A Case in Business Ethics:She Stoops to Conquer
herself losing employees, dealing with low morale and resentful employees or even worse, being slapped with a lawsuit. These scenarios are all likely and will have a negative impact on the company both internally and publicly. The question arises of the way the information about the culprit was obtained. If Fanuchi fires the person without giving the real reason, he/she could sue her for wrongful dismissal. If she does reveal the reason the employee might spread the word and turn others against her or still sue for invasion of privacy. The same holds true of the consequences of using the information obtained through the microphones. It is a moral dilemma, for if the information gotten is used against the employees, it may lead to the problems mentioned above but if nothing is done, there will still be a negative effect on the company and they might even be liable to be charged with aiding and abetting a known criminal since they are aware of an employees drug abuse.
The best action would be for Fanuchi to not use the information directly but instead monitor the employees’ work closely and try to find a legitimate reason for letting them go. If they intend to keep the devices, all employees should be informed that they are being monitored. This will serve as a deterrent to all employees and may even encourage the already revealed employees to leave the company on their own.
2.Do you think Fanuchi acted immorally? Why or why not? Evaluate her actions by appeal to ethical principles.
I believe that Fanuchi did not act morally according to Kant’s ethics and prima facie principles but according to utilitarianism she could be morally right. Utilitarianism is concerned with the action that can bring about the greatest happiness for all, in the long run. It cannot be conclusively proved that installing or not installing the devices would bring more happiness to all in the long run. Indeed it is possible that by not installing the device and just letting it go, Fanuchi’s company would suffer, the problem would spread to other departments as Katwalski suggested, the department’s shrinkage would continue to rise and the public and employees could charge Fanuchi with negligence. These may all have a greater adverse effect than that of installing the devices. If that is the case or Fanuchi believed it, then her actions could be morally justified. On the other hand it can be argued that since Fanuchi did not consult the employees, she couldn’t obtain a proper measure of their happiness or lack thereof so she wasn’t practicing ‘true’ utilitarianism in the workplace.
Fanuchi’s action can be said to be morally wrong according to Kant’s categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative states that an action is morally right if and only if we can will that the maxim (principle) represented by the action be a universal law. In other words the person performing a action should be willing to have that action done to him/her as well. So Fanuchi’s action of [next page]