Susan Serves On The City Building Commission

Susan Serves On The City Building Commissionthe City Is Planning To B

Susan serves on the city building commission. The city is planning to build a new subway system to extend the reach of the subway further out from the city center. Susan’s cousin, Sam, owns Subway Mobility Co., submitted the lowest bid for the system. Susan knows that Sam could complete the job for the amount in his bid. But she also knows that once Sam finishes this job, he will probably sell his company and retire.

Susan is concerned that Subway Mobility’s subsequent management might not be as easy to work with if revisions need to be made on the subway system after its completion. She is torn as to whether she should tell the city about the potential changes in Subway Mobility’s management. If the city knew about the potential change in Subway Mobility’s management, it might prefer to give the bid to one of Subway’s competitors, whose bid was only slightly higher than Subway’s was. Does Susan have an ethical obligation to disclose the information about Sam to the city planning commission? How would you apply duty-based ethical standards to this question?

What might be the outcome of a utilitarian analysis? Discuss each fully

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma faced by Susan, a member of the city building commission, revolves around whether she has an obligation to disclose her knowledge about her cousin Sam's potential future management changes at Subway Mobility Co. to the city planning authorities. This scenario presents a nuanced conflict between personal loyalty, professional responsibility, and the ethical principles guiding public officials. To analyze Susan's situation thoroughly, it is essential to consider duty-based ethics and utilitarian perspectives, examining how each approach frames her moral obligations and the potential consequences of her actions.

Duty-Based Ethics and Susan's Ethical Obligation

Duty-based ethics, grounded in deontology, emphasizes acting according to moral duties and principles rather than solely based on consequences. Immanuel Kant, a central figure in deontological ethics, posited that moral actions are those performed out of duty and adherence to universal moral laws. Applying this framework to Susan's situation involves assessing whether she has a moral duty to disclose the information about Subway Mobility's management transition.

In her role on the city building commission, Susan has a duty to promote fairness, transparency, and integrity in the bidding process. Her knowledge about Sam's potential sale and management issues could influence the fairness of the bidding process. Withholding this information might constitute a form of deception or concealment, potentially violating her duty to honesty and transparency. Kantian ethics would suggest that Susan is morally obliged to disclose her knowledge because failing to do so would treat the city as a means to her cousin's benefit, violating the Kantian principle of respect for persons as ends in themselves.

Furthermore, failing to disclose relevant information could undermine the integrity of the competitive bidding process, which is based on the principle of fairness. If all bidders are to be evaluated on a level playing field, then withholding known facts about potential future issues could be seen as a breach of her duty to uphold just and truthful procedure. Therefore, from a duty-based perspective, Susan has a moral obligation to disclose her concerns about Subway Mobility's management transition to ensure that the city makes an informed decision, respecting the principles of honesty and fairness.

Utilitarian Analysis of Susan's Dilemma

Utilitarianism, in contrast to duty-based ethics, evaluates the morality of actions based on their consequences, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness or welfare and minimize suffering. Applying utilitarian principles involves weighing the potential outcomes of disclosing or withholding information about Subway Mobility.

If Susan discloses her knowledge about Sam’s likely departure and management issues, the immediate consequence could be that the city might opt to award the bid to a slightly more expensive competitor. This decision could lead to higher costs for the project, potentially delaying construction or introducing financial burdens, which might reduce overall public welfare in the short term. On the other hand, disclosure could promote transparency and prevent future complications, such as subpar management, project delays, or additional costs due to management conflicts later on. In the long term, these benefits might outweigh the initial increased expense, leading to a more successful project and greater public welfare.

Conversely, if Susan chooses not to disclose her knowledge, the city might proceed with Subway Mobility, achieving cost savings in the short term. However, the risk exists that management issues could surface after project completion, leading to inefficiencies, delays, or increased costs for repairs and revisions. Such outcomes could diminish overall welfare by causing financial, operational, and reputational harm to public interests. Additionally, withholding vital information could erode trust in public officials and undermine the integrity of the bidding process, potentially fostering a culture of concealment and unethical conduct.

From a utilitarian perspective, the best course of action would be to disclose her concerns, even if it initially causes some disruption or increased expenditure. The long-term benefits of ensuring sound management and avoiding future complications likely outweigh the short-term costs. Transparency promotes trust, accountability, and the efficient use of resources, all of which serve the overarching goal of maximizing societal welfare.

Conclusion

In conclusion, applying duty-based ethics highlights that Susan has a moral obligation to disclose her knowledge, rooted in principles of honesty, fairness, and respect for persons. From a utilitarian standpoint, disclosure likely results in greater overall happiness by preventing future management issues and fostering integrity within public processes. Balancing these perspectives suggests that transparency and adherence to ethical responsibilities serve the best interests of the public, reinforcing the importance of ethical integrity in public decision-making roles.

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. Translated by Mary Gregor. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Schneider, M. (2010). Ethical Dilemmas in Public Administration. Routledge.
• Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M. J. (2015). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Pearson.
• Warren, R. (2018). Ethical Decision-Making in Public Management. Routledge.
• Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Harvard University Press.