Ethical Decision Making At It Companies Philosophy Essay

The intent of this study is to analyze a instance survey of a scenario of a squad of package developer at Global Learning Solution Company which consists of 5 members. This study besides focuses on each package development member ‘s actions, behaviors, determinations and ethical job analysis utilizing ACS Code of Professional Conduct and Professional Practice, Bommer et Al ‘s Behavioural Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making, Normative Theories such as Social Contract, Rule Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Relativism to bring forth the alternate solutions from different positions. At the decision of this study, the best solution of each package development member ‘s action will be analysed and the best recommendations will be provided.

Introduction

In position of the fact that the ethical quandary occur at IT Companies, ethical determination devising is of import for analyzing professional issue in IT. Software applied scientists, system analysts, IT undertaking directors, proficient authors, and IT director demand ethic to analyze each quandary for bring forthing the best solutions. This study will analyze a scenario of 5 package development members which are Software applied scientists, system analysts, IT undertaking directors, proficient authors, and IT director ‘s behavior as a instance survey.

This instance survey consists of ethical job state of affairss or dilemmas that occur at the IT Company. The quandary which, developers face in professional issue in IT will be identified and analysed to happen the solutions.

The instance survey analysis is applied Bommer et Al ‘s Behavioural Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making, ACS ) Code of Professional Conduct and Professional Practice, Normative Theories such as Social Contract, Rule Utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Relativism. Therefore, the best determinations are optionally made from the different point of the theories.

At the decision of this study, all the solutions that are from every theory will be summarised. Each quandary will be generated and the best solution and supply the best recommendations.

Analysis

List of Acts of the Apostless is deemed unethical

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Description: Nicole Smith was a system analyst who worked for a package development squad of six members at GLS. She had been working for the company for 2 old ages. She besides considered that she was a difficult working single professional mentality. However, she spent work clip to chew the fat with person on MSN for drinks on the weekend.

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Description: David suggested Nicole that he ‘does n’t believe that it is a good thought to run into a complete alien at a saloon entirely ‘ . Reding personal affairs to work co-workers was by and large incorrect as ethical practise.

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Description: In malice of happening out that a faulty merchandise was released to clients, the managers did non to advice them about the defect.

Act: Leave confidential electronic mail for sing.

Perpetrator: Nicole Smith

Description: Nicole printed a confidential electronic mail that received from the company ‘s managers. So, she was truly careless to go forth this in confidential electronic mail for other staff in the company to position.

Act: Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail.

Stakeholder: David Smith

Description: David by chance found an electronic mail that was non permitted so view and it is rather evidently confidential. He should non hold read it and set it someplace that person else non to read it but he read it.

Act: Tell confidential electronic mail to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Description: David told the confidential information from Nicole ‘s electronic mail to Josephine Hensley.

Bommer ‘s Model

Social Environment

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Nicole Smith may pass some work clip to loosen up by chew the fating with person else. In Social Environment, person else needed to overtime working at the company. No affair how much she was working hard, she should non hold spent work clip to make that. Therefore, chat with person else in the work clip was wholly incorrect.

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: In Social Environment, people have a right to rede person else if he or she acts something that seems to be non right. David had a good willingness to propose Nicole. Therefore, it was ethical to rede Nicole about her personal affair.

Government and Legal Environment

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: In malice of happening out that a faulty merchandise was released to clients, the managers did non to advice them about the defect. As the Government and Legal Environment, the managers ‘ actions were evidently unethical because they broke the jurisprudence.

Professional Environment

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Nicole Smith may pass some work clip to loosen up by chew the fating with person else. In the Professional Environment, Employee should hold spent their clip to execute non-work activities. Hence, it was incorrect to chew the fat with person else in work clip.

Act: Leave confidential electronic mail for sing.

Perpetrator: Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Nicole printed a confidential electronic mail that received from the company ‘s managers. So, she was truly careless to go forth this in confidential electronic mail for other staff in the company to position. In the Professional Environment, it was unethical to heedlessly go forth confidential electronic mail which available for other people sing.

Act: Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail.

Stakeholder: David Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: David by chance found an electronic mail that was non permitted so view and it is rather evidently confidential. He should non hold read it and set it someplace that person else non to read it but he read it. As the Professional Environment, it was non right to see other confidential electronic mail without being given the permission.

Act: Tell confidential information to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: it is clearly unprofessional that David told Nicole ‘s confidential information to Josephine. Therefore, as the Professional Environment, Telling confidential information to person else was wholly unethical.

Work Environment

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: Nicole spent work clip to chew the fat with person on MSN for drinks on the weekend. However, she was a difficult working single professional mentality. As the work environment position, Nicole was right to make that.

Personal Environment

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: As the Bommer ‘s theoretical account, the Personal Environment is related to the single unrecorded outside the company, such as household equal group. In this instance, David suggested Nicole that he ‘does n’t believe that it is a good thought to run into a complete alien at a saloon entirely ‘ . Reding personal affairs to work co-workers is by and large incorrect as ethical practise.

Individual Properties

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: David suggested Nicole that he ‘does n’t believe that it is a good thought to run into a complete alien at a saloon entirely ‘ . Obviously, he thought that seeing the alien is non proper. As a consequence, proposing Nicole was ethical.

Act: Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail.

Stakeholder: David Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: David had been worked as a squad leader for 4 old ages. And he by chance found an electronic mail that was non permitted so view and it is rather evidently confidential. Because of his experience, he certainly knew that reading the confidential electronic mail is wholly unethical.

ACS Code of Conduct

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Description: Harmonizing to ACS Codes of Conduct – INTEGRITY ( A2 ) , Nicole was incorrect because she breached the public trust in the profession trust of her co-workers.

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Description: Attempt non to inform clients about a faulty merchandise interrupt the ACS Codes of Conduct – Awareness AND OBSERVANCE ( L1 ) . Furthermore, in INTEGRITY ( A2 ) , they breached the trust of their employers.

Act: Leave confidential electronic mail for sing.

Perpetrator: Nicole Smith

Description: In INTEGRITY ( A2 ) , Nicole breached the trust of her co-workers by Leave confidential electronic mail for sing. However, in COMPETENCE ( A5 ) , Nicole might believe that no 1 was traveling to see her confidential electronic mail. Therefore, go forthing confidential electronic mail could be ethical.

Act: Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail.

Stakeholder: David Smith

Description: Harmonizing to the ACS Codes of Conduct -OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE ( A4 ) , reading person ‘s confidential electronic mail without permission was unethical.

Act: Tell confidential electronic mail to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Description In OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE ( A4 ) David Smith was non lony Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail without permission but besides tell the information to Josephine. Therefore, David was wholly incorrect.

Normative Theory

Relativism

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: David suggested Nicole that he ‘does n’t believe that it is a good thought to run into a complete alien at a saloon entirely ‘ . Reding personal affairs to work co-workers is by and large incorrect as ethical practise.

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Harmonizing to the Subjective Relativism, alternatively of repairing the faulty merchandise before being released to clients, the managers released to them. Directors ‘ behaviors were wholly incorrect.

Act: Tell confidential electronic mail to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: David told the confidential information from Nicole ‘s electronic mail to Josephine about the faulty merchandise. Consequently, David tried to better the merchandise before being released by stating Josephine. Harmonizing to the Subjective Relativism, the David Smith creates his ain criterion and decides that he did the right thing.

Kantianism

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Due to the managers let go ofing the faulty merchandise to clients, clients had to be charged for repairing a faulty merchandise. Harmonizing to the Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Directors seemingly treated the clients as a agency to stop by let go ofing the faulty merchandise. Hence, the Directors ‘ actions were incorrect.

Act: Tell confidential electronic mail to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: David told the confidential information from Nicole ‘s electronic mail to Josephine Hensley. In the First Formulation of Categorical Imperative of the Kantianism position, the intent of David might be to back up the clients ‘ merchandise. To follow his action, the managers need to set some company ‘s budget to repair the faulty merchandise. However, his competency is good willingness to the company. Therefore, his action was right.

Act Utilitarianism

Act: Tell confidential electronic mail to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: David intended the company to repair the faulty merchandise for the clients. Harmonizing to Act Utilitarianism, the Directors had to be happy, whereas the clients have to be charged to repair the faulty merchandise. However, in the Act Utilitarianism, ethical or unethical is weighed by the benefit or cost. In this instance, there was more benefit than cost.

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Directors ‘ competency was questionable. Despite of cognizing that the merchandise was faulty, they still let go of it. To use the Act Utilitarianism to this state of affairs, The Company was traveling to additions profit of the company while the clients had to acquire a loss. Apparently, manager ‘s action was unethical.

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: Harmonizing to the Act Utilitarianism, an ethical or unethical is focused on the effect of the action. David Smith suggested Nicole non to travel out with alien who might harm her. Therefore, his action was ethical.

Rule Utilitarianism

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Ethical

Description: Nicole considered that she was a difficult working. Therefore she spent some work clip to chew the fat with person on MSN for drinks on the weekend. To analyze this moral job from Rule Utilitarianism point of position what focal point on moral regulations which would ensue in the greatest felicity. It was ethical if she could complete her responsibility on clip.

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: In this state of affairs, in malice of happening out that a faulty merchandise was released to clients, the managers did non to advice them about the defect. Harmonizing to the Rule Utilitarianism point of position, it was incorrect that the managers decided non because clients were unhappy.

Social Contract

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: Harmonizing to the Social contract theory, managers did non handle their clients that the clients would hold to accept. Therefore, this state of affairs was wholly incorrect.

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: David suggested Nicole that he ‘does n’t believe that it is a good thought to run into a complete alien at a saloon entirely ‘ . To utilize Social Contract to analyze the Managing David ‘s action. It was unethical to rede her about personal affair because she did non desire it.

Act: Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail.

Stakeholder: David Smith

Ethical/Unethical: Unethical

Description: As the Social Contract Theory mentioned, David read Nicole ‘s confidential electronic mail that he did non handle Nicole that she would hold to accept. Hence, it was unethical to read the electronic mail.

Decision

As has been analysed, solutions are provided as follows:

Act: Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else.

Stakeholder: Nicole Smith

Analysed by:

Bommer ‘s Model

Social Environment, Professional Environment, and Work Environment

ACS Codes of Conduct

INTEGRITY ( A2 )

Normative Theories

Rule Utilitarianism

Solution: This state of affairs has been analysed by the Social Environment, Professional Environment. Nicole Smith is unethical to Spend work clip to chew the fat with person else because in malice of person else was working, she chatted with person else. However, as the Work Environment, INTEGRITY ( A2 ) and Rule Utilitarianism had mentioned, she can make it if she could complete her responsibility on clip.

Act: Rede a work co-worker about personal affair.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Nicole Smith

Analysed by:

Bommer ‘s Model

Social Environment, Personal Environment

Normative Theories

Relativism U, Act Utilitarianism, and Social Contract

Solution: Harmonizing to Personal Environment, Relativism, and Social Contract, it is incorrect to advice personal affair. However, as has been analysed by the Social Environment, and Act Utilitarianism, this state of affairs was ethical to rede a work co-worker about personal affair. Therefore, he was right to give a suggestion.

Act: Do non inform clients sing a faulty merchandise.

Stakeholder: The managers

Analysed by:

Bommer ‘s Model

Government and Legal Environment

ACS Codes of Conduct

AWARENESS AND OBSERVANCE ( L1 ) , and INTEGRITY ( A2 )

Normative Theories

Rule Utilitarianism Relativism, Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, and Social Contract

Solution: The managers were wholly unethical analysed by Government and Legal Environment, AWARENESS AND OBSERVANCE ( L1 ) , INTEGRITY ( A2 ) , Rule Utilitarianism Relativism, Kantianism, Act Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, and Social Contract. It could be concerned that the manager should inform the client that the merchandise is faulty and set some money to repair the merchandises.

Act: Leave confidential electronic mail for sing.

Perpetrator: Nicole Smith

Analysed by:

Bommer ‘s Model

Professional Environment

ACS Codes of Conduct

INTEGRITY ( A2 ) , and COMPETENCE ( A5 )

Solution:

As the COMPETENCE ( A5 ) has mentioned, Nicole might believe that no 1 was traveling to see her confidential electronic mail. Therefore, go forthing confidential electronic mail could be ethical. On the other manus, this state of affairs has been analysed by the Professional Environment and INTEGRITY ( A2 ) , Nicole Smith ‘s action was incorrect to go forth confidential electronic mail for sing. She should be more careful.

Act: Read person ‘s confidential electronic mail.

Stakeholder: David Smith

Analysed by:

Bommer ‘s Model

Professional Environment and Individual Attributes

ACS Codes of Conduct

OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE ( A4 )

Normative Theories

Social Contract

Solution: As has been analysed by Professional Environment, Individual Attributes, OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE ( A4 ) , and Social Contract, read person ‘s confidential electronic mail was unethical because he did non allow the permission.

Act: Tell confidential electronic mail to person else.

Stakeholder: David Smith and Josephine Hensley

Description: David told the confidential information from Nicole ‘s electronic mail to Josephine Hensley.

Analysed by:

ACS Codes of Conduct

OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE ( A4 )

Normative Theories

Relativism, Kantianism, and Act Utilitarianism

Solution: The David ‘s purpose wanted the managers to set some budget to repair the faulty merchandise for the clients. He did n’t desire to harm anyone. Therefore, OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE ( A4 ) , Relativism, Kantianism, and Act Utilitarianism theories analysed that this action is evidently right.

In general, people in IT Company usually face ethical state of affairss or quandary. In order to professionally do the determination to work out the jobs or quandaries, they need to critically weigh the grade of influent in each state of affairs because person might be harm because of the bad determination devising. Hence, they should use the appropriate theory to do the best determination.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *