Use This Dilemma To Answer The Following In 2 Pages With Cit

Use This Dilemma To Answer the Following In 2 Pages With Citation Of W

Sarah observes numerous security breaches on her colleague’s computer, including unauthorized access to classified documents, visits to inappropriate websites, and other questionable actions. She receives an email from an outside source inquiring about the sale of sensitive information, to which she responds with a vague reply, indicating that the task is incomplete and waiting for payment. Sarah faces a dilemma: whether to confront her coworker privately or escalate the issue to management, risking her friendship and the colleague’s job, or to remain silent and potentially enable ongoing security violations. This scenario raises complex ethical questions regarding how best to act responsibly in the face of conflicting personal loyalties and professional duties. The following analysis applies various ethical theories to evaluate Sarah’s options and their implications.

Application of Ethical Theories to the Dilemma

Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarianism, particularly its consequentialist perspective, assesses actions based on their outcomes, aiming to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Under both Bentham’s and Mill’s interpretations, Sarah’s decision should be guided by which course of action produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Confronting her coworker privately may preserve personal trust and avoid immediate conflict, but if this leads to ongoing security breaches, the resultant harm—such as data compromises and potential national security implications—would outweigh the benefits. Conversely, reporting directly to management aligns with utilitarian principles if it prevents larger harms and promotes organizational security, thereby maximizing overall well-being. Mill’s qualitative utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of justice and integrity, suggesting that Sarah’s moral duty includes safeguarding larger interests even at the expense of personal friendships (Mill, 1863). An act-based approach would prioritize reporting, considering the greater good over personal loyalty.

Kantian Ethics

Kantian ethics centers on the Categorical Imperative—a universal moral law emphasizing duty and treating individuals as ends. In applying Kant’s first formulation—“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”—Sarah must consider whether her choice could be universally adopted without contradiction. If every employee ignored security breaches to protect personal relationships, organizational integrity would collapse, leading to societal chaos. Therefore, her duty to uphold security protocols enforces transparency and accountability as universal principles. The second formulation urges treating others not merely as means but as ends. Failing to act on observed misconduct using friendship as leverage risks instrumentalizing her coworker’s privacy and trust, which Kant opposes. Consequently, Kantian ethics would favor reporting the breaches to management based on the principle of duty to uphold security and respect the moral law.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics emphasizes moral character and the development of virtues such as honesty, courage, justice, and integrity. In this context, Sarah’s decision reflects her character and pursuit of eudaimonia—living the Good Life—through virtuous action. Choosing to confront her coworker privately demonstrates virtues like honesty and compassion but risks damaging personal trust if misjudged. Alternatively, reporting to management aligns with virtues of justice and responsibility, fostering integrity and societal well-being. Virtue ethics also considers the impact on moral development; acting with integrity models virtuous behavior for others, contributing to a moral community (Aristotle, trans. 2000). Ultimately, a virtuous response would involve balancing compassion with a principle-centered approach, favoring actions that promote moral growth and societal good, perhaps through a carefully considered intervention rather than immediate reporting.

Contractarian Theories

Contractarianism, emphasizing reciprocal agreements and shared social contracts, suggests that organizational rules and professional ethics function as implicit contracts. Given that workplace norms typically involve commitments to security, confidentiality, and responsible conduct, Sarah’s obligations derive from this existing contract. If the current ethical framework within her organization explicitly mandates reporting security breaches, her duty is clear. However, if no explicit contract exists, there may be a need to create or reinforce a social contract emphasizing collective responsibility and transparency. From this perspective, Sarah’s decision should reflect the foundational agreements that uphold justice, security, and trust within the organization, reinforcing long-term cooperative relations and shared values (Rawls, 1971). If breaking confidentiality risks undermining these agreements, then adherence to the social contract points toward escalating the issue to management.

Conclusion

The ethical analysis reveals that, regardless of framework, transparency and responsibility emerge as crucial. Utilitarianism advocates for reporting to maximize collective safety; Kantian ethics underscores duty and respect; virtue ethics emphasizes moral character and societal role; and contractarian views highlight the importance of existing agreements. While personal relationships present a significant factor, professional ethical standards and larger social contracts suggest that addressing security breaches through management is the most ethically justified course. Such an approach fosters organizational integrity, protects shared interests, and promotes the moral development of individuals involved. Ultimately, Sarah’s decision should align with these ethical considerations, prioritizing responsible conduct over personal loyalty to uphold the broader values and safety of the workplace.

References

• Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean Ethics (J. A. K. Thomson, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.