Business Ethics and Technology

This assignment delves into the complex relationship between business ethics and technology. Students are expected to critically examine ethical challenges arising from technological advancements within businesses. The task involves exploring various ethical theories and frameworks to analyze real-world case studies and propose solutions for navigating these dilemmas.

Running head: PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 1
Ethical Dilemma Case Study
Name of Student
Name of Institution

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 2
Ethical Dilemma Case Study
The society is governed by laws that are legislated as well as moral principles that
regulate conduct personal conduct. The body of moral principles and values can be referred to as
ethics and can be used by individuals and organizations in the course of conducting business.
Ethical dilemmas arise when three conditions manifest in a situation. The first is that the
situation should present alternatives of action while the second is that the best course of action
should be chosen amongst the choices given. The third is that no matter what choice is taken,
some ethical principles may end up being compromised. In the ethical case study at Fabio, the
best decision is for Brockley to confess to Iris and be prepared for any outcome that may ensue.
Case Study: Question one
Relevant facts- The case study at Fabio presents a number of facts. Harry is presented as having
a reputation of being competent as a programmer internally and externally. He also has extensive
knowledge of all the problems concerned with Fabio’s security infrastructure. He manages to
develop anti-virus software that shows the potential of having market success. Jill is presented as
neither making the decision without consulting her superior nor giving Harry the opportunity to
test the product he was offering. Jill’s boss, Brockley supported her decision based on the
negative bias he had formed towards Harry. Iris Bigg the owner of the company has learned
about Harry under the pseudonym Lock Smith and wants to hire him.
Ethical issues- The first ethical issue is whether it was right for Harry to develop the anti-virus
software privately and for him to present his product to his employer while still employed?
(Kilpatrick, 2010). His actions could lead to other employees copying his actions and this may
reduce focus on organizational productivity at the expense of personal gain. The second dilemma
is the decision by Jill to not only reject the offer by Harry but also to dismiss him without giving
him the chance to test his product. Brockley’s action to validate Jill’s action was unethical based

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 3
on his negative bias toward Harry and poses an ethical dilemma. Both of their actions could lead
to Harry instituting legal action for wrongful dismissal.
Stakeholders involved- Harry is representative of one group of stakeholders in his personal
capacity as well as that of fellow employees. The outcome of the case will affect him and the
employees and set a precedent. The other stakeholders are the management and what actions the
company owner might take. This will affect their future code of conduct in the future while
dealing with employees. The third stakeholder is Bigg who stands to lose if Harry institutes legal
action against Fabio. He also stands to lose on the opportunity of employing a talented person
who has shown himself to be innovative and therefore an asset in the field of IT.
Question two: Four-step Ethical Analysis and Decision Making Process
Step 1. Understanding the Situation
Facts of the case
1. Harry is a bona fide, competent and currently employed at Fabio.
2. He is acknowledged internally and outside of Fabio’s for being knowledgeable in IT
security issues.
3. He has managed to privately develop anti-virus software using his own resources.
4. He approaches Jill who is his immediate superior with the proposal to sell his software
that not only rejects it but also terminates his contract.
5. Harry has been out of employment for two weeks but is promoting his software on the
internet under the pseudonym Lock Smith.
6. The action of Jill is validated by Brockley who is the overall boss and immediate superior
to Jill.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 4
7. Biggs learns about Lock Smith through a private head-hunter and wants to hire him not
knowing that he is Harry, his former employee.
Facts involving ethical issues
1. The first ethical issue is whether it is right for Harry as an employee to work privately,
develop software and propose to sell to his employer. This could raise issues of conflict
of interest and personal integrity as an employee (Varelius, 2015). Should he have
resigned first or should he have freely given the product to his employer?
2. Jill rejects the offer without the courtesy she would have extended to an outside vendor.
She is condescending in her attitude and adds insult to injury by terminating Harry’s
employment (Quade, Greebaum & Petrenko, 2017). She acts unprofessionally by taking
a unilateral decision without consulting her senior and only reports the issue later.
3. Brockley displays personal bias and does not take time to review the facts leading to the
termination of Harry’s contract at Fabio (Ellard, 2007). As the overall manager of the IT
department, he displays the lapse of judgment based on personal misgivings on a product
that could solve the companies IT security problems.
Stakeholders in the case
1. The first stakeholder is Harry in his private capacity and as a representative of the other
employees. His job is a programmer and is expected to offer his expertise to his employer
with their best interest at the forefront (Molnar, Kletke & Chongwatpol, 2008). He
stands to suffer professional reputation as an employee who used his employer’s time and
resources to pursue his own private gain. As the representative of other employees, his
fate will determine how employees will be handled by Fabio in the future should they
take on the same course.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 5
2. The management is the second stakeholder in the case study. This includes Jill, Brockley
and other managers in the company. The determination of the case will result in
management changes which may curtail some of their authority as well as the dismissal
of others. Their relationships with employees and their professional codes of conduct will
be affected by the outcome of the case. The role of management is to oversee the daily
company operations, encourage employee participation and refer issue beyond their
authority to the senior management or the owner.
3. Biggs who is the owner is the last stakeholder in this case. He stands to lose in several
ways. He would have a lost talented, innovative employee if Harry declines his offer to
come back and work for Fabio. Harry might end up working for a competitor and this
may put his company at a disadvantage. He also stands to lose financially if Harry
institutes legal proceedings for unfair dismissal and the company is forced to pay him
damages (Armstrong, 2014). He would suffer financial lose as the substantive owner of
the company.
Step 2. Isolate the Major Ethical Dilemma
The major ethical dilemma in this case study is centered on Brockley who has been asked by the
owner to find Smith Lock and offer him a position at Fabio. This puts Brockley in the difficult
position of having to decide whether he will own up to Iris as to what transpired at Fabio that led
to the dismissal of Harry or not (Perugini, Constantini, Hughes & De Houwer, 2016). There are
consequences of the decision he will make which will harm some individuals including him.
Step 3. Ethical analysis
Consequentialism

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 6
A. If action in step II is done, Brockley and Jill stand to be harmed in terms of disciplinary
action or being dismissed.
B. If action in step II is not done, Harry stands to be harmed in suffering professional
reputation. Iris also stands to be harmed in losing a valuable employee.
C. The least harm will be experienced if step I is taken. In the worst case scenario, both Jill
and Brockley may be fired. At the very least, they may face disciplinary action. This is
better when compared to the alternative of Harry suffering damage to his reputation and
suing Fabio. At the same time, he may decide to work for Fabio’s competitors. This is
based on the utilitarianism concept of taking the action that will benefit other employees
as well as us (Toppinen, 2016). Owning up gives him the chance to remedy his error of
judgment and clear his conscience. At the same time, the expertise and innovation that
Harry will bring back will benefit Fabio as a company and the employees as a whole.
D. If action in step II is done, Harry stand to benefit by coming back justified and as a
valuable employee. Iris also stands to benefit by getting back an innovative employee
who could have gone to work for her competitor. The employees will also benefit from
the expertise Harry will bring back at Fabio’s.
E. If step II is not done, Harry will benefit by either going to work for Fabio’s competitor
with better remuneration, suing the company or both. Fabio’s competitor will also benefit
in case he decides to work for them in bringing confidential information that will work to
their favor.
F. According to the theory of altruism, an individual may take the action that produces the
most benefits for everyone except for himself. In this case, Brockley deciding to own up
the truth and trying to find Harry would yield the most benefit to everyone else. Iris may

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 7
benefit by getting back a valuable employee, Harry gets the opportunity to clear his
reputation and work in a company he likes. The employees benefit in the knowledge that
future dismissals will have to follow the laid down company due process.
Consequentialism Comments: Minimum harm is based on the concept of altruism
where actions result in others even at the expense of harming the person doing the action
(Andric & Tanyi, 2016). Maximum benefit results are based on the utilitarianism theory
that the action is justified if it avails maximum benefits for all.
G. Rights and Duties: Harry had the right to know what the company policy is with regards
to employees who privately developed their own privately resourced products. He had the
right to privacy at the same time in controlling personal information. He had the right to
“intellectual property” as set out in the law (Lambert, 2009). Iris had the right to know
what her employee had developed while working for her. Duties: Jill and Brockley
neglected their duties to do justice in handling Harry. They were also negligent with
regards to practicing nonmaleficence and beneficence towards Harry (Valerica & Daniel,
2011). Iris has the duty to make appropriate reparation to Harry for the loss of
employment that covers two weeks. Comments on Rights and Duties: The actors in the
case study have duties and rights which may be reciprocal by nature according to the
theory of deontology (Juth, 2014). Jill has the duty to do justice while Harry has the right
to the same.
H. Kant Categorical Imperative: If action in step II is done, Brockley and Jill will be treated
with disrespect.
I. If action is not done in step II, Iris will be disrespected indirectly in the show of
insubordination by Brockley.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 8
J. The best alternative is for Jill and Brockley to suffer disrespect which may be temporary.
The owner of the company may decide not to dismiss Jill and Brockley. If she discovers
that her order was disrespected, she will most probably fire both without a second
thought.
K. If action in step II is done, Harry will be treated differently from the other employees as
one with more value. Jill and Brockley may be treated by the employees with less respect
compared to other managers.
L. If action in step II is not done, Brockley will be treated unlike no other manager has been
treated. Not only may he be fired, legal proceedings may be instituted against him.
M. The best alternative is to be treated with less respect rather than face the prospect of being
fired and being sued at the same time.
N. If everyone did action in step II, the benefit will be to Harry, Iris and the company at
large. Employees will benefit in having a more stable and secure working environment.
O. If nobody took action, nobody stands to benefit.
P. The best alternative is for everyone to take action: Iris, Harry and Brockley.
Step III Discussion
The ethical dilemma in this case study has different outcomes which may have positive or
negative outcomes. While consequentialism may focus on the outcomes of actions, it has
shortcomings with regards to moral character and its development (Betzler, 2008). The
consequences of actions in themselves have no content that is ethical. Kants Categorical
Imperative assumes that all involved in the case have the same respect for moral law. This
assumption in the case makes room for different outcomes and voids the principle of
consistency.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT 9
The rights and duties theory presents the challenge of the reciprocal nature of rights and duties.
One person’s duty is expected to be the right of the next person. The reciprocity should be
founded on goodwill and this may not be the case in most cases. Goodwill may be equated to a
person being of good intention or meaning well (Silber, 2012). Goodwill in turn assumes the
person has moral worth in doing good. Sibel (2008), states therefore that the rights and duties
theory becomes difficult to enforce in an environment that is diverse such as the workplace.
Making the Decision
The best decision that can be made in this case study is for Brockley to own up to Iris first before
embarking on locating Harry. Not being frank and forthright may result in consequences which
may be direr. While meeting Iris, sending a reconciliatory message to Harry with his final
intentions should also be done. Iris has the right to know according to the theory of deontology
what the material facts are (Figar & Dordevic, 2016). At the same time, Brockley has the duty to
do justice to Harry by confessing to Iris, be truthful and act with integrity. His actions will be in
alignment with the theory of teleology of minimizing the harm already done and maximizing
benefits for all when Harry returns.
Steps in the decision making process
1. Brockely approaches Iris with the view to confess and own up. This is based on egoism
and how the decision affects him. Konczal (2012), states that this is the starting point to
work towards self-improvement in the future in ethical behavior.
2. Send a message or emissary to contact Harry with the message of reconciliation and
intention to hire him back. This is the utilitarianism assumption that this action has
significant impact on other people (Bialek & Wim De, 2017).
3. Prepare himself and Jill psychologically for any outcomes which may be disciplinary.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT
10
4. Accept the decision that Iris may take and accept it as his duty to do justice. This may
involve making appropriate reparation to Harry or sacking Jill.
Ethical dilemmas occur when the decision taken may end up compromise some ethical
principles. The case study at Fabio presents an ethical dilemma that primarily rests with
Brockley. There are diverse outcomes that may result depending on the choice he may make.
Utilizing the different theories of ethical behavior may help in coming to the best decision in this
case study. This involves listing the facts, the stakeholders and the different theoretical
postulations. The best decision in this case is for Brockley to confess to Iris, approach Harry with
a reconciliatory tone and be prepared for any outcome which may affect him.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT
11
References
Andrić, V., & Tanyi, A. (2016). Multi-Dimensional Consequentialism and Risk. Ethical Theory
& Moral Practice, 19(1), 49-57. doi:10.1007/s10677-015-9658-5
Armstrong, J. (2014). Rethinking the restorative–retributive dichotomy: is reconciliation
possible? Contemporary Justice Review, 17(3), 362. doi:10.1080/10282580.2014.944796
Betzler, M. (2008). Kant's Ethics of Virtue. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Białek, M., & Wim De, N. (2017). Dual processes and moral conflict: Evidence for
deontological reasoners' intuitive utilitarian sensitivity. Judgment & Decision Making,
12(2), 148-167.
Ellard, G. (2007). MORAL JUDGMENTS AND BUSINESS ETHICS. Vital Speeches of the
Day, 73(5), 193-196.
Figar, N., & Đorđević, B. (2016). MANAGING AN ETHICAL DILEMMA. Economic Themes,
54(3), 345-362.
Hurley, P. (2017). Why Consequentialism's "Compelling Idea" Is Not. Social Theory & Practice,
43(1), 29-54.
Juth, N. (2014). The Right Not to Know and the Duty to Tell: The Case of Relatives. Journal of
Law, Medicine & Ethics, 42(1), 38-52.
Kilpatrick, P. (2010). The Relationship Between Technology and Ethics. Vital Speeches of the
Day, 76(12), 567-570.
Konczal, E. (2012). Everything You Need to Know About Business Ethics. [Newmarket, Ont.]:
BrainMass Inc.
Lambert, J. (2009). Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights : A Concise Guide for Businesses,
Innovative and Creative Individuals. Farnham, England: Routledge.

PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT
12
McGavin, P. A. (2013). Conversing on ethics, morality and education. Journal Of Moral
Education, 42(4), 494-511. doi:10.1080/03057240.2013.817330
Molnar, K., Kletke, M., & Chongwatpol, J. (2008). Ethics vs. IT Ethics: Do Undergraduate
Students Perceive a Difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 657-671.
doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9646-3
Perugini, M., Costantini, G., Hughes, S., & De Houwer, J. (2016). A functional perspective on
personality. International Journal of Psychology, 51(1), 33-39. doi:10.1002/ijop.12175
Quade, M. J., Greenbaum, R. L., & Petrenko, O. V. (2017). 'I don't want to be near you,
unless...': The interactive effect of unethical behavior and performance onto relationship
conflict and workplace ostracism. Personnel Psychology, 70(3), 675-709.
Sibel, G. (2008). The relation between work ethics and work morality and the factors effecting
work ethics in work-life. International Journal of Human Sciences, Vol 5, Iss 1, P 373
(2008), (1), 373.
Silber, J. (2012). Kant's Ethics : The Good, Freedom, and the Will. Boston: De Gruyter.
Toppinen, T. (2016). RULE CONSEQUENTIALISM (AND KANTIAN CONTRACTUALISM)
AT TOP RATES. Philosophical Quarterly, 66(262), 122-135. doi:10.1093/pq/pqv065
Valerica, M., & Daniel, M. M. (2011). RESPONSIBILITY FOR ETHICS IN IT&C. Annals of
the University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 20(1), 814-820.
Varelius, J. (2015). Is the Non-rivalrousness of Intellectual Objects a Problem for the Moral
Justification of Economic Rights to Intellectual Property? Science & Engineering Ethics,
21(4), 895-906. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9574-4