Case Analysis: John's Dilemma and Ethical Decisions to Make

This case analysis discusses John's dilemma and the ethical decisions he made. It also suggests Chris MacDonald's methodology to solve the dilemma. The document mentions relevant legislation and actions John should have taken. It is related to professional ethics and computer professionals.

Case Analysis 1
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Name
Affiliation
Instructor
Date

Case Analysis 2
Answers to CASE STUDY ONE
Johns Dilemma
In this case, John is faced by a myriad of dilemmas and moral or ethical decisions to make.
First, he is faced with the challenge of completing his task after struggling with it for several
months. As such, the first dilemma here is whether he can inform his manager about the
task having stalled or not. This leads to his only option which involves using source listings
from a different company so that he can develop the codes. He utilizes this opportunity
because the manager did not realize how complex the problem was.
Chris MacDonald’s Methodology and how he can use it to solve his dilemma
To tackle this dilemma, Chris MacDonald’s methodology comes in handy. He explains
morality as a collection of rules which modify an individual’s behavior when faced by certain
situations. As such, one is supposed to do well thus abiding by the rules of different virtuous
conducts. In this methodology, Chris explains the importance of agreements, allowing
disagreements in some cases, using moral justification, context, relationships, moral
decision making and the importance of discussion in morality. Agreements are essential
between employers and employees when tasks are being assigned, (Burmeister, 2017, 350).
This helps in determining the deadlines and complexities involved. By involving other
employees, relationships are boosted hence a unified company.

Case Analysis 3
Actions that John should have taken
There are three actions that Johns should have taken. First, he should have informed his
manager about the difficulty of the task so that more time could be added. Secondly, a
consultation from his colleagues was essential. Thirdly, it could have been right for him to
give credit to his co-worker and the other company he sourced the codes from. This involves
mentioning them in the final documentation, (Abbot, Magnusson & Smith, 2018, 102).
For John to solve his dilemma, Chris advice on how employees and employers can have
agreements. In this case, it was prudent for John to explain how difficult the task is so that
he can be added more time, or involve a different programmer from the company.
According to the Code of Professional Conduct 1.2.3 (d) on Honesty, one must give realistic
estimates of time and finances for any task under his or her control. In part (f), one must
give and show credit for work he used that does not belong to him. Lastly in (g). Enhancing
one’s own reputation by neglecting a colleague’s reputation is not right. John did not adhere
to these guidelines hence going against the guidelines set by the Code of Professional
Conduct. John also broke code 1.2.4 (g) of the Code of Professional Conduct that demands
one’s respect of other colleagues or seeks for their advice, especially in their professional
fields. John did not seek any advice from his colleagues.
The Australian Computer Society also has its own Code of Ethics which bind all computer
professionals such as John. Under this, one is supposed to work diligently and competently
for his employers and clients, (Halvorsen, 2017, 30). John broke this by using a different
company’s code and also a colleague’s. He was also not honest by doing so. Above all, he
did not respect the integrity of those in the Computing Profession, (Code of Ethics, 2, 3, and
6)

Case Analysis 4
Relevant legislation and how it relates to the case
Relevant legislation that John should have adhered to is the Copyright Act of 1968. This
provides for moral rights which were incorporated in 2000. It stipulates that individuals
should adhere to the “right of attribution” and “integrity of authorship”, (Copyright Act,
1968). Authors should be identified clearly and their work should be presented well.
Secondly, the author’s work should be protected and honored so that his reputation is
upheld. Failed did not adhere to this legislation by failing to mention the authors of the
codes that he used, (Hall & Brown, 2018, 10).

Case Analysis 5
References
Abbott, L.M., Magnusson, R.S., Gibbs, E. and Smith, S.D., 2018. Smartphone use in
dermatology for clinical photography and consultation: current practice and the law.
Australasian Journal of Dermatology, 59(2), pp.101-107.
Burmeister, O. K. (2017). Professional ethics in the information age. Journal of Information,
Communication, and Ethics in Society, 15(4), 348-356.
Hall, K. and Brown, A.J., 2018. From symbols to systems: progress in the reform of
Australia’s private sector whistleblowing laws. Law and Financial Markets Review, 12(1),
pp.7-17.
Halvorsen, T., 2017. An Alternative Neo-Kohlbergian Approach in Social
Pedagogy. International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 6(1), pp.29-42.