Human Services Case Study: No Right to Intervene in Moral Wrongdoing

This case study examines ethical dilemmas within human services, focusing on a scenario where individuals grapple with moral wrongdoing and the question of intervention. The study presents four cases: Michael, who submits plagiarized work; Maria, who assists Michael; Julia, who knows about the plagiarism but does not report it; and Madeleine, who also has knowledge of the situation but chooses not to act. The analysis explores the application of ethical theories such as Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism, and Justice Theory to justify or critique the choices made by each individual. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of ethical responsibility and the potential consequences of unethical behavior within academic and professional contexts, particularly in the field of human services. The study highlights the importance of upholding ethical standards and the impact of individual decisions on others and the integrity of the system.

Human Services -
Case Studies

Table of Contents
TITLE: “No-one has the right to intervene when they see someone else has done something
morally wrong”................................................................................................................................1
Case study 1: Michael.................................................................................................................1
Case study 2: Maria.....................................................................................................................2
Case study 3: Julia.......................................................................................................................3
Case study 4: Madeleine.............................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

TITLE: “No-one has the right to intervene when they see someone else has
done something morally wrong”
Case study 1: Michael
The temptation faced by Michael was in relation to the assignment. He could not
comprehends the assignment requirements properly and was very hesitant to enquire about the
same from his lecturer taking into account the premise that it may be considered his weakness.
Keeping into mind the consideration that he would fail his degree, he considered to pass the unit
in any manner possible so that he could get a good job. When he discussed the same matter with
his girlfriend, Maria, she agreed to help him. So, she did the whole assignment on his behalf. She
usually helped him with the assignments. However, when Michael received the work done by
Maria, he did not change anything in the assignment and submitted the same like his own by
signing the plagiarism declaration while being tempted by the thought that this would get him
access to a good job. The whole case indicates that he was tempted by the thought that the
submission of work done by Maria would make him achieve good grades and consequently get
him job in a reputed company. The choice made by Michael to sign the plagiarism declaration
but submit Maria's work as his own violated the ethics but he justified the same by stating that it
would get him a good job and had he not done so, he would have failed the degree. In this
relation, it has been identified that Michael justified his choices by stressing upon the Virtue
Theory. This theory focuses upon the role of virtue as well as character within moral philosophy
instead of either carrying out one's duty or acting in accordance with bringing good
consequences (Newton, 2017). Now, the application of Virtue theory of ethics is justified here
because Michael had often taken Maria's help in doing the assignments and not given her any
credit and called the same as his own. In this relation, virtue theory emphasizes upon good
consequences. This was ultimately reflected in the situation as Michael attained good grades and
on the basis of his academic records, got access to a job as manager in a reputed company.
However, it can be said that had Michael applied Kant theory, it would have implied different
ethical choice being made by Michael. This theory emphasizes upon the consideration of moral
principles while making a particular decision (Reamer, 2019). Now, the application of Kant
theory would have implied that Michael would either had not submitted the assignment as his
1

own by signing the plagiarism declaration or he would have rephrased the whole assignment and
then signed the declaration and submitted the work.
Case study 2: Maria
Maria, Michael's girlfriend, wrote an assignment for Michael of the unit for which he
considered that failure in that unit would result into the failure of his academic degree. As Maria
wanted Michael to get a good job, she helped him and did the whole assignment for him. Maria
had not just once but often helped Michael with his work even when she knew that Michael
always submitted the work as it is without changing a word in it. Every time Maria did the
assignment or work for Michael, she faced the ethical dilemma of doing or not doing the
assignment as it was ethically wrong for Maria to do someone else's assignment when the same
was submitted without any alteration by signing the declaration of plagiarism. The ethical
dilemma arose in every instance because she was devoted to Michael and could do anything for
him. She knew if she did his assignment, he would get good academic grades which would get
him a good job in future course of time. Thus, despite the knowledge of unethical act involved
on her and Michael's part, she continued to do the same not once but many a times. The choice
made by Maria was wrong on ethical and moral grounds as plagiarism is an academic offense.
However, the application of utilitarianism theory of ethics by Maria led her to make the
respective choice. This theory emphasizes upon carrying out all such actions which promote the
facilitation of happiness and joy and oppose the execution of all those actions that account to
grief or sorrow (Vettical, 2018). The theory was applied by Maria on the grounds that the
assignment done by her for Michael resulted into him attaining good grades in his degree and
finally getting placed into a good company on the post of a manager. This means that her actions
resulted into something that caused happiness and joy which is the prime principle of Utilitarian
theory of ethics. Now, it can be said that had Maria applied the Justice theory of ethics, the
choices made by her would have been different. The justice theory of ethics is acknowledged to
be associated with entitlement, fairness and equality (Magelssen, Pedersen and Førde, 2016). The
application of this theory by Maria would have implied that Maria would either have just
verbally helped Michael with the assignment or would have made him rephrase the whole
assignment by himself before signing the plagiarism declaration and submitting the same to
tutor.
2

Case study 3: Julia
The ethical dilemma faced by Julia was regarding the matter that she had knowledge of
but could not communicate to anybody in the university. Maria was Julia's friend and thus
confided in her about everything that happened from Maria doing the assignments for Michael,
Michael signing the plagiarism declaration and calling the work as his own, the end of the
relationship of Maria and Michael, Michael scoring better mark for the assignment than Julia
even when he did not do a word by himself in it. When Julia got lower grades than Michael, she
felt it was unfair and considered about telling the same to her lecturer. However, she faced an
ethical dilemma as she knew her friend; Julia could face severe consequences as a result of the
same. Julia thus confided in one of the friends of her mother named Madeleine. She asked her
not to tell about the same to anybody and Madeleine agreed to the same clause as she barely
knew anyone in personal. In this relation, it can be analysed that there does not seem to be a
theory which justifies the action executed by Julia. However, her prime stand for justifying her
action of not informing the lecturer about the whole situation was that it could get Maria into an
instance of trouble. Now, in the given case, it can be said that the situation could have been
better handled and an ethical choice could have been made by Julia if Justice Theory of ethics
was applied in the scenario. This theory totally emphasizes upon the facilitation of fair and just
activities into action (Drašček, Buhovac and Andolšek, 2020). Thus, the application of this
theory by Julia in the given case would have implied that she would have informed her lecturer
about what Maria told her. This can be said because having knowledge of an unethical act and
not reporting to the supervisor about the same also accounts to unethical behaviour (Pritchard
and Englehardt, 2016). It was important for her to tell her lecturer about the instance as because
of the good grades achieved by Michael due to the hard work of Maria, Michael got designed at
the post of Manager in a company.
Case study 4: Madeleine
Madeleine faced ethical dilemma regarding the communication of something unethical to
the supervisor. Julia informed about everything that happened with Michael and Maria to
Madeleine and asked her not to tell about anything to anybody. Now, Michael got a good job in
one of the social professions when he graduated. Omar, the CEO of the company present in the
appointment panel told Michael that he had been especially impressed by the strong academic
3

grades of Michael. Omar was initially surprised about Michael as he looked embarrassed.
However with the efflux of time, Michael gained composure and thus told Omar that he had
always been academically gifted at school and university. When Julia applied for the same job as
Michael, she could not get the job and was disappointed with the same. In the same company,
Madeleine got appointed at the designation of manager of Michael manager and with the
evolution of time, she daunted upon the bitter realization that Michael was the same individual
Julia told her about. One day when Michael was bragging about his achievement in academic
settings, Madeleine had an ethical dilemma regarding informing the university and her manager,
Omar about everything that was told to her by Julia. The emergence of ethical dilemma was
prevalent because Julia confided in Madeleine on one condition that she would not talk about the
same with anybody. The ethical choice made by Madeleine was not to inform the university as
well as her manager. The application of utilitarianism theory took place in the situation
described beforehand. This theory emphasizes upon execution of all those action which result
into facilitation of joy and happiness (Werhane and de Colle, 2019). Further, the theory is
critically against all those actions which result into grief or sorrows. The ethical choice made by
Madeleine was wrong due to the application of a wrong theory to justify her actions (Stos, 2018).
An alternative theory that could be applied by her in this case could be Justice Theory of ethics.
This is an ethical theory which emphasizes upon the prevalence of fair, honest and justified
actions on the basis of principles of morality, ethics and justice (Tuan and Shaw, 2016). The
application of this theory would have resulted into Madeleine informing her manager as well as
the university about the unfair act of Michael through which he got good academic grades and
consequently the access to a good job.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of discussion done above, it can be said that ethics is important to be taken
into account by every individual while making any decision. As per the first case, it can be
inferred that Michael had the overall ethical responsibility of rephrasing the assignment done by
Maria and then submitting the same to the tutor in university. This was important because he
signed the declaration of plagiarism which stated that those were his words which was not true.
In context of the second case, it can be said that Maria helped Michael with her assignments but
should have informed the university when he submitted the assignment as it is without any kind
of alteration in it. The act was ethically wrong in academic context as this accounted to a case of
4

plagiarism. It was the overall ethical responsibility of Maria to inform the university about the
act of Michael or to make him rephrase the whole assignment in his words. Referring to the third
case, it can be stated that Julia had the overall ethical responsibility of informing the lecturer
about the completion of Michael’s assignment by Maria. This was important because the
respective unethical act resulted into attainment of high academic grades by Michael and lower
grades by hard working students like Julia who did the assignments themselves. In the fourth
case, Madeleine realised that Michael was the same person Julia told her about. She had the
overall ethical responsibility of informing her manager as well as the university authorities about
the whole scenario through which Michael got the job. However, she did not do so considering
the application of a wrong ethical theory to justify her actions. Had all the 4 persons involved in
the case applied alternative theories, the results would have been valid on the grounds of ethics
and morality. On the basis of the four cases, it can be stated that the title stands invalid and a
person holds the right to intervene when they see someone else has done something morally
wrong.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Newton, M.T., 2017. A Comparison of Ethical Theories.
Reamer, F.G., 2019. Ethical theories and social work practice. The Routledge Handbook of
Social Work Ethics and Values.
Vettical, B.S., 2018. An Overview on Ethics and Ethical Decision-Making Process in Veterinary
Practice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 31(6), pp.739-749.
Magelssen, M., Pedersen, R. and Førde, R., 2016. Four roles of ethical theory in clinical ethics
consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(9), pp.26-33.
Drašček, M., Buhovac, A.R. and Andolšek, D.M., 2020. Moral Pragmatism as a Bridge Between
Duty, Utility, and Virtue in Managers’ Ethical Decision-Making. Journal of Business
Ethics, pp.1-17.
Pritchard, M.S. and Englehardt, E.E., 2016. Ethical theories and teaching engineering ethics.
In Leadership and Personnel Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and
Applications (pp. 1915-1924). IGI Global.
Werhane, P.H. and de Colle, S., 2019. Moral Motivation Across Ethical Theories: What Can We
Learn for Designing Corporate Ethics Programs?. In Systems Thinking and Moral
Imagination (pp. 85-103). Springer, Cham.
Stos, S., 2018. Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics: Teaching Ethical Philosophy by
Means of a Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 15, pp.315-322.
Tuan, N.T. and Shaw, C., 2016. Consideration of ethics in systemic thinking. Systemic Practice
and Action Research, 29(1), pp.51-60.
Kalajtzidis, J., 2019. Ethics of Social Consequences as a Hybrid Form of Ethical
Theory?. Philosophia, 47(3), pp.705-722.
Frunza, A., 2018. Philosophical grounding of ethics expertise. In Ethical Issues in Social Work
Practice (pp. 1-17). IGI Global.
Zizzo, N., Bell, E. and Racine, E., 2016. What Is Everyday Ethics? A Review and a Proposal for
an Integrative Concept. The Journal of clinical ethics, 27(2), pp.117-128.
6