Web Porn at Work

When faced with moral issues in every facet of life, individuals often rely on normative theories for guidance in their decision-making process and its subsequent justification. In the case of Rayburn Unlimited, Al Smetana, the founding president, discovers that Craig Lindley, the associate vice-president and an old-time friend, has been using the company’s computer network extensively for web pornography. At the current juncture, Al is faced with the decision of how to resolve the situation with Craig, debating between the spectrum of upholding the firm’s commitment to integrity, the importance of the intrinsic worth of each individual, and the personal friendship with Craig. This decision by Al falls into the categorization of a moral issue due to two reasons: Firstly, it involves an analysis of harms and benefits. That is, this decision has the potential to leave individuals involved in a better or worse position after the decision is made. Secondly, throughout the decision-making process, Al utilizes moral standards, which takes priority over both the self interest of Al or Craig. With that in mind, let’s analyze the decision “What should Al do with Craig” using two popular normative theories, Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
Using the theory of Utilitarianism, Al should determine all possible alternatives, and then implement the alternative that creates the most happiness (or the least unhappiness) for all parties involved. In this analysis, we will consider 3 different alternatives: (1) Fire Craig to uphold firm values, (2) Move on as if nothing happened, and (3) Offer counseling services to Craig to overcome his addiction, and let him go if he continues to violate the computer usage policy. Let’s begin with option (1): Firm values are upheld: +5 units; Unhappiness due to Craig’s lost of employment and the potential lost of friendship: -10 units; Potential effects to Craig’s family due to his lost of employment: -25 units; Craig’s termination will