Question

A promises a 20% discount to a customer. The colleague B knows that the customer is compensated with a huge Christmas gift every year. Your boss asks B why the price is so low? B says the truth because B does not lie. Colleague A, a family father, is terminated. Here the consequence of the statements was catastrophic for A. From a sense of fellow humanity or compassion, B would better have said nothing, right? But what if B had said nothing and because of this order the company goes into the insolvency? You don’t lie. Her colleagues claim they have acquired many new customers. Instead, they were mediated by the subsidiary. Colleagues are promoted, you are not.   

Required: (a) Determine the ethical issues and dilemmas faced by the company in this situation.

(b) Using consequentialist approach describe the actions taken by the company.

(c) Elaborate the ethical issue based on Kant’s Theory of Duty.

(d) Describe the potential solutions that the company can take to resolve this situation.

The entire answer should not be more than 1,000 words (+/- 10%) (excluding preliminary pages such as Cover Page, Table of Contents, Reference Page, Declaration and Appendix). o The Assignment should be written with the following formatting:

Answer 1

(a) The particular situation described or presented in the given question mainly highlights an ethical or moral dilemma pertaining to the subsequent termination of employee A by the company due to conduct that has been condemned by the company management as a violation of professional integrity and honesty leading to the official termination of the employee in this case. From a managerial standpoint, the major moral or ethical consideration essentially concerns the economic well-being and livelihood of employee A and his family members(in this case, he is also a family father) once he is officially expelled from his professional designation. Furthermore, another important ethical concern or issue, in this particular instance, also centers around the maximum extent or magnitude of official penalty or consequence that employee A should face or confront for the concerned misconduct that he has committed as perceived by the company management as any punitive action by the management would consequently impact his and his family's potential economic livelihood and sustenance.

(b) In Moral or Ethical Philosophy, the Consequentialist theory or approach basically evaluates any particular action or conduct on the basis of its overall consequences on the general welfare of every individual or entity concerned. Based on the consequentialist approach, in this case, it is essential to examine the possible consequences of the action or decision undertaken and implanted by the company following employee A's misconduct. It would potentially affect the overall economic well-being and sustenance of employee A and his entire family, even assuming the family has other earning members. On the other hand, such action or decision can economically benefit the company as it could prevent any potential insolvency or financial loss incurred by the company due to the considerable discount offered by employee A to the customer. Now, considering that indeed the company would suffer significant economic loss and insolvency due to employee A's misconduct, it would consequently affect the economic livelihood and well-being of all the employees, staff, and even shareholders as a consistent financial loss could possibly lead to salary or age cut of most or all employees, lower dividends or equity earned by shareholders, and even layoff of some of the employees and staff as part of the company's cost-cutting or reductionist strategy. Therefore, from such a hypothetical standpoint, the termination or expulsion of employee A  seems to be reasonably or rationally justifiable even at the expense of the economic misery and sufferings of one particular employee as otherwise, company insolvency would have jeopardized the economic livelihood and well-being of many others in this case. However, elimination or minimization of the potential risk of company insolvency due to employee A 's action would morally or ethically invalidate the company decision or action in this instance as then the burden of consequences would be considerably more on employee A than the company's future economic performance and the well-being of all other employees, staffs, and shareholders.

(c) On the other hand, from the perspective of Kantian Deontological Moral Theory or Theory of Duty, any action or conduct should be evaluated on the basis of the fulfillment of moral or ethical duty/s and responsibility/s and not its potential welfare consequences. With regards, to the ethical considerations of the company's decision or action in this case, the termination or official expulsion of employee A is essentially induced by the sense of duty and responsibility that the company management is obligated to fulfill with respect to any incident of professional dishonesty or misconduct and not on its welfare or utilitarian repercussions. Assuming that the company management has thoroughly abided by the employee and managerial code of conduct and punitive rules and regulations in view of the misconduct committed by employee A in this particular instance, the particular decision or action undertaken by the company suffices the ethical or moral obligation based on the Kantian deontological notion or theory of duty.

(d) The company management could perhaps consider both the consequentialist approach and Kantian theory of duty to resolve the concerned issue most optimally and reasonably. The company should consider the possible welfare or utilitarian consequences of its action pertaining to the economic livelihood and well-being of employee-A and other individuals or entities concerned in this matter. The management could conduct an official meeting with employee-A to clearly and unambiguously understand his intentions and situational or circumstantial factors or rationale that might have affected his decision to offer a discount to the customer. The company should also consider the customers' view or opinion on this situation and if the customer is truly satisfied by employee A's action then the management might reward employee-A through a promotion or salary hike instead of any negative punitive action for his conduct as it might enhance customer satisfaction and company reputation. In this regard, the management should carefully consult with the professional code of conduct of the employees to understand if there are any loopholes or relevant considerations that they might have ignored in the course of examining or evaluating the entire incident which would have altered the company's final decision or verdict. This would ensure consistency with the Kantian view or theory of duty considering that the management has left no stones unturned in its investigation based on the relevant rules and regulations and coming up with the most logical and reasonable decision. Hence, personal consultation with employee-A and the concerned customer along with a careful and thorough investigation of the incident in conjunction with the professional code of conduct of the company could be an alternative solution available to the management prior to the undertaking and implementation of the final or subsequent action or decision.

References

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm#:~:text=Kant's%20theory%20is%20an%20example,it%20as%20The%20Categorical%20Imperative.

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism