Ethical Dilemma: The Overachieving Non-Profit

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