Page |1
How to resolve an ethical dilemma
STEP 1: ANALYZE THE CONSEQUENCES
•Who will be helped by what you do?
•Who will be hurt?
•What kind of benefits and harms are we talking about? How serious are they?
•How does all of this look over the long run as well as the short run?
STEP 2: ANALYZE THE ACTIONS
How do they measure up against moral principles like honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the
dignity of others, respecting people's rights, and recognizing individuals weaker or less fortunate
than others? Do any of the actions that you're considering "cross the line” of simple decency or
an important ethical principle? Is one principle more important than the others?
STEP 3: MAKE A DECISION
And now, take both parts of your analysis into account and make a decision.
(Adapted from Loyola Marymount University website: http://www.lmu.edu/Page27945.aspx)
A Lack of Outrage Larry is a young port engineer who works for a shipping company, overseeing
repairs and related projects. He is proud when put in charge of a multi-million-dollar repair order for one
of his company's ships. The repairs are contracted out to a major shipyard, and everything goes
smoothly until the end of the project. When Larry is handed the bill, he realizes the total project costs
are three times higher than they should be.
Larry is shocked. He has never been confronted by such an apparently corrupt practice before. After
delaying the "sign off" for a couple of days, he approaches his boss, points out what is going on, and
explains why he cannot sign off. His boss asks for specifics, which Larry is happy to give him.
A meeting is arranged between shipyard and shipping company officials, who go over the bill. They
agree the shipping company is being overbilled by millions of dollars. To Larry's surprise, there is little
reaction from either side of the table. His company does not seem to be upset about the problem.
The two sides meet the next day, and the shipyard officials offer to split the difference. Both parties turn
to Larry for approval, who explains he cannot sign off on the adjusted bill, either. Again, the meeting
adjourns with no apparent reaction, and Larry is very surprised.
Larry tries to figure things out. Apparently his superiors respect his integrity. They are following orderly
procedures to arrive at a final bill. But he cannot help noticing their lack of outrage and conviction. Why
would they agree to such a compromise? What could make such a fine company turn a blind eye to
such practices? What can Larry do?
The Disappearing Degree
Connie is head of a foundation that funds arts programs in a southern city,
and one of her projects is to bring artists-in-residence into the middle schools. Her committee has
received numerous applications, including one from Hamilton Craft, perhaps the best-known painter in
the region. His national reputation and amiable personality make him a natural for Connie's program—
Page |2
and he has told everyone in the city that he has applied. Reviewing the applications, Connie can see that
he is the best candidate.
On the resume submitted with his application, Craft has listed a Ph.D. in art history, received from an
east coast university in the late 1960s. When Connie's assistant did background checks on the artists,
she discovered that Craft did not have a Ph.D. He had enrolled in a doctoral program, but he never
completed it. His resume has false information.
Connie tells the committee and then confronts Craft. Congenial as always, he explains that just as he
was completing the work for his doctorate, he had been drafted into the army. What he had meant to
write on the resume, he explains, is, "Course work completed for Ph.D."—a phrase often used in
resumes to indicate that the candidate never completed the writing of the dissertation. But somehow
that phrase got shortened simply to "Ph.D."
Then, turning surprisingly tough, Craft warns her that if the committee refuses him on this technicality—
an issue that surely had little bearing on his ability to work with a classroom of middle schoolers—he
would sue them for mishandling his application and potentially defaming his character.
Chairing the committee, Connie watches it deadlock in a three-to-three vote. It falls to her to break the
tie. What should she do?
Honor the Cost of Philanthropy Alistair is the chief legal officer in a well-respected company making
lifesaving drugs. His board of directors has asked him to look into rumors of price-fixing in the firm's
European offices. His board has a very strong ethics policy, and is especially concerned about pricefixing, bribery, kick-backs, and other unethical activities. After several months of investigation, Alistair is
satisfied that the rumors are not true. "There's no issue here," he heard several managers say. “But,”
added one manager, "if you really want something to investigate, look into the Bosnia contract."
Over the months, Alistair keeps hearing about "the Bosnia contract." So when he finishes his report on
the price-fixing rumors, he decides to look at the Bosnia contract. He discovers that it is ordinary in
almost every way: A major relief organization has contracted with his company to supply a million
inexpensive kits of medicine for delivery into the war-torn regions of Bosnia. Like most such contracts
with charitable organizations, it contains almost no profit for his firm.
What he finds strange, however, is the payment of an extraordinarily large commission to a Romanian
distributor to deliver the kits deep into Bosnia. He finds the executive in his own firm who negotiated
the contract, and he asks this question: Is this a bribe?
“Yes and no,” says the executive. The delivery trucks are loaded with the kits—and the glove
compartments of the trucks are stuffed with cash so that when the drivers are stopped at roadblocks set
up by local militia units operating all across Bosnia, 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.”
Page |3
Alistair feels sure that none of the money has come back to the executive, whose only motive is to get
the kits delivered. And by this time, the deliveries have already been made. Yet Alistair still faces a
dilemma. Should he write a separate report to the board on this most unusual 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 Alistair do?
The Rules of the Game Everyone at Baileyville High School is excited. For the first time in many, many
years, the varsity basketball team has made it to the state semifinal competition. The community is
excited too, and everyone is making plans to attend the big event next Saturday night.
Jeff, the coach, has been waiting for years to have a team with this kind of speed, teamwork, and
balance: they've got it all. Only one more week to practice, he tells his team, and not a rule can be
broken. Everyone must be at practice each night at the regularly scheduled time: No Exceptions.
Brad and Mike are two of the team's starters. From their perspective, they're indispensable to the
team, the guys who will bring victory to Baileyville. They decide—why, no one will ever know—to show
up an hour late to the next day's practice.
Jeff is furious. They have deliberately disobeyed his orders. The rule says they should be suspended for
one full week. If he follows the rule, Brad and Mike will not play in the semifinals. But the whole team is
depending on them. What should he do?
Living Up to Standards John Merritt manages a fellowship program which supports recent university
graduates in carrying out social science research. Susannah Rose has received a fellowship. Her grant
award requires her to write a paper on the motivations for criminal behavior, with a chapter due each
month.
Just as her fellowship is scheduled to begin, she receives a job offer as a consultant to prisons. She
accepts the position, which means that she will be absent for the first eight months of the fellowship
period. She tells the foundation trustee who had referred her for the program, and the trustee indicates
that the absence is acceptable. However, neither Susannah nor her trustee friend informs the fellowship
program coordinator, John Merritt.
After a couple of months, John notices that Susannah is not submitting any of the required work for the
fellowship. John tries to contact her with no luck. The fellowship program’s policies are clear that
anyone who fail to meet the terms of their agreement will lose the fellowship. Following this policy,
John writes to Susannah that the fellowship funding is being withdrawn due to nonperformance.
When the trustee hears what has happened, he pushes for an extension of the fellowship time—which
is normally not allowed. Should John terminate the fellowship, or make an exception and grant an
extension?
Page |4
The Chain of Command As an Air Force lieutenant colonel, Jack is the new commander of a squadron
of fighter-bombers. Like other squadron commanders, he is concerned about safety. While the record is
not terrible, there have been aircraft accidents and many close calls recently. Something is wrong.
He decided to hold a meeting every Friday afternoon of his 50 fliers in the Squadron's Bar. To pay for
refreshments they each put a dollar on the pool table for each mistake or close call they had while flying
that week. Then they talk for hours, freely and frankly, about what is going on in the squadron and how
to improve safety. Jack has just one standing rule: amnesty. Whatever is said within the room is to be
held in confidence; nobody gets in trouble for admitting they have made an error while flying.
In the months that follow, the conversation is open and direct. Lots of issues, big and small, come to the
surface concerning management, personnel, maintenance, regulations, and everything else. Jack begins
to notice the hoped-for change: His squadron's safety record rises higher and higher in comparison to
other squadrons in his wing.
Then one Friday a pilot relates an experience he had earlier that week during what should have been a
routine flight. He was flying in formation when the lead plane went into a turn too soon. Having only
seconds to adjust to the confusion, he lost his bearings—experiencing what is known among fliers as
"spatial disorientation." When he came out of that potentially fatal condition, his plane was soaring
upwards into the clouds, far from the formation. Deeply shaken, he headed back to the base, landed,
and went home for the day.
Jack thinks the conversation that Friday, regarding ways the whole squadron could work together to
prevent such situations, is particularly good. But he also knows that spatial disorientation is such a
serious problem that the Air Force requires any such incidents to be reported up the chain of command.
When the circumstances leading to these types of incidences are investigated, there is usually discipline
and retraining involved. Yet Jack has offered amnesty—which is the reason, he is sure, that the pilot had
been willing to speak frankly. A few days later his superior calls him in. One of the officers at the bar that
day has broken the confidence and told the commanding general what had happened. "What are you
going to do?" Jack's superior asks him.
Quality Time Better Spent? After graduating from college with a degree in science, Andy found a solid
job in his profession, married, and had two sons. Twelve years later, he moved to another company
which promised him more money and promotions. A devoted family man, Andy admires his wife's
dedication to raising their boys. But he also observes that his sons, approaching their teen years, benefit
greatly from his fatherly friendship and advice. He has made a commitment to spend plenty of time
with them, playing baseball and helping with their schoolwork.
However, he also loves his work, and does it well. It has become clear to him that he need an MBA to
achieve his career goals. A nearby university offers the degree in an evening-and-weekend program that
would allow him to continue full-time employment, but it would take all his free time for the next
several years, leaving very little time for family life. Where should Andy focus his attention?
Page |5
How the Chips Fall Mr. Potato Chip Company has been a well-respected regional manufacturer for
many years. Recently the company has decided to expand into new markets. To do this, they will need
to attract new investors, and to accomplish that, they will need to show they are able to produce a solid
return on investments each year.
To meet these objectives, they have a new policy in which they reduce the product inventory to a rockbottom level each June 30th, which is the end of the company's fiscal year. Why? The lower the
inventory, the less money is tied up. This situation puts the company in a better cash position at the end
of the year, which means that more money can be passed on to the stockholders.
As the recently hired production manager, Jane realizes there is a problem with this policy. With low
inventory levels and a higher than usual demand for potato chips, the company cannot meet the total
customer demand for various types of potato chips. In fact, after inventory levels are reduced, it takes
more than a month to get the process back to normal and running smoothly again. The effect, Jane
predicts, will be both lost sales at year end and a number of operations problems associated with a lowinventory situation.
For Jane, the dilemma is whether or not to confront senior management with these problems. Should
she question the wisdom of the policy?
Unaware That You’re Unemployed Mary works as a secretary in a department within a branch of a
large corporation. The branch director has decided that the job of her department director, Jim, will
soon be discontinued. Although Mary and a few others in her department have this knowledge, Jim does
not. For a few weeks, Jim is directed to work on a variety of special projects at his home office. In the
meantime, an employee from a different department is told to move in to Jim's office.
The branch director instructs Mary and other support staff to change Jim's voice mail, move his files out
of the office, and erase his name from his assigned parking spot. Mary is told the human resources
department will call Jim to let him know what has taken place.
That week Jim calls Mary because he cannot get into his voice mail. He wants to know if there are any
technical problems about which he should know. Mary feels torn: should she tell him the truth now or
should she wait for the human resources staff to tell him?
The Dying Passenger Mike Nolan knew there was a problem even before the flight attendant knocked
on the cockpit door. After 18 years of piloting airplanes across the country and around the world, Nolan
had become very perceptive about the atmosphere aboard his planes. This flight—a December trip
from Detroit to Seattle—had been a struggle from the start.
First, there had been the late departure from the Detroit gate—a delay caused by a flat tire on the foodservice van a few miles from the gate. The flight had been further slowed by the onset of a snowstorm.
The flight crew was new, too—each with plenty of experience, but not yet used to one another as a
routine team on this westbound route. These little things had put Nolan on alert.
Page |6
So he wasn’t surprised when Maggie Cho, a flight attendant, knocked on the cockpit door. She told
Nolan and the rest of the cockpit crew that there was trouble in the back: a passenger had suffered a
severe heart attack and needed immediate medical attention. While a doctor aboard the plane had
been able to help, a hospital was needed quickly—or the patient could die.
Nolan knew that he didn’t have many options or much time. The scheduled flight path had taken the
plane slightly south in order to avoid a growing snowstorm over the northern plains. However, the
storm had spread more widely than forecast, covering America's middle states with snow, sleet, and
strong winds. This night flight, now 20 minutes from Denver, was in the middle of the mess.
Mike contacted the Denver Airport control tower to seek clearance for an emergency landing. From the
other end of the radio, Nolan heard an upsetting response: Permission Denied. The Denver controller
explained that weather conditions were worsening, making a landing unadvisable and unsafe for Nolan's
crew and passengers. With extreme regret, the Denver tower told Nolan to provide what medical care
he could—but to continue his flight as planned.
Mike, Maggie, and the rest of the cockpit crew looked at each other, pained expressions on their faces.
After talking quietly for a few minutes, Mike summed up their options. They could follow Denver's
orders and stay in the air, or they could demand a landing for a medical evacuation.
The weather WAS a problem, Mike admitted, but not one he wasn't ready to meet. He felt sure he
could land the plane—a confidence from his 27-year experience at the controls of military and civilian
aircraft. But he wasn't prepared to risk the lives of his crew and passengers—breaking the conservative
standards of airline safety regulations—without their full and informed consent.
At Mike's request, Maggie returned to the cabin to check on the passenger. In less than three minutes,
she was back with the bad news of his worsening condition. News of the crisis, she said, had only
spread through a small portion of the passenger cabin. The rest of the flight crew, however, had been
told of the emergency and had all, except for one, indicated that they wanted the plane to land
immediately. Now the choice was Mike Nolan's. What should he do?
(Dilemmas adapted from Institute for Global Ethics: http://www.globalethics.org/personal-dilemmas.php)