What should you do in such case?
Ethics Case Study 15
You are a foreign diplomat of India in Canada and one of the top most officer of Indian embassy located in Canada. Being a foreign diplomat you and your department have the access to the secret and sensitive information about the country.
Akash has joined your department one year ago as your junior. He is a brilliant officer with excellent track record. You are much impressed by his integrity and his dedication towards the country. He is an extrovert, humorous and a friendly person. He has many friends in Canada because of his friendly nature.
A few days ago your personal secretary who lives in the same building in which Akash lives, discloses that Akash is dating a lady officer from embassy of Pakistan. She has seen them together many a times during the late hours. As per her information the couple spends a lot of time together after the office. You gets disturb to know this.
You immediately call Akash and talk to him about this issue. Akash admits the relationship with the Pakistani officer. But he also tells you that he is a responsible diplomat and he knows how to keep the difference between the personal and professional life. He assures you that for him duty comes first and the secret and sensitive information about the country to which he has the access would never be disclosed to the lady. He also requests you not to interfere in his personal life. You know that Akash's integrity cannot be doubted, but the lady officer can be a spy or secret agent, who can tactfully try to have the access of the secret information.
What is the ethical dilemma here?
What should you do?
Ethics Case Study 16
Sameer and Arbaz are the members of national hockey team which has recently won the Hockey World Cup after decades. They both are the key strikers and star players of the team. In the play ground they are excellent team players but in personal life they are not at all friendly. Arbaz is arrogant and highly ambitious. On the other hand Sameer is very down to earth, god fearing and polite. In the dressing room team meetings they often disagree on the game strategy and action plans. Arbaz has often accused Sammer to be jealous of his stardom and his convivial nature. He has also at times accused Sameer to be a religious bigot and unfriendly to him because they both belong to different communities (religion).
On the eve when the team is celebrating the victory in the Hockey World Cup final, Sameer went to greet Arbaz in his room as he only scored the two winning goals in the final. Sameer knocked the door but found it open and nobody inside. He gradually went inside. He was shocked to see that on the table there were pouches of many performance enhancing drugs which are strictly prohibited in any sporting event. Suddenly Arbaz enters the room. When Sameer asks him about these drugs first of all he denies and later on he admits the fact that he uses them. But he also tells Sameer that his doctor has also prescribed some other medicines along with these drugs so that these drugs cannot be detected in the ordinary doping tests, these can only be detected in very few tests. Sameer knows that doping tests are already over and whole team has successfully passed them.
As a true sportsman Sameer consider use of performance enhancing drugs as unethical. If he reports this matter to the Anti Doping Authority, not only career of Arbaz would be demolished but also the country would be put to disgrace and would be striped of the gold medal. Apart from this, the victory in the Hockey World cup after many years has revived the game in India and disclosing this fact would demolish the whole momentum. Sameer discuss this case with his coach, who also get disturb about the use of drugs by Arbaz. But he advises Sameer to keep silent as detecting of performance enhancing drugs is not the part of his duty. Also if he raise alarm he would be accused of being jealous of Arbaz.
What should Sameer do?
Ethics Case Study 18
In April 2006, Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an RAF surgeon, was found guilty of five counts of disobeying orders and sentenced to eight months in prison. His crime was to refuse a third tour of duty in Iraq. His defense consisted of his belief that the war in Iraq was unjust and illegal, and in a statement Kendall-Smith argued that “the continuing use of force against the people of the formerly sovereign state of Iraq was always motivated by political corruption, corporation profits and aggressive capitalism.” In passing sentence the court martial panel declared Kendall-Smith’s position as “supremely arrogant” and argued that he could not “pick and choose” his orders.
Do you think the punishment given to him was justified? If No. Would your answer be same if we assume a similar situation in India wherein a defense personal refuses to participate in an operation against Naxalites because he personally believes that it is economic inequality, unbalanced regional development, corruption, nepotism, injustice done to tribal population and inequality which have given birth to Naxalism.
Case Study 19
The largest Bangladesh factory fire in recent times killed 112 people this last November. This horrible incident raises once again the dilemma of who bears responsibility in such a tragedy. As we examine this case, we have singled out specific players who might bear significant responsibility for this particular event.
The Bangladeshi government has the dual responsibility of taking care of its citizens as well as maintaining its economy by supporting the $20 billion a year garment industry that serves as 80% of its total export earnings. The workers, mostly women, earn as little as $37 per month and depend on the government for their safety; however, corruption runs rampant in Bangladeshi politics and the country is currently ranked 142nd out of a 176 countries according to the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index.
In this case, there are also implications of arson to further political interests of specific parties. Additionally, the owner of the factory constructed five more illegal floors beyond the original structure, and the factory location was in an area that large vehicles, specifically fire trucks, could not easily enter.
Major international retailers have often been criticized for not taking responsibility for their subcontractors; companies whose products were produced at this particular factory include major retailers such as Walmart and Sear.
Who do you think is ethically responsible for such tragedy.
Ethics Case Study 20
Dhamara Rail Accident
Dhamara Ghat is a small railway station located in Saharsha district of Bihar. The small railway station captured the attention of masses and national media because of the tragic rail accident that took place on 19th August 2013 in which about 30 people lost their lives and many were injured. The rail accident also resulted into the uproar in the Parliament wherein the leaders of various political parties indulged into allegations and counter allegations.
Some factual information
Dhamara Ghat railway station consists of three railway tracks and two platforms. The two railway tracks are adjacent to the two platforms while the third track lies in the centre of these two tracks is meant for those trains which do not stop at this station. Generally passenger-trains stop at such small stations and these trains are allotted the two tracks adjacent to the platforms while the superfast and express trains are allotted the track that lies in the centre. There is no foot-over bridge on this small station.
On 19th of August, there was a local festival celebrations in the temple located near one of the platforms of the railway station. One of the passenger trains arrived at the station (on the opposite platform where the temple is located). This train was full of pilgrims who came to attend the local Mela. Many of the passengers plying in this train did not get down on the platform on which the train arrived. Rather they choose to get down on the other side so that they can reach the temple quickly which was located on the opposite platform. Many of the passengers were in the jubilant and festive mood started singing and dancing. The third railway track which was located at the centre and is meant for express trains was soon occupied by the passengers who got down on the other side of the platform on which the train arrived.
Suddenly Rajya Rani Express, which is an express train, appeared with lightning speed on the centre track which was occupied by the passengers who got down on the opposite side of the platform. Rajya Rani Express was not supposed to stop at this station hence was in its full speed. Many of the passengers on the centre track did not get time to run away or escape from the track. This resulted into tragic accident which claimed about 30 lives.
Even if train driver had applied the emergency brakes on noticing the track full of passengers it was impossible for him to stop the train in its full speed before the station. According to high officials of the Indian Railways, the driver of the train followed the signals and did not commit any mistake and applied the emergency brakes. Railway officials also said that the train was not supposed to halt at Dhamara Ghat and had been given clearance to pass through the station. Later the mob in anger killed the driver of the train.
Political uproar
All the political parties expressed their grief and sorrow over this rail accident. Many of the opposition leaders demanded the resignation of railway minister. Some of the leaders demanded the resignation of the chief minister of Bihar stating the fact that local administration should have had acted more cautiously and sensibly on the date of local festival.
Ethical Issues Involved:
1. Who do you think is ethically responsible for such tragedy? Are the passengers to be blamed who did not get down on the platform? Can the Indian Railways be given clean chit in this case?
2. What should be done to avoid such rail accidents?
3. Is it ethical for the opposition parties to ask for the resignations from the executives in this case?
Ethics Case Study 21
You have worked as a bank teller for several months when one of the other tellers who has become a good friend tells you that her daughter is extremely ill and that she must have an operation to survive. She also tells you that she has no insurance and the operation will cost Rs 10, 00,000. Sometime later you ask her about her daughter and she tells you she is just fine now. She then confides in you that she took Rs 10, 00,000 from a dormant account at the bank to pay for the operation. She assures you that she has already started paying it back and will continue to do so until it is all returned.
What do you do?
Ethics Case Study: 22
You are a first lieutenant in a military organization responsible for maintaining and providing a wide range of supplies for the larger unit of which you are a part. You report to a captain, who reports to a major. You have been in this job for about a year and have developed positive working relationships with both of these senior officers.
An office manager position, involving the supervision of two secretaries and three clerks, opens up in your office. Both the captain and the major come to you independently and encourage you to request that a particular woman, Corporal Manisha, be transferred from her present post to fill your open position. They both acknowledge that although this position would normally be filled by someone at the rank of sergeant, they believe she is very competent and would serve your office well.
You do not know Corporal Manisha, but after reviewing her personnel records and conducting an interview, you are not impressed. She has performed adequately as a senior secretary, but there is no indication of the level of excellence reported by the captain and the major. Your interview left you feeling that she seems unmotivated and somewhat lacking in the communication and interpersonal skills needed for a supervisory position.
After thinking it over you decide to put in a request for Corporal Manisha. Although you see no evidence of a level of competence that would justify hiring a corporal for this job, you decide to trust your two superiors, who have always demonstrated good judgment in the past, especially concerning personnel matters.
After Corporal Manisha has been on the job for a month, it is clear to you that your own judgment was correct and your two superiors were wrong. Her productivity is adequate but certainly not exceptional. The quality of her work is generally acceptable but highly uneven. Although she is developing better supervisory skills, she precipitated some problems in the office at the beginning by her inept treatment of the clerks and secretaries under her supervision, and the atmosphere is still a bit chilly. You see her as someone who was promoted too soon but who can now probably develop her skills, given some time in the position, some coaching, and formal in-service training.
However, the situation has become extremely complicated in unexpected ways. Soon after the corporal came to work in your office, you received some alarming information: Corporal Manisha has been having simultaneous affairs with the captain and the major, but neither knows of the other's involvement with her. To make matters worse, you have now learned that Corporal Manisha and your immediate boss, the captain, have had a lovers' quarrel and have broken up. She is still seeing the major.
Even more disturbing, the captain and the major are now sending you conflicting signals. The captain recently has commented that Corporal Manisha does not seem to be working out in her new job after all and strongly suggests that you review her performance early and transfer her out. The major, for his part, has urged you several times to write an early, highly positive performance evaluation for Corporal Manisha. This would, according to the major, provide a basis for then applying for a promotion to the rank of sergeant for her. It seems likely to you that Corporal Manisha has been encouraging her remaining lover, the major, to offer this suggestion on her behalf. Finally, because you have not yet acted on their "suggestions," both senior officers have issued oral orders to move ahead with Corporal Manisha evaluation and then to take the action they recommended.
What should you do?
Ethics Case Study 23
Your manager is being transferred to another division of the company in early January. He calls a meeting in early November and asks that every department head delay processing all invoices and bills until after January 1. He wants to keep expenses low and revenues high so that his last quarter in your area shows maximum revenue. What should you do?
Ethics Case Study: 24
Ekta and Varun joined a big multinational company on entry level as management trainees along with 20 others in June 2013. They both completed their masters in management from reputed institutions. Few days after the joining in the company they were allotted different departments. Ekta joined the Human Resource department while Varun joined the marketing.
They became good friends and started enjoying the company of each other. They started meeting even after their office on weekends and otherwise on a regular basis. One day Varun and Ekta had a serious discussion over the future of their relationship. Both of them realized that they are fond of each other. They also decided that since it’s too early for them to commit for a relationship, they should give more time to understand each other. Both of them agreed that they would talk to their families and make them aware of their relationship if all goes well between them for next three months.
Couple of months after this, one of the teammate of Varun who frequently visits the HR department tells Varun that there are high chances that Ekta is dating her reporting manager. He tells Varun that he has got this news from the credible sources. Varun gets upset on knowing this. But he decides to first clarify this with Ekta on the coming weekend when they are supposed to meet.
On the weekend when they both meet, Varun directly tells Ekta that entire he heard from his teammate. Ekta gets upset on hearing this and tell Varun that she was about to tell him all this. She also tell Varun that his manager proposed her through her family and she was not able to reject the proposal as her family considered him to be well settled and perfect match for her.
Varun gets very angry on knowing this. He blames Ekta to ditch him without any reason. However Ekta gives him the logic that they never got committed to each other. Also they both had already decided to wait for three months to decide about the fate of the relationship and the three months are not yet over. On the other hand Varun is of the view that they gave each other time of three months and everything was working fine between them so there was need for Ekta to accept the proposal of her manager.
Questions:
What is the ethical issue involved here?
Do you think it was Ethical on the part of Ekta to accept the proposal of her manager?
Do you think Varun has ethical right to blame Ekta as they were never committed?
Ethics Case Study: 25
Rahim Khan is the Chief Archaeologist in the government department of Madhya Pradesh. Among the many responsibilities of his office is the issuance of antiquities permits to allow qualified archaeologists to do contract archaeology within Madhya Pradesh. In this context, his office often defines the scope of the archaeological work to be done, prepares requests for proposals to do the work, evaluates proposals (often submitted by private firms in a competitive bidding situation), decides who will be awarded the contract, and ultimately judges the adequacy of the work performed.
Gopal is another full-time s employee in the Archaeologist Department. He has decided to open his own (private) firm on the side, and has applied for an antiquities permit so that he too might bid on and receive some of these lucrative contracts. Rahim is concerned about this, because even though Gopal is an honorable person, he will be placing himself in a potential conflict of interest situation. This is because Gopal, as a part of his official duties as a public servant, can take part in (and potentially influence) some of the archaeological contract decisions and evaluations mentioned above. He and/or others in his office would, among other things, be in a position to have prior knowledge of future contracts and be in conflict of interest through the contract process. In short, it would be possible for Gopal to use his position as a public official to gain unfair advantage over his competitors in the private sector.
The Two fold Dilemma: (1) Should Rahim issue an antiquities permit to Gopal? (2) Is it ethical for a public official (Gopal, in this case) to be, or allow himself to be, in a potential conflict of interest situation of this nature, even though in fact he has no intention of abusing his official position for personal gain (i.e., no actual conflict of interest has occurred)? Or, is it unethical only if he actually acts in conflict of interest?
