solutionspro 42
Hello Solutions Pro, here are the remaining DB response to classmates Thank you so much.
Week 5 Philosophy DB response to classmates (cont.):
Michael Williams
Part 1:
According to Kant (n.d.) deontological arguments state that “Moral action is valuable in itself, regardless of it’s result.” In David’s case, he should share his findings with the cooperation. There is a clear violation of conflict of interest in the case, so much that the Vice President was trying to hide it. I would hope that the President of the company would see David was following protocol if the Vice President attempted to demote or fire David.
From a preparation stand point, David should discuss his findings with his boss before the meeting. That leaves the element of surprise out of the meeting and time for his boss to digest the findings and figure out the proper procedure to handle the situation.
A risk with discussing his findings before hand would be that David’s boss would become upset that David went against his wishes and conducted the research. Although his boss may become upset, that would not be legal grounds to fire him as he was following company protocol, protecting the reputation of his company, and of himself as a representative of that company. I also think it shows just how honest David is, which is something many people lack these days, and shows he is a valuable team member and contributer. David may get demoted or have a pay cut, he could get a raise, or nothing could change as he was just doing his job.
I used the M.U.S.E. references and I believe my ideas are in line with what I have read. I believe in moral codes, doing what is moral or right in a situation. I feel like rules are created for a reason and are to be followed without question.
Part 2:
Personally, I have never been in this type of a situation. If I ever find myself in one similar, I would follow protocol regardless of the situation.
Kant, Immanuel. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/ethicsbook/c3612.html