This is part of an assignment on ethics (within a group framework especially) given to us this week. The stuff in quotes was provided as ethical fodder. The scenario titales and responses are my own opinions….

University Of Phoenix Ethical Scenarios

Individual Responses

Greywar

Scenario 1: Donna And Michael

“Donna and Michael are new teammates on a Learning Team. As they begin to work on a research paper for COMM 215, Donna begins to believe that Michael doesn’t take the assignment seriously. Wanting the best possible grade, Donna begins to talk with Michael about the things he ought to be doing, about his duty to the team, and about how he should be behaving. She establishes a set of rules for the team, which Michael promptly breaks. From an ethical point of view, how can these teammates learn to work together, especially since Donna appears to be very duty based and Michael does not?”

Duty-Based: My score = 4 Most in agreement (with Donna).

            My adherence to the concept of duty was formed and reinforced by my time in the U.S. Army. I have very little tolerance for people who shirk their responsibilities with a team and even less for those who refuse to work even after being confronted in a reasonable manner.

            The question posed is: “How can these two individuals learn to work together?” Given only the skeletal information in the scenario I can only think of one way for it to work: Donna makes an issue of Michael’s work ethic with the course instructor and possibly with other university staff. Michael will not put forth the required effort unless he is forced to by an outside agency (perhaps not even then). In the corporate world Michael would likely find himself on the short-list for firing and I would not find it ethical to require that Donna spend one more moment or erg of effort convincing Michael to work. He had his chance and he should be gone.

Scenario 2: Stephanie’s Dilemma

“Stephanie believes very strongly that it is wrong to tell a lie about anything. On the final night of class, before the final presentation, one of Stephanie’s teammates tells her that one of the team will not be in class, but that the team is to tell the facilitator that the teammate’s mother is ill and she had to fly home. In reality, the teammate is off with her boyfriend because “they might get married.” Because she believes it is wrong to lie, how might Stephanie handle this situation? Why should she or why should she not go along with her teammates?”

Duty-Based: My score = 4 Most in agreement (with Stephanie)

            Stephanie’s name and reputation are in the Team Charter along with everyone else. The team has no business asking her or anyone else to lie in order to cover for another team member. Stephanie should tell the instructor the truth and not allow her name to be sullied by a lie simply to cover another team member’s flight of fancy.

Scenario 1: Corin the Lazy

“Corin is completing his University of Phoenix work and cannot wait to graduate. In his capstone class, Corin blows off his team because “it doesn’t matter anymore.” How is Corin’s attitude and lack of willingness to work impacting the good of the whole team?”

Goal-Based: My score = 1 Least in agreement (with Corin)

            Corin is aggressively dragging down the performance of the team as a whole due to self interest. Once again this should be resolved in official capacity by University staff. Once one person has gone rogue the original team as a whole ceases to exist and a new team consisting of the remaining contributors must be formed.

Scenario 2: Darcie the Clueless

“Darcie is new to University of Phoenix and very much wants to help her team in her marketing class, although she understands very little about marketing and is confused about the issues. She really wants to drop the class, but decides to stay “for the good of the team.” Is she really acting on a goal-based ethic by giving up part of herself for the good of the whole? Why or why not?”

Goal-based: My score = 1 Least in Agreement (with Darcie)

            Darcie is making an emotional choice to stay “for the good of the team” without considering the issue critically. Darcie will act as a boat anchor for the team since she contributes nothing in the way of subject expertise and will in fact take up team time as the other members have to explain the issues she is confused about. Darcie should leave for the good of the team, not stay.

Scenario 1:  Community Governance

“In class, Jerry and Samantha are discussing a court case in which a movie was removed from home video stores because a local group, known for censoring books, said it violated community standards. Both Jerry and Samantha have seen the movie and are arguing that people should have the right to view the film and make up their own minds. Why do Jerry and Samantha’s arguments fit into the rights-based ethical philosophies?”

Rights-Based: My score = 1 Least in Agreement (with the scenario)

            In this scenario a private business reacted to community opinion and changed a business practice. This was then challenged in a court of law. The two “protagonists” in the scene are assumed by the scenario to be “right” as shown by this direct quote: “Why do Jerry and Samantha’s arguments fit into the rights-based ethical philosophies?” My answer is that they do not fit into the rights-based ethic because Jerry and Sam simply ignore the rights of the community and the right of the business owner to tailor his business to his customer base. Had this been a case of a governmental organization (not actually stated in the scenario) causing a business or individual to modify either their business or private viewing practices Jerry and Sam might have a good point. As it is they are simply the minority opinion as are the folks who brought the case to court. It is in fact the plaintiffs in the case who would seek to force private businesses and individuals to do things against their will through force of governance.

Scenario 2:  Community Governance (Redux)

“Buck lives in a small town of 1,200 people, and is taking his University of Phoenix classes on-line. As part of an assignment in a philosophy class, he attends a town meeting and listens carefully as the community debates a proposed new town ordinance on car noise levels. How has Buck just experienced the idea of rights-based philosophy (people agreeing to what is acceptable behavior within a community)?”

Rights-Based: My score = 4 Most in agreement (with the scenario)

            Buck’s attendance at a community debate regarding public conduct fits perfectly into the right-based ethical process. Each member of a community is allowed to voice their concerns either for or against an issue and the results are carefully considered before a consensus decision is reached. It is rights-based ethics with a group expressed in it’s purest form: Democracy.

Scenario 1: Cheaters Never Prosper

“Karen finished cutting and pasting the last paragraph into her short paper. “I’m so good,” she thought to herself. “That instructor will never know. I’ll get that ‘A’ I deserve.” What is it about Karen’s attitude that makes her fall into the human-nature section of ethics? What is likely to happen to Karen when the instructor checks and finds out she cut-and-pasted the paper from the Internet?”

Human-Nature: My score = 1 Least in Agreement (Karen)

            Karen has chosen the easy road by plagiarizing her paper from various sources found on the Internet. Doing so fits perfectly with human nature as it is the path of least resistance. In terms of evolutionary advantage this is a natural human trait. IT has allowed to species to climb upward without re-inventing the wheel. Karen fails ethically by not realizing the overall impact of plagiarism on her societal group as a whole. Her use of others work cheapens the worth of the intellectual property and fails to bring new effort to the subject. Continual thefts of this nature discourage other members of society from exerting efforts in the search for new advances since those advances will simply be exploited by societal lampreys like Karen.

Scenario 2: Creating Ethical Dilemmas for Employees

“Sara works for a small accounting company that is owned by a husband and wife. Sara wanted to work for the firm because she believes the owners are, like her, very moral people with solid virtues. However, she has recently discovered another employee is skimming an account. When she talked to the husband, he told Sara to mind her own business and not to mention the incident to his wife. If Sara is a virtues-based person, what should she do?”

Human-nature: My score = 4 Most in agreement (with Sara)

            Employers have an ethical responsibility to avoid creating ethical dilemmas for their employees. Sara’s boss has failed miserably at this and Sara herself is under no ethical obligation to hide evidence of embezzlement for the other stakeholder in the company. As a virtue based person she should tell the other stakeholder the truth.