Ethics Case Study 1
Ravi Raj finishes a Ph.D. working on a problem that has aspects that are directly patentable and solve a major problem in the Bio Tech industry. His new job could be with Monsanto (World's Biggest Player in GM Crops).
He arrives at the new job and discovers that the work done as a student, which is in the patent process, will solve the problem at his new company. If he reveals what he knows to his new employer he will be an immediate hero, but will compromise the patent process at his original institution. This step could have important financial implications for the original institution in the form of royalties.
What should the student do?
Ethics Case Study 2
Vishnu has been recently appointed as the Principal of the local government school in a small town. The majority of students in the school are from local slum who cannot afford to buys books and notes at the market prices.
Soon after the joining Vishnu found that there are very few books in the school library. The vice Principal, a veteran teacher from the same school, tells him that several requests to the local authorities and the government agencies to improve the condition of the library have gone in vain.
He found that the students of the school are flagrantly violating the copyrights of the library books and getting them photocopied from the shop inside the school since they cannot afford these books at the market rate.
He gets a letter from the publisher of one of these library books about the violation of copyrights of the books. Publisher also asks him to take stern legal action against those involved in the copyright violation.
What should Vishnu do?
Solution to Ethics Case Study 2
The Case
Vishnu has been recently appointed as the Principal of the local government school in a small town. The majority of students in the school are from local slum who cannot afford to buys books and notes at the market prices.
Soon after the joining Vishnu found that there are very few books in the school library. The vice Principal, a veteran teacher from the same school, tells him that several requests to the local authorities and the government agencies to improve the condition of the library have gone in vain.
He found that the students of the school are flagrantly violating the copyrights of the library books and getting them photocopied from the shop inside the school since they cannot afford these books at the market rate.
He gets a letter from the publisher of one of these library books about the violation of copyrights of the books. Publisher also asks him to take stern legal action against those involved in the copyright violation.
What should Vishnu do?
Vishnu's dilemma
Quite often it happens that a person feels torn between two loyalties (as in the case of Vishnu) and he or she does not know which way to turn: how does one choose between two goods, each of which is making an absolute demand on me?
On other occasions one as even more confused because one finds himself or herself obliged to choose between two unavoidable evils. Which to opt for? Finally, granted that one cannot do evil so that good may come of it (the end does not justify the means), would it ever be permitted to do something good, from which some evil, more or less necessarily, will follow.
Notice, in none of these “conflict situations” are we dealing with a choice between what is perceived as evil and what is perceived as good. In such a case, what one should choose is clear: the good. This may not be easy and one might have to flight against all manner of inner revulsions and emotions. Fear of the consequences may weigh heavily on one and he or she might well hesitate, feeling that unfair demands are being made of him of her.
Golden Rule to Solve Conflict Situations
Golden Rule 1: Choose the lesser evil
Of two necessary evils, choose the leaser one. That seems obvious enough except for the fact that it is not always easy to decide which of the two or more evils concerned is the “lesser” one. Sometimes it is fairly easy to make you choice.
For instance you are a pilot and, for some reason or the other plane is going to crash very soon. You have just two choices to crash the plane into either a maternity hospital or an old age home. For most of us, it would be clear enough: crash into the old age home.
In the maternity hospital, however, there would be scores of babies who deserve to be given a chance to live and know the world: or again, if my brakes don’t work and may car is hurtling down a narrow on my right (no other choice!), obviously I should turn left because, that way, I’d kill one less person. However, let us not forget than in such moments of confusion and split-second decisions making one can hardly be expected to function reasonably and weigh up all the consequences. One could hardly hold it against the poor pilot (or driver) if, in his confusion he turned the wrong way!
Golden Rule 2: Choose the Greater Good
This is the obvious principles to invoke when choosing between two goods. Most of the time, however, it is not clear what is the greater good. In that case, one could employ St Augustine’s practical dictum to this regard, ama et fac quod vis: love and do what you like or, to put it more clearly, choose either, but do it from a perspective of love.
In his Existentialism and Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre gives us an interesting case, where a young lad, early in World War II, when France was about to fall to the advancing Nazi hordes, had to make a difficult decision: should he signs up to fight off the invaders or stay at home to take care of his invalid mother? Applying the principle given above, the choice is the boy’s. No ne can tell him objectively what the greater good is. Let he decide for himself.
Golden Rule 3: The Double Effect
This concerns the controversial – and conflict – situation where one and the same act produces two effects, one good and the other evil. Under what conditions it would be morally justified to allow such an act?
Authors generally list four such conditions. They are as follows, accord to the scholastic Celestine Bittle, in his Man and Morals, Milwaukee, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1950 (pp.44-46). First, “the action directly intended must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent.” The reason for this is that morality is a matter of intention. If Mr X do wrong unintentionally (e.g. injure someone in a game of football), he cannot be held to blame for it – unless, of course, he acted recklessly, in which case my fault would be reckless behavior, not having injured someone. Morality is not a mere matter of externals. Even a good action may be rendered less worthy if it is done for a unworthy motive: for instance, a person makes a big donation to the poor, not because he cares for them, but because he wants to win votes.
Secondly, “the good effect must follow from the action at least as immediately as the evil effect; or the evil effect may follow from the good effect.” However, “it is never morally right for the good effect to be produced through the evil effect.” This follows from the above. Remember, good or evil is primarily in the intention.
We must always intend directly what is good or indifferent; if we intend what is evil directly, we are doing something evil. This would involve claiming that the end justifies the means.
The above-presented figures should make it clear why Case (I) and Case (II) are permissible and Case (III) is not: it is the only one where evil is directly intended. In this last case, moral evil makes an entry into the intention of the agent.
Thirdly, the foreseen evil may not be intended or approved, but merely ‘permitted’ to occur.” The reason for this is obvious enough and also follows from the first condition. In Bittle’s words, “If the evil effect were intended or, when it occurred, approved, then the will itself thereby would become evil in its inclination, and the action would be morally wrong.”
Finally, “there must be proportionate and sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to occur while performing the good action.” Obviously, one could hardly justify an action which produced a minor good effect and a proportionately high bad effect
Vishnu's case would belong to the Case (III) if he allows the students to continue the photocopy as the immediate evil effect would be violation of copy rights. Thus in no way he should allow the students to go for the photocopy.
Now applying the two branches of Ethics in this case:
Teleological Ethics:
As discussed in the last case this branch of Ethics is related to the "Ends" and deals with "What is good". The two golden questions that we ask in the case of Teleological Ethics are:
What would happen to the society if everyone else in society starts doing the same?
Would the ends be desirable in the long run or only in short run?
Now the answers to these questions in this context would be based on our assumption that Vishnu permits the students to go for photocopy:
- What would happen if every body in the society would start voilating the copyrights? This would be detrimental for the whole knowledge industry and discourage writers and publishers to come up with new books.
- No doubt the permission for the photocopies would solve the problem in the short run, but it can create legal issues in the long run. Also it will give the message to the students that law of land should be voilated if they think that end result would be good. (The same philosophy on which the Naxalite movement is based which considers that law of land favors the elites thus the concept of State is coercive and should be destroyed for the greater good).
Therefore at no cost Vishnu should allow the violation of copyrights in his premises.
Deontological Ethics
This branch of Ethics is based on the principle of "Duty" and "intentions". Thus here we are interested in "What is Right" irrespective of its end results. The following are the duties of Vishnu as a Principle of the School:
- To ensure that school administration is carried out in an efficient and legal manner.
- To ensure that the available infrastructure and the resources alocated to the school are utilized in the best possible and efficient manner
- To mobilize resources for the school if he thinks that they are inadequate through proper channel
- To ensure quality education to the students and in long run to make them good citizens.
Please keep in mind that final resource alcoation to the school is outside the purview and duty of Vishnu. He can only send requets to the higher authority for this.
Keeping in mind the above duties Vishnu should do the following:
- He should ban the photocopies of library books in the school premises. He should warn the photocopy shopkeeper about the same and convey the message to the students as well.
- He should communicate the same to the publisher and request him not to esclate the issue to court of law or the police as he had already taken the steps on his end to ensure that copyrights are not violated.
- Since he cannot himself allocate the resource, he should send requests to the higher authority and can take the help of parents to pressurize the local leaders to take the steps about the condition of school library.
- Since it is his duty to utilize the school resources in the best possible manner for the benefit students he can take the help of teachers and senior students to develop the study material, circulation of these would not voilate the copyrights.
Ethics Case Study: 3
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown.
Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard.
As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
Solution to Ethics Case Study 3
The Case
In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown.
Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard.
As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
Solution
As discussed in the Ethics Case Study 2, the action of the Captain comes under the category of “Double Effect”. While he is forcefully drowning people on the boat to save seven lives he is simultaneous doing “Good” and “Bad”. The “Good” part of his action is that he intends to save seven lives. The “Bad” part constitutes that he is forcefully drowning people. Applying utilitarian (teleological) theory, the actions of the Captain is justified as it is better to save seven lives then to save none. So the decision to save seven lives at the virtue of sacrificing the others is ethical.
Coming on to the deontological ethics, here our focus is primarily on the duties and intentions. It is the duty of the Captain to safeguard the lives of the passengers and crews. In this situation he had limited option of saving seven lives which he did successfully. Now coming to intentions of the captain; while drowning the people from the boat the intention of the Captain was to save seven lives rather than to kill these people
Apart from this, the case also revolves around the issue that: “Is killing someone ethical”? Now here we would like to introduce the concept of “Subordinate Rules”.
Consider the following examples:
- Keep your promises
- Don’t cheat
- Don’t steal
- Obey the law
- Don’t kill anybody
Subordinate rules are what we would normally call “commonsense morality”. According to Mill, these are rules that tend to promote happiness, so we should internalize them as good rules to follow. They have been learned through the experience of many generations.
But subordinate rules are just that: subordinate. If it is clear that breaking a subordinate rule would result in much more happiness than following it, then one should break it.
The Captain did the same. He broke the subordinate rules to ensure “greater happiness” i.e. saving seven lives.
Ethics Case 4
You are the state coordinator of Women Right Commission. One of the key responsibilities of the incumbent at the state coordinator post is to recruit the volunteers and district coordinators for the advocacy of Women Rights.
On analyzing the statics of Human Resource of your department you come to a conclusion that at the post of district coordinator there are very less females in the state. You also found from the interviews of the local village women that they are unable to interact with the male volunteers and district coordinators freely due to cultural constraints. Also the post of district coordinator involves important decision making which you think would become more gender sensitive if more females are selected on this post.
A post of district coordinator is vacant in one of the remote districts of your state, for which you invited the application. On short listing from the HR department you found Radha and Ravi as the two most suitable candidates. When you personally interviewed them, you found Ravi to be extrovert, compassionate with relevant work experience and an enthusiastic young man who is committed to the cause of women empowerment. On the other hand you found Radha to be little rude and indifferent.
Whom should you recruit on the post of district coordinator?
Ethics: Case Study 5
Shweta, the director of nursing at a regional blood bank, is concerned about the declining number of blood donors. Shewta works for the slums. It’s May, and Shweta knows that the approaching monsoon will mean increased demands for blood and decreased supplies, especially of rare blood types. She is excited; therefore, when a large corporation offers to host a series of blood drives at all of its locations, beginning at corporate headquarters.
Soon after Shweta and her staff arrive at the corporate site, Shweta hears a disturbance. Apparently, a nurse named Prathiba was drawing blood from a male donor with a very rare blood type when the donor molested her. Prathiba jumped back and began to cry. Jivan, a male colleague, sprang to Pratibha’s defense and told the donor to leave the premises. To Shweta’s horror, the male donor was a senior manager with the corporation who threatened to break the contract of blood donation. What is the ethical dilemma in this case, and what values are in conflict? How should Shweta deal with Prathiba, Jivan, the donor, and representatives of the corporation?
Ethics: Case Study 6
Ravi is a committed doctor and works in a local government mental hospital. He is very well aware of the fact that the doctors should not disclose the secret information of their patients to anyone. Disclosing the information and ailment history of patient without her/his permission is against the professional ethics of any doctor.
One day a women visit him for the check up. After regular check up Ravi came to the conclusion that she suffers from traumatic mugging which require her adjustment in the medication she is prescribed to control anxiety and mood swings. In certain severe conditions she can even harm others physically and mentally. In the worst situation she can be a threat to the lives of others as well. On further inquiry she told that she works is the nearby school. Ravi was surprised to know that she is a teacher in the same school where his 8 year old daughter is enrolled.
After she leaves, Ravi immediately calls her daughter and asks the names of teachers that are teaching her. He gets disturb to know that lady that came for the check up is the class teacher of his daughter.
Ravi’s daughter seems very happy in her school and he cannot violate patient confidentiality by informing the school of a teacher’s mental illness but he is not comfortable with a potentially unstable person in a position of influence and supervision over his eight year old daughter and other students.
What should Ravi do?
Ethics: Case Study 7
As chief legal officer in a well-respected company making lifesaving drugs, Avinash has been asked by his board of directors to look into rumors of price-fixing in the firms. His board has a very strong ethics policy, and is especially wary of price-fixing, bribery, kick-backs, and other unethical activities that can plague pan Indian operations.
After several months of detailed interviews, Avinash satisfies himself that the rumors are groundless. "There's no issue here," he heard several managers say. “But,” added one such manager, "if you really want something to investigate, look into the Chattisgarh contract."
Over the months, Avinash keeps hearing about "the Chattisgarh contract." So when he finishes his report on the price-fixing rumors, he decides to satisfy his curiosity on this matter. The contract, he discovers, is ordinary in almost every respect: A major relief organization has contracted with his company to supply a million inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the rural villages of Chattisgarh. Like most such contracts with charitable organizations, it contains hardly any profit for his firm.
What he finds strange, however, is the payment of an extraordinarily large commission to a Raipur distributor to deliver the kits deep into Chattisgarh. Seeking out the executive in his own firm who negotiated the contract, he has one question in mind: Is this a bribe?
“Yes and no,” says the executive. According to the Raipur distributor, the backs of the delivery trucks are loaded with the kits—and the glove compartments are stuffed with cash. That way, when the drivers are stopped at roadblocks set up by local militia units operating all across Chattisgarh, they can pay whatever is demanded and continue their journey. “In the past,” he notes, “drivers without cash have been taken from their trucks and shot. If the kits are to be delivered, this is the cost of doing business.”
Avinash feels sure that none of the money has flowed back to the executive, whose only motive is to get the kits delivered. And by this time, the deliveries have already been made. Yet Avinash still faces a dilemma. Should he draft a separate report to the board on this most unorthodox contract—possibly causing great harm to the executive who negotiated it or embarrassment to the relief organization, which is aware of the commission? Or should he keep silent?
What should Avinash do?
Ethics Case Study: 8
You are commanding officer on one of the army camp near the Line of Control in Kashmir. The exchange of firing between India and Pakistan on Line of Control in a common phenomenon. Being Commanding Officer at LoC you have access to sensitive information about the infrastructure and arms of the army camp in Pakistan across the border.
Suddenly one night the region near your camp encounters a severe earthquake. Incidentally there are large number of civilian villages near the Line of Control in Pakistan where the impact of the earthquake is very high. You know that Pakistani army camp on the border has inadequate infrastructure to rescue the civilian villagers. Your army camp is fully equipped with the adequate amenities.
The government of Pakistan and other international agencies immediately ask for the help from the Indian government. There is lot of resistance in the government and among high army officials about giving help to Pakistan. The high officials in the government and in the army have called for the urgent meeting on this issue, but it would take them long to decide on the issue. You are well equipped with the rescue infrastructure and taskforce and know that a swift action by you can save hundreds of lives of the civilians across the border.
What would you do?
Hint for Solution:
The ethical delimma is between the tenets of Humanity and National interest.
The infrastructure and the task force is the property of nation, should Avinash use them for the hostile nation that too without the consent of the democratic leadership (government) that actually represent the will of the nation?
What would India have expected from Pakistan had this type of disaster would have had happened in India?
