Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Dilemma/Topic

A person whom you know closely, such as a friend or a relative, is known for their high-conflicting personality. However, their actions do not harm you, and their help is crucial for your success. Is it acceptable not to antagonize the behavior of this person if their efforts benefit you?

Thesis statement/position

I will propose my point of view based on utilitarian values, therefore, the primary choice will be to punish one’s wrongdoings if they bring less total good than harm. If the consequences of actions of this high-conflicting person lead to more damage, it is my duty to prevent them from occurring. However, it might be more beneficial to take a position of inaction and avoid antagonizing a person whose assistance is crucial for my success without causing significant losses for others.

Argument 1

The primary reason for the potential ignorance of one’s wrongdoing is the positive consequences of their actions that outweigh the total harm they bring.

Objection 1

Others may point out that the cost-benefit tradeoff, in this case, will be valued by a person who directly benefits from inaction, making them more likely to choose inaction over following the norms of society. Acceptance of harmful actions is easier to make when there is no direct harm involved for a person who makes judgment (Gawronski & Beer, 2016).

Rebuttal 1

People in these situations have to make judgments based on their perception of potential consequences. It is not possible for them to make completely objective decisions, as there is a personal interest involved for all sides of the conflict. Mulgan (2014) argues that “moral outlooks that are too demanding, impersonal, or alien could not be effectively internalised by human beings” (p. 53).

Argument 2

The rule-based reasoning can be inapplicable when the person has to deal with misconduct related to their friends or relatives.

Objection 2

The ignorance of rules can lead to an increased chance for an adverse outcome. Using Kantian and deontological ethics allows the person to avoid taking a portion of responsibility for the mistakes of others and decreases the overall non-compliant behavior (Hess et al., 2019).

Rebuttal 2

Deontological ethics do not include interpersonal relationships and the long-term effects of such an action on the well-being of all involved sides. The study by Hess et al. (2019) shows that the “most commonly chosen pathways to resolving a friend‐reporting dilemma do not involve compliance” (p. 561).

Argument 3

The consequences of one’s actions play a crucial role in the moral decision-making process since they cause a response from the society that defines the need for correction.

Objection 3

Despite the perceived benefit for society, a person can choose not to adhere to societal norms due to the lack of concern regarding others. The importance of an adverse outcome for others will decrease, and motivation to comply with the rules of society will plummet once personal gains are involved (Hirsh et al., 2018).

Rebuttal 3

A person is more likely to make a choice against their relative if there is a strong influence from the community. There is a positive link between social connectedness and a preference for the greater good among people who are involved in moral dilemmas (Lucas & Livingston, 2014).

Any additional points

Most of the studies regarding this topic review it from the position of an organization that aims to prevent ethical misconduct and failures to report such cases among their employees properly. This proposal focuses on personal relationships instead of organizational culture.

References

Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2016). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”?Social Neuroscience, 1-7. Web.

Hess, M. F., Treviño, L. K., Chen, A., & Cross, R. (2019). Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a friend for misconduct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(4), 546-562. Web.

Hirsh, J. B., Lu, J. G., & Galinsky, A. D. (2018). Moral utility theory: Understanding the motivation to behave (un)ethically. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 43-59. Web.

Lucas, B. J., & Livingston, R. W. (2014). Feeling socially connected increases utilitarian choices in moral dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 1-4. Web.

Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding utilitarianism. Routledge.

Click Here To Order Now!