Solutions of Conflict in Assignments 2 and 4

Solutions of Conflict 1
Situations of Conflict in Assignments 2 and 4
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Name
Date

Solutions of Conflict 2
Developing Self-Awareness (Chapter 1)
Identification of problem
The ethical problem in this case is lying to protect or cover up a fellow manager’s
inappropriate action of taking out some of his friends for a dinner during the national sales
meeting in Chicago and charging the bills on the company’s expenses in pretense that they are
potential customers, through writing a note to have witnessed his actions and assuring the boss
that they were actually potential customers.
Relevant theories and concepts
Three basic paradigms can be distinguished are: ethical virtue, deontologism and
consequentialist ethics or consequentialism, that is to say, the different versions of utilitarianism.
However, the paper will focus on deontologism and consequentialism (Bartlett, 2003).
Deontological ethic is an ethic that holds that certain acts are morally obligatory or prohibited,
regardless of their consequences in the world. Consequentialism on the other hand is the theory
that in order to determine whether an agent was right to make such a particular choice, it is
necessary to examine the consequences of this decision, its effects on the world. Pettit stresses
that this is, of course, the opposite of an ethical perspective: where an ethical approach evaluates
an act by determining to what extent it satisfies the obligations or prohibitions incumbent upon
the agent, consequentialism evaluates on the other hand an act by examining its consequences
(Bartlett, 2003).
Analysis
The case clearly reveals that the manager who is at the problem committed a mistake and
he want me to help him get out of the mistake by lying. He intentionally took out some of his

Solutions of Conflict 3
friends in Chicago to dinner at an expensive restaurant, and charged it to his expense account. He then
said they were potential clients. From deontological perspective, the manager committed a big mistake
that should not be accepted no matter what. According to Kant, we have duties to ourselves and
duties towards other men. And there are "perfect" and "imperfect" duties. A perfect duty is a
duty that admits of no exception in favor of inclination. There are therefore perfect duties to
oneself - for example, for Kant, not to commit suicide - and there are perfect duties towards
others - for example, for Kant, not to make false promises. In both cases, no latitude is allowed to
the moral subject (Bartlett, 2003). On the question of lies, Kant's moral philosophy is therefore
very clear. As Georges Pascal summarizes, "we must not lie because we must not lie, and not
because the lie will have happy or unhappy consequences" (Altman, 2011).
It was in 1797 that Kant took a position on an alleged right to lie by humanity . He then
replied to Benjamin Constant's (1767-1830) interpellation, which claimed that Kant would have
gone so far as to say “to assassins who would ask you if your friend they are pursuing is not a
refugee in your house, lying would be a crime " (Altman, 2011). What Kant said he did say but
did not remember where. Kant therefore asked himself the question "if [a man] is not absolutely
obliged, in a statement that an unjust constraint forces him to hold, not to be truthful if he wants
to preserve himself or others? a package that threatens him (Bartlett, 2003). In other words, the
question here is whether a man, forced to speak, is not absolutely obliged to lie if he wants to
preserve himself or others from a danger that threatens him? Kant answer was very clear.
According to him, for every man, it is his "most stringent duty to be truthful in the utterances he
cannot avoid, even if that veracity is harming or hurting others" (Altman, 2011). And not lying is
a sacred commandment to the point that Kant considered that just thinking about the possibility
of an exception to that commandment makes you a liar.

Solutions of Conflict 4
From utilitarianism perspective, manager’s mistake is unacceptable. No one will benefit
from his mistake. According to utilitarianism, lies or truth must be judged by a calculation of
disadvantages and advantages. In other words, if a lie maximizes the benefits of a situation, the
utilitarian finds it moral to lie, the worse it would be even immoral not to lie (Altman, 2011). The
weak point of utilitarian ethics is in the estimation of the consequences of the lie, on which the
individual can be mistaken. But it is interesting to note that utilitarianism considers lying as an
option always possible (Chun, 2005). For example, the case of the doctor lying to his patient
about his chances of survival, thinking that he will allow him to enjoy the remaining time, refers
to this utilitarian logic (Altman, 2011). However, from the case provided, lying will not yield any
benefits because there were no clients. This means that I should say the truth (White, 2011).
Solution
Firstly, I want to say that I am in the stage five of preconventional morality as proposed
by Kohlberg. This is stage where morality is based on moral principles. At this stage, laws are
considered social contracts rather than rigid dictates. Those that do not promote overall well-
being should be replaced when necessary to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of
people. Consequently, I will have to apply utilitarianism theory because this is the theory that is
appropriate at this stage. If I apply the theory, it will turn out that the best action is to say truth.
I would not accept to write a note to the manager supporting that his friends were actually
potential customers since I did not witness this action and I have no facts about his friends and
their possibilities of being potential customers. Additionally, I would try to make the manager
understand the effects of his actions and explain to him my moral decision on the issue, seek for
his opinions over my decision and talk to him further to make him understand the importance of
acting as per the ethical and moral standards of the organization.