John Stuart Mill Ethical Dilemma

The complex ethical dilemma to be addressed using the three tests for an ethical decision, ethical theories, and the six step process is as follow: your company is governing a public tender for a project to create a new water treatment system. The ethical uncertainty arises when your inlaws company is unaware of the public tender which closes in two days, which would be essential if they hope to be chosen to provide the technologies to implement the new system. The moral dilemma in this case is deciding whether or not to help out family in a situation where you are part of the deciding factor. I believe that you are well within ethical grounds to inform your family's company of the public tend as it is public information. On the contrary, to an
extent it would be unethical to ask the municipality to extend the deadline of the tender so they can provide a proper proposal even if they are the most qualified candidate.
The three tests for an ethical decision include checking the transparency, reciprocity, and exemplary in each action taken. If you check for transparency then your decision to ask to extend the deadline for your in-laws company, it would be clear how the public might view this as you using your power to create an advantage/ give special treatment to the people that you know personally. In addition to this the other candidates would feel unhappy if they know why the deadline was extended, as they should be treated equally to every other candidate. Under reciprocity you would realize that helping out your in-laws company is not worth creating an unequal playing field. After you suffer the consequences of favouring a certain candidate it may become clear that you acted in an un professional manner. Lastly in terms of exemplary action it can be seen that you could be considered a case study for other similar situations where someone acted unethical. For example, if you compare your actions to the actions of a teacher who gives grades to the students that he or she likes. There is a definite unethical comparison in the two parties actions, in both instances there is favour being placed on certain individuals or companies creating unequal opportunity.
Form a standpoint of ethical theories the predicament can still be viewed as unethical through the corrupt use of power.
Kant's Formalism states that it is an individual's duty to behave ethically, and rather have good intensions over results. In this case, you are letting the result of a possible bad relationship with your in-laws interfere with your good intensions. Therefore, this violates Kant's theory of having good intensions being more important than the outcome. In regards to Mill's Utilitarianism, the greatest amount of good would have been keeping the tender fair and not making exceptions for the benefit of personal relationships. This would keep the public tender fair but at the cost of possibly losing the best solution to the new water treatment system, and creating tension in your family. When you look at Aristotle's Virtue ethics which states that an act is good if it has reason. The primary act is to find the best way to implement a new water treatment system, and if you act in this way because you believe that you in-laws company has the best solution you are acting without reason as you are not aware of what other candidates have to offer. Thus, by Aristotle's Virtue theory this would be an unethical
action.