Doing Bad To Do Good Final
Doing Bad to Do Good
WHAT IS?
a) Background
Caroline is a specialist who offers business support services to communities, organizations, and social enterprises. Over the past 20 years Carolina has built a reputation as a conscientious, trustworthy, and ethical consultant. She was hired by the state agency to be in charge of financial evaluation of a community. She was required to assist the community with financial evaluation, and help with applications for state financial income and medical support, mostly for disabled clients. While doing evaluations, Caroline learns that some information provided by the clients were exaggerating, and they were consented by the Director of the community organization.
b) Ethical Analysis
Stakeholders in this case are Caroline, director of the community, employees, customers, the State agency, and taxpayer.
It is debatable whether Caroline should report these issues or support them “do bad to go good”. The company is going against Kant categorical Imperative.
It is unfear for other people who might be in the same condition and obtain less help because they are declaring the truth and it’s been check correctly by the employee. This goes against the equity principle of distributive.
The role of Caroline is to guide the community and mostly the more important is to help them fill out the forms accurate. By helping the, and act in a dishonesty way, she would be violating the code of conduct.
c) Summary
If Carolina decides to support the director’s belief ”do bad to do good”, the Kant principle would not apply. In the other hand applying the equity principle of distributive justice for the community would force them to start reporting their information correctly. Caroline was always known and chosen because of her reputation that she is been building all these time, by violating the code of conduct, it would affect her directly as well. These ethical problems exist at the organizational level.
MOTIVATION
The correct motivation
WHAT IS?
a) Background
Caroline is a specialist who offers business support services to communities, organizations, and social enterprises. Over the past 20 years Carolina has built a reputation as a conscientious, trustworthy, and ethical consultant. She was hired by the state agency to be in charge of financial evaluation of a community. She was required to assist the community with financial evaluation, and help with applications for state financial income and medical support, mostly for disabled clients. While doing evaluations, Caroline learns that some information provided by the clients were exaggerating, and they were consented by the Director of the community organization.
b) Ethical Analysis
Stakeholders in this case are Caroline, director of the community, employees, customers, the State agency, and taxpayer.
It is debatable whether Caroline should report these issues or support them “do bad to go good”. The company is going against Kant categorical Imperative.
It is unfear for other people who might be in the same condition and obtain less help because they are declaring the truth and it’s been check correctly by the employee. This goes against the equity principle of distributive.
The role of Caroline is to guide the community and mostly the more important is to help them fill out the forms accurate. By helping the, and act in a dishonesty way, she would be violating the code of conduct.
c) Summary
If Carolina decides to support the director’s belief ”do bad to do good”, the Kant principle would not apply. In the other hand applying the equity principle of distributive justice for the community would force them to start reporting their information correctly. Caroline was always known and chosen because of her reputation that she is been building all these time, by violating the code of conduct, it would affect her directly as well. These ethical problems exist at the organizational level.
MOTIVATION
The correct motivation