Ethical Dilemma: The Overachieving Non-Profit

This article discusses an ethical dilemma faced by a manager of an NGO who receives excess money from donors. The dilemma is whether to use the money for another cause or inform the donors. The article analyzes the situation using ethical frameworks such as ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and moral rights.

1
Running Head: ETHICAL DILEMMA
Ethical Dilemma:
The overachieving non-profit
Student name:
Professor’s name:
Affiliation:
Date:

2
The Case Considered
The ethical dilemma in this assignment is the case of ‘the overachieving non-profit
organization.’ In 2017, the hurricane Harvey hits Texas, USA, leading to loss of lives and
massive damage of property. This elicits public sympathy and a lot of money is contributed by
the public. The problem is that in this case, the manager of an NGO, receives more than enough
money from donors to help hurricane victims.
Why this case?
This situation qualifies to be a dilemma because it involves making a decision about two
moral alternatives, in which neither of the two alternatives is imperative (Medlin (2013). In this
case, the manager has two alternatives: to allocate the excess money for another cause or contact
the donors. It could be considered morally right to use the money for another good cause, as long
as it is within the mandate of the organization.
On the other hand, informing the donors could mean losing the money, that is, if they
should make a request to withdraw it back. This is the dilemma involved here. As we can see,
this particular scenario involves a conflict of personal values, social values and the goals of the
organization. Any decision that the manager would arrive at must involve a consideration of
ethics. This case therefore qualifies to be an ethical dilemma. The ethical dilemma that the
manager would face here is whether to keep the money for another cause or inform the donors.
There are a number of approaches that can be used to give a solution to this dilemma. I
am going to use three ethical frameworks to make analysis of this case: ethical egoism,
utilitarianism and moral rights. Note that in this case, I assume that I am the manager.
Ethical Egoism
The egoism approach involves making a decision such that an individual gets the greatest
benefit to themselves (Braunack-Mayer (2011). An egoistic approach will have me lay aside all
interests of the organization and the donors and give priority to my own personal interests.
Taking on this approach would mean that I will make a decision on my own without involving
anyone else. This would be considered to be a morally correct decision only as using the money
for another cause will be in accordance with the mandate of the organization.

3
However, taking an egoistic approach would make me liable of suffering unseen
consequences should the donor discover that their money was used for another cause without
their consent. This may lead to the dis-registering of the NGO, and perhaps I would end up
behind bars, if I should be found guilty. From an egoistic point of view, it would be beneficial
for the organization to use the money for another cause but the consequences of such a course
will be damaging not only to the organization but to me as the manager. Based on the approaches
that I have highlighted above, I would be inclined to inform the donors about the money rather
than pursue my own interests, or those of the organization.
Additionally, should I use the money for another cause, I will have created the problem
of accountability. Managerial accountability will make the decision harder for I will have to give
a clear report on the source of the money that I would have used for implementing another
project. Since the organization has other managerial stakeholders, I shall have put myself in
rather a complicated situation, to explain why I have to make a decision on my own. Using the
money for another cause will therefore, according to this approach, be ethical, despite the risks
involved.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is focused on ensuring the maximum happiness of all the involved parties
(Grodzins (2010). To give utmost happiness to all parties or sadness in dire cases is the balance
that Unitarianism seeks to achieve (Macaulay (2016). This ethical framework requires that I put
aside my own interest and make a decision that will be for the best interest of the organization
and the donors. Should I use the money for another cause, there is a chance that the donors are
going to discover this in the future, and this will put me in a very risky position. On the other
hand, should I inform the donors about the money, there is a high likelihood that I will receive
more financial donations in the future.
According to universal acceptability (McKanan (2013). “Following a maxim makes it a
universal law”. Should I make a decision to use the money for another cause, it will be defined
that I will always misappropriate any finances that are channeled to the organization for my own
interests. Should I cherish this habit continuously, the credibility and reputation of the
organization will be grossly impacted, and I will be blamed for my unethical or illegal behavior.
Therefore, according to Unitarianism, to keep the money for another cause which the donor did

4
not specify would be unjustifiable. Hence, the most ethical thing that I would do is to make a
resolution to inform the donors of the money and have their consent.
Moral rights
The approach of the rights approach is that the best decision is one in which the moral
rights of involved parties are preserved and protected (Campbell (2011). Every person has a right
to be treated fairly and morally right, and their dignity respected too (Tang (2012). It emphasizes
that every human being has a right to dignity. This is based on of Kant’s view which holds that:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means to an end,” (Sensen, O.
(2011).
The decision to keep the money will deny the donor their rights to information consent on
the finances they contributed, and this would be impermissible. Additionally, allocating the
money for another cause will be violating my own dignity and violating my own conscience.
Furthermore, looking at it from a humanitarian perspective, keeping the money will be inhuman
because it is an act of perjury and abuse to the liberality of others. It will almost amount to a
crime against humanity, to abuse other peoples’ good will, and I will just end up to be a totally
irresponsible and undependable manager. Hence, to be ethical is to inform the donors of the
money.
Recommendations
In summary, keeping the money for another cause would be inconsistent with both the
second formulation (Unitarianism), and the third formulation, which is moral rights approach.
From an egoistic point of view, it would be beneficial for the organization to use the money for
another cause but the consequences of such a course will be damaging not only to the
organization but to me as the manager. Based on the approaches that I have highlighted above, I
would be inclined to inform the donors about the money rather than pursue my own interests, or
those of the organization. Therefore, from a Unitarianism and moral rights approach

5
formulations, it would be unethical for me as the manager to keep the money for another cause.
Based on all the approaches that have been hereby considered, the only ethical thing that I would
as the manager is to inform the mangers of the money that they would advise on what should be
done with it. This may lead to the dis-registering of the NGO, and perhaps I would end up behind
bars, if I should be found guilty. From an egoistic point of view, it would be beneficial for the
organization to use the money for another cause but the consequences of such a course will be
damaging not only to the organization but to me as the manager.
REFERENCES
Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2011). What makes a problem an ethical problem? An empirical
perspective on the nature of ethical problems in general practice. Journal of Medical
Ethics, 27(2), 98-103.
Campbell, T. (2011). Rights: A critical introduction. Routledge.
Grodzins, D. (2010). Unitarianism. In The Oxford Handbook of Transcendentalism.
Kirkpatrick, J. (2010). In Defense of Advertising Arguments From Reason, Ethical Egoism, and
Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
Macaulay, J. (2016). Unitarianism in the Antebellum South: The Other Invisible Institution.
University of Alabama Press.
McKanan, D. (2013). Unitarianism, universalism, and unitarian universalism. Religion Compass,
7(1), 15-24.
Medlin, B. (2013). Ultimate principles and ethical egoism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,
35(2), 111-118.
Rachels, J. (2012). Ethical egoism. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, 14, 193.
Sensen, O. (2011). Kant's Conception of Inner Value. European Journal of Philosophy, 19(2),
262-280.
Tang, X. (2012). The artist as brand: toward a trademark conception of moral rights. Yale LJ,
122, 218.

6