ABC Company's Ethical Dilemma

Facts

Luke is an employee for ABC Company, who is working on an assignment that includes establishing land that was recently obtained by ABC to construct an adult entertainment retail locations. The land is located where Luke’s brother Owen lives, and the development of the entertainment centers in the neighborhood will decrease the property values substantially. Owen has a fair offer on the table to sell his house, but Owen is analyzing if he could sell it for more once the real estate market improves. The ABC Company plans to announce the development plan in one month.

Issue

Luke is in an ethical dilemma between his commitment of confidentiality to his company and to his brother who he is very close to. Luke feels obligated to inform
It states that both parties’ interests should be hold equally accountable since both parties are capable of suffering the consequences. This approach forces you to analyze the outcomes for both the parties and choose which option will produce the greatest outcome. This theory bases actions on the greater benefit of the group rather than the individual. This theory has pros for some that can be considered cons for others. There is no doubt an in group and an outgroup in Luke’s case. He has a connection to both sides. His workplace and its stakeholders are up against his brother, Owen and the neighbors. Both sides would see benefit based on Luke’s decisions. First and foremost, though, Luke has an obligation to his place of profession, ABC co. If he were to choose warning his brother, Owen over withholding the information, the company and its stakeholders could see a downturn in market value. Owen could warn close friends of his and them their own friends in turn creating a cycle where the company loses prospective customers, money, and stakeholders. The initiative to complete the transaction would be
In Luke’s case, he would have to look at which option was more ethically sound: warning his brother Owen, to prevent him from losing out on a good deal or withholding information for the benefit of his work. The more universally ethical decision would be the latter. Businesses have the right to confidentiality much like individuals. If certain information was constantly put out for free consumption to the harm of a group there would be no ethical decency. Everything would be free reign, no secrets and little individuality. This can be said from both sides and is reason enough that Luke has a very difficult decision. The best likely decision though is that the business prospers because the people aren’t ultimately losing their livelihood. The best way to judge the two decisions is to weigh benefits vs loses an ultimately capitalist way to view things and not “universal”, but likely to be the better