty, as integrity sustains a fair academic community. However, it recognizes that protecting relationships and avoiding conflict can sometimes be justified if greater harm is averted.
From the rights approach, individuals are entitled to fair treatment and truthful assessments (Childress et al., 2002). Greg has an ethical obligation to uphold the right to honesty for himself and for the integrity of the grading system. By providing an inaccurate evaluation, he risks violating his own moral rights as well as Natalie's right to a fair assessment of her performance. Furthermore, misrepresenting her contribution could infringe upon her right to an honest grade and subsequent opportunities (The Constitution of Rights). In this context, the rights approach strongly advocates for an honest, transparent evaluation, regardless of the personal discomfort involved.
The fairness or justice approach emphasizes equitable and impartial treatment (Rawls, 1971). It demands that Greg judge Natalie fairly, based on her actual contribution, rather than personal biases or fears of conflict. This perspective underscores the importance of consistency and moral integrity in evaluations. Given that Natalie’s minimal effort is evident, fairness dictates that her contribution should be accurately reflected in her grade, aligning her evaluation with those of her other team members who fulfilled their roles (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Justice also involves considering the potential harm or benefit to all stakeholders, supporting honesty to maintain trust and integrity within the academic community.
The common good approach considers the well-being of the community as a whole (Velasquez et al., 2015). In this case, honest evaluation promotes a culture of honesty and accountability, essential for the credibility of educational institutions. If Greg acts dishonestly by shielding Natalie, it may benefit her in the short term but could erode the community’s trust in the grading system over time. Conversely, truthful feedback fosters integrity, which benefits future students, instructors, and society by maintaining high standards. Therefore, from this perspective, delivering an honest evaluation aligns with promoting the overall health and fairness of the academic community.
Implications and Alternate Perspectives
Applying the utilitarian perspective might suggest that Greg should weigh whether honesty will create more overall happiness or suffering. If honesty causes undue hardship for Natalie or damages relationships significantly, he might consider a more lenient evaluation. However, this could foster a culture where dishonesty is tolerated, ultimately diminishing trust within the academic environment. Conversely, brutal honesty might harm Natalie’s self-esteem but promote integrity and fairness, which are vital for an ethical community (Sandel, 2010). It’s essential to consider whether protecting Natalie’s GPA is worth compromising moral standards.
From the rights perspective, Greg’s primary obligation is to uphold the fairness of the evaluation process. Shielding her from accurate critique could infringe on her right to a truthful assessment. Ethically, neglecting honesty compromises personal integrity and the rights of other students who contribute fairly (Childress et al., 2002). Ignoring the truth sets a problematic precedent, risking a slippery slope toward dishonesty and diminished standards.
The fairness approach emphasizes that individuals should be judged equitably based on their actual contributions. Failure to do so disrespects the principle of justice and could lead to resentment among team members who fulfilled their responsibilities (Rawls, 1971). This perspective advocates for honesty, even if it creates temporary conflict or discomfort, because justice and fairness are foundational to ethical conduct.
The common good perspective highlights that honesty benefits the entire educational community by upholding standards and fostering trust. If Greg conceals Natalie’s shortcomings, it may seem beneficial in the short term, but it compromises the community’s integrity over time. Transparency in assessments encourages accountability, which ultimately enhances the credibility of the educational institution (Velasquez et al., 2015).
Alternate perspectives might argue that Greg should prioritize compassion and avoid conflict, especially since they are about to graduate. Some might suggest that protecting Natalie’s GPA is more important for her future than strict fairness. However, this viewpoint risks undermining ethical standards and could diminish trust in the grading process, hurting the community as a whole.
In my view, honesty and integrity must take precedence in academic evaluations. While it is uncomfortable to deliver negative feedback, especially in a team setting, it is essential for maintaining ethical standards. I believe that fairness requires recognizing actual contributions without bias or favoritism. Protecting a friend or colleague from honest assessment may seem compassionate initially but ultimately compromises personal integrity and the credibility of the educational system. My guiding values include honesty, responsibility, and respect for others' right to fair treatment (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Upholding these principles ensures that trust is maintained and that the standards of excellence in education are preserved.
Conclusion
The ethical dilemma faced by Greg underscores the importance of balancing honesty, fairness, and compassion. Applying various ethical theories — utilitarian, rights-based, justice, and the common good — consistently supports the conclusion that honesty and fairness should guide his evaluation. While confronting Natalie may be uncomfortable, delivering an accurate assessment aligns with core ethical principles and promotes a culture of integrity within the academic community. As individuals, we are called to uphold standards that foster trust and accountability, even when it involves difficult decisions. Ultimately, honesty is the foundation of ethical conduct and should be prioritized to ensure fairness for all stakeholders.
References
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Childress, J. F., et al. (2002). "Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(4), 528-532.
- Moore, K., & Diekgerdes, P. (2014). Ethical Decision-Making in Education. Routledge.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
- Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Faber & Faber.
- Velasquez, M., et al. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson Education.
- Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2009). "A Framework for Thinking Ethically," Santa Clara University.
- Engleberg, I. N., & Wynn, D. R. (2015). Think Communication, 3rd Edition. Pearson.
- Frey, W. (2013). “Ethics of Teamwork.” Connexions, Rice University.
- Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Teaching for Ethical Reasoning in Liberal Education. Liberal Education, Summer.