Professional Environments: Ethical Dilemma Case Study - John's Program

This case study analyzes an ethical dilemma faced by John, a statistical database programmer, who plagiarized code from a co-worker and a commercial software package to complete a program under a tight deadline. The solution, viewed through Chris McDonald's perspective, identifies the moral dimensions of John's actions, including violations of the ACS code of ethics regarding honesty, professionalism, and competence. It outlines the stakeholders involved (John, his manager, the client) and discusses the conflicting values of trust and competence. The analysis explores the benefits and burdens of disclosing or concealing the plagiarism, considering potential legal and ethical consequences. The solution draws parallels to relevant legal precedents, such as copyright protection for source code, and assesses the implications of John's actions under the ACS Code of Professional Conduct. It highlights the importance of transparency and the potential damage to the company's reputation and client relationships. Ultimately, the case underscores the significance of ethical decision-making in software development and the potential repercussions of unethical behavior.

The solution of the ethical dilemma from the lens view of Chris McDonald
(A)
Recognition of the Moral Dimension
The moral dimensions associated with the ethical dilemma of John are related to the declaration
of the fact that he has plagiarized certain parts of his program from a source present on the
internet. He didn’t take the permission of the original author. He has this option to hide this
plagiarism; however, a revelation of the same in the future can attract heavy penalties for his
company and tarnish their reputation. The ACS code designed for the professionals and software
developers identifies this condition under the heading of the “Code of honesty.” If john is not
declaring his plagiarism then it is a violation of the keywords “wrong representation of
knowledge” and “wrongful delivery of service and products (ACS Code of Professional
Conduct, 2014).”
(B)
Interested parties and their relationships
This equation identifies three stakeholders, John is an employee of an organization, this
organization is offering its services under the capacity of a software developer to a client and
john’s manager is representing the organization in front of the client (Ferguson, 2005). If John
fails in acknowledging the plagiarism in the software then it is a breach of code 6 that describes
the “professionalism.” The code of professionalism signifies the integrity of a business
environment prevailing in the industry. An elaboration of this code also covers certain other
unwritten codes of conduct; transparency related to the features and ingredients of software is

primary among them. If John’s hides about plagiarism then it is a breach of professionalism by
all the possible standards because he is keeping his organization in dark and covering up a fact
that can bring disrespect for everyone who is involved in the deal (Heath,2018).
(C)
The involvement of the Values in the present case
In the present case, we can see that John is passing through a condition that can be considered as
“conflict of interest.” It is clash between the moral values of “trust and competence.” If John
commits that he has done plagiarism then it shows that he was not competent enough to deliver
the goods (McDonald, 2006). If he hides this plagiarism from the manager then it is a breach of
trust. Competence denotes the code number fourth of ACS rule book. It requires diligent disposal
of the services, John failed in serving diligently, and by hiding this fact from the stakeholders he
can also break the trust of the stakeholders (Gunz,2014).
Benefits and burdens
There are two situations, in the first situation, John can disclose about the plagiarism to his
immediate boss.
Pros of situation one
Let’s hypothetically assume that the plagiarism done by John is undetectable, In case John hides
the plagiarism then his actions can be justified under ACS code which dictates the “primacy of
the public interest” under the present case John’s non-disclosure can serve the interests of the
clients and the company. In this case John’s act can be justified by all the possible standards.

A disclosure made by John can prompt the manger to purchase the rights of the desired codes.
This purchase can save the company from a probable violation of “Australian Copyright act
1968, CLRC, Computer Software Protection (1994)”. The nature of this law is incremental in
nature, this is why the company can face a heavy penalty. John’s disclosure of plagiarism can
save the company from this situation.
Cons
A disclosure can go against the ethical environment. The manger of John can deliver a beta
version of the software and buy time for the corrections. However, the company may lose money
on purchasing the rights from a programmer. The client can also consider it as the case of
incompetence.
Analogs cases
On the day of May 9th, 2019, the federal courts finally accepted Java application programming
interface (API) packages as a text that can come under copyright protection. This ruling was a
breakthrough in the realms of “source code copyright.” John’s case can also be considered under
the light of same rulings (Gotterbarn, 2007). This ruling came in existence after a case filed by
two students of Stanford CS department, the court awarded the ownership rights to the person
who proved that he was having the first possession, in the absence of any commercial activity, no
penalties were fined. However, if John will use the source codes commercially then he is duty-
bound to pay certain penalties.

ACS Code of Professional Conduct. (2014). ACS |Code of Professional Conduct Volume 2,
(Online) Retrieved from https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/rules-and-regulations/Code-of-
Professional-Conduct_v2.1.pdf. Accessed 4-9-2019
Ferguson, S. (2005). Case studies and codes of ethics: the relevance of the ACS experience to
ALIA. The Australian Library Journal, (Online ) Retrieved from
http://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/e4e124f4-b65b-1813-688a-8787cb3cf95d/1/
fulltext_published.pdf. Accessed 4-9-2019
Gotterbarn, D. (2007). ICT Integrity: bringing the ACS code of ethics up to date. Australian
Journal of Information System, (Online) Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30063242_ICT_Integrity_bringing_the_ACS_code_of
_ethics_up_to_date. Accessed 4-9-2019.
Gunz, S. (2014). Introduction to the Special Issue on Tone at the Top. Journal of Business
Ethics, (Online) Retrieved form:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-014-2096-
9. Accessed 4-9-2019.
Heath, E. (2018). The Routledge Companion to Business Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mcdonald, C. (2006). What Causes Unethical (corporate) Behaviour? The business ethics blog,
(Online) Retrieved from https://businessethicsblog.com/2006/01/20/what-causes-unethical-
corporate-behaviour/. Accessed 4-9-2014.