Session

10
(Week 11 actually)
Administrative Matters
Grades
Individual Paper – 30%
Class Work – 40%
(Class participation, Quizzes, Minor papers, Group Work, Peer Rating, etc.)
Final Oral Exam – 30% - August 18, 2020
Individual Paper
Possible Topics:
1. An Ethical Issue that I am personally involved in: Descriptions and
Solutions
2. Is Fanaticism ethical?
3. The ethical use of social media
4. Assessing government’s response to the COVID 19 Pandemic: An
Ethical Analysis
requirements and specifications
1. Deadline is on August 21, 2020 (11:59 PM)
2. Submit in a MS Word file (not a PDF)
3. Size – US Letter, Times New Roman, Calibri, Arial (11 or 12); 1.5
space between lines.
4. Use APA 6 or 7 Rules to cite sources. 30% Plagiarism Threshold.
(Turnitin)
Rubrics
Criteria
Originality of ideas (45%)
Depth of Analysis (40%)
Organization (10%)
Conventions and Correctness (5%)
0.00 (FAIL) 4.00
Ideas are simply lifted from Ideas are generated and developed
someone else’s work (even if by the writer
properly cited); ideas are trite ideas are fresh and new; insights
are sincere
Superficial discussion; no exhibits analysis that shows in
application of the concepts depth thinking; applies concepts
discussed in class; unable to put learned in class; tests and ties up
concepts together concepts and ideas; arguments are
logical
Paper is poorly organized paper has a flow and is coherent
Too many grammatical errors and Virtually no errors in grammar or
other errors language otherwise
Conscientious moral agent
1. concerned impartially with the interests of everyone affected by what he
or she does;
2. who carefully sifts facts and examines their implications;
3. who accepts principles of conduct only after scrutinizing them to make
sure that they are sound;
4. who is willing to listen to reason even when it means that his or her
earlier convictions may have to be revised; and
5. who finally is willing to act on the results of the deliberation.
- Adapted from Rachels, James A., What is morality?
A MODEL FOR ETHICAL DECISION MAKING

1. Gather the facts

2. Who are the stakeholders

3. Articulate the Dilemma

4. List the alternatives

5. Compare the alternatives with the principles

6. Weigh the consequences

7. Make a decision
Not just feeling, but THINKING!
Decision making is about
THINKING more than
feeling.
Put some distance between stimulus and response.
Step 1 gather the facts
FACTS – verifiable through objective criteria

NOT FACTS ????

The rationalization camp, which has gained
considerable prominence in recent years, is
built around a set of theories contending
that when it comes to politically charged
issues, people use their intellectual abilities
to persuade themselves to believe what
they want to be true rather than attempting
to actually discover the truth. According to
this view, political passions essentially
make people unreasonable, even —
indeed, especially — if they tend to be
good at reasoning in other contexts.
(Roughly: The smarter you are, the better
you are at rationalizing.)
THE REAL SCORE?
We found that people who engaged in more reflective reasoning were
better at telling true from false, regardless of whether the headlines
aligned with their political views. In follow-up studies yet to be
published, we have shown that this finding was replicated using a pool
of participants that was nationally representative with respect to age,
gender, ethnicity and region of residence, and that it applies not just to
the ability to discern true claims from false ones but also to the ability
to identify excessively partisan coverage of true events.
WHY DO PEOPLE FALL FOR FAKE NEWS?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/fake-news.html
7 Reasons Why We Fall for Fake News
1. Confirmation bias - refers to our favoring of information that confirms our
existing beliefs.
2. Lack of Credibility Evaluation - we trust our source of news that the
information they provide us is, in fact, true; and in doing so, we put trust in
the source’s credibility.
3. Attention and impatience - Nowadays, we can just type a few letters into
our phone and what we want, from a wide array of sources, is there. But
along with that is other information, from unfamiliar sources, that we didn’t
necessarily seek out.
4. We are cognitively lazy - We fail to engage evaluation and reflective judgment.
Instead, we conduct a simplified means of information processing—yielding a
conclusion that isn’t necessarily accurate.
7 Reasons Why We Fall for Fake News
5. Our emotions are targeted - One of the largest barriers to critical thinking is
emotion, because, simply, it makes thinking irrational.
6. Reiteration: the illusory truth effect. - The illusory truth effect refers to the
phenomenon in which the more we have been exposed to certain information, the
more likely we are to believe that information.
7. Social Pressure - the mechanisms of such pressure are quite simplistic with
respect to how it works within social media: if you say something that someone
doesn’t like, they might unfriend you; if it’s something they really don’t like, they
might report you; the more you have in terms of friends, followers, likes, views or
clicks, the more influence you and your (signaled) values have.
OK let us see… Gather the facts
What is factual? What is not factual? Is there anything else we
(untrue, requires need to know?
verification, opinion, etc)
Praktis tayo ha?!
An employee named Victor has been fired due to poor quality work, absences, and lateness
related to his drinking problem. The office has already performed all necessary steps to
ensure that his dismissal is for cause and is perfectly legal. As his manager, you are aware that
Victor has been through a very rough time lately since his mother died. The illness wiped out
his savings and left his family in debt. Regardless, it was also apparent that he was no longer
fit for the job and that the decision to let him go is correct.
Victor however informs you that he has applied for a position at another company and has
already given your name as a reference. He desperately needs a job and, as his former
superior, he asks you to give him a good recommendation using the company's
stationery/letterhead (and not mention his drinking, which he assures you is now under
control.)
He also asks you to say that he voluntarily left the company to address a family medical crisis,
and that the company was pleased with his work. You like this person and believe he is a good
worker when he is not drinking.
What do you do?
2. Who are the stakeholders?
• In a dilemma, there are many people involved
who all seem to have valid opinions
• Who are involved & affected in this case?
• What are the stakes for them? What are their
interests?
• Do they have any “power” to do anything about
the situation?

• The point is to understand the viewpoints of

others and treat these with respect, but also see
where the knowledge gaps might be.
Praktis tayo ha?!
An employee named Victor has been fired due to poor quality work, absences, and lateness
related to his drinking problem. The office has already performed all necessary steps to
ensure that his dismissal is for cause and is perfectly legal. As his manager, you are aware that
Victor has been through a very rough time lately since his mother died. The illness wiped out
his savings and left his family in debt. Regardless, it was also apparent that he was no longer
fit for the job and that the decision to let him go is correct.
Victor however informs you that he has applied for a position at another company and has
already given your name as a reference. He desperately needs a job and, as his former
superior, he asks you to give him a good recommendation using the company's
stationery/letterhead (and not mention his drinking, which he assures you is now under
control.)
He also asks you to say that he voluntarily left the company to address a family medical crisis,
and that the company was pleased with his work. You like this person and believe he is a good
worker when he is not drinking.
What do you do?
Next step…
Who is/are the What is/are their stakes Power over the situation?
stakeholder/s? and/or interests in the
case?
3. Articulate the dilemma
• Make a “dilemma statement”; it should be neutral and
not phrased in terms of alternative courses of action

Should I agree or not to the request?

3. Articulate the dilemma
• Make a “dilemma statement”; it should be
neutral and not phrased in terms of
alternative courses of action

honesty
VS.
Interpersonal harmony
Praktis tayo ha?!
An employee named Victor has been fired due to poor quality work, absences, and lateness
related to his drinking problem. The office has already performed all necessary steps to
ensure that his dismissal is for cause and is perfectly legal. As his manager, you are aware that
Victor has been through a very rough time lately since his mother died. The illness wiped out
his savings and left his family in debt. Regardless, it was also apparent that he was no longer
fit for the job and that the decision to let him go is correct.
Victor however informs you that he has applied for a position at another company and has
already given your name as a reference. He desperately needs a job and, as his former
superior, he asks you to give him a good recommendation using the company's
stationery/letterhead (and not mention his drinking, which he assures you is now under
control.)
He also asks you to say that he voluntarily left the company to address a family medical crisis,
and that the company was pleased with his work. You like this person and believe he is a good
worker when he is not drinking.
What do you do?
What are the competing values?
_________________ vs ________________
_________________ vs ________________
_________________ vs ________________
 4. List the Alternatives
Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an
ethical dilemma involves coming up with various
alternative courses of action. Although there will be
some alternatives that you will rule out without much
thought, in general the more alternatives that are listed,
the better the chance that your list will include some
high-quality ones. In addition, you may come up with
some very creative alternatives that you had not
considered before.
5. Compare the alternatives with the values
• Match alternatives with values
• Eliminate alternatives if moral values they uphold are not that important to
you
• If we create a matrix where values are matched with options, it becomes
clear to us what values are behind options or solutions
 6. Weigh the consequences
• What are the consequences of alternatives to key
stakeholders
• Short term and long term
• Consider both positive and negative consequences
• Some positive consequences are more beneficial
than others
• Some negative consequences are more detrimental
than others
The Alternatives The Values The Consequences
What is upheld? Not
upheld by this
alternative?
7. Make a decision …

• The decision should reflect your values

• There are no easy and painless solutions to
ethical dilemmas
Consolidated Table
What are the facts? What is not factual? What else do we need to know?

Who is/are the stakeholder/s? What is/are their stakes and/or Power over the situation?
interests in the case?

What are the competing values? _________________ vs ________________

The Alternatives The Values The Consequences

What is upheld? Not upheld by this
alternative?
6 Ways to Tell Right from Wrong
by Harry Fosdick Emerson

The following are six tough tests. Any action

passing all six tests would probably be a good
choice.
6 Ways to Tell Right from Wrong
by Harry Fosdick Emerson

The Common Sense Test: Are you simply being foolish? How
would you judge someone else if they did the same thing?
The Sportsmanship Test: Are you playing fair? How would you
feel if someone did the same thing to you? If it is not right for
everyone, it is probably not right for anyone.
6 Ways to Tell Right from Wrong
by Harry Fosdick Emerson

The Best Self Test: Are you trying to be the best you can be?
Will it help you become a better person?
The Publicity Test: If everyone knew what you were doing,
would you still do it?
6 Ways to Tell Right from Wrong
by Harry Fosdick Emerson

The Most Admired Person Test: Would the person you most
admire do it? If you told the person about it, would you feel
proud or ashamed?
The Foresight Test: What can possibly go wrong? Could you
live with those consequences?
Twelve Questions to Address Ethical Dilemmas
1. Have you defined the problem accurately?
2. How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?
3. How did this situation occur in the first place?
4. To whom and to what do you give your loyalty as a person and as a member of the
corporation?
5. What is your intention in making this decision?
6. How does this intention compare with the probable results?
7. Whom could your decision or action injure?
8. Can you discuss the problem with the affected parties before you make your
decision?
9. Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it
seem now?
10. Could you disclose without qualm your decision or action to your boss, your CEO,
the board of directors, your family, society as a whole?
11. What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? misunderstood?
12. Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?
(adapted from: Nash, L. (1981). Ethics Without the Sermon. Harvard Business Review, (59))
What are the issues?
What rules apply?
What questions would you ask?
What resources do you have?
What are your options?
Who is affected by each option?
What will you do?

Gretchen A. Winter, Executive Director,

Center for Professional Responsibility in Business and Society
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne
Your turn
O-Telco is a leading telecommunications company in Europe. It has over 200 million
subscribers for its wireless business all over the continent. After long negotiations with
the giant technology company Strawberry, Inc., it has successfully managed to bag the
contract to be the exclusive carrier of Strawberry e-Phone 7. Before the product was
launched however, O-Telco learned through surveys and studies that the demand for the
e-Phone 7 would be very low and that customers preferred another brand of smartphone,
Korea’s Sumasong Universe 8.

Desperate to attract customers, O-Telco recruited thousands of small time actors from
various European capitals and paid them to line-up in select O-Telco branches on the day
of the launch so that they could pretend to be real customers who wanted to buy the e-
Phone 7. The idea behind this was to generate interest from other normal consumers who
would see the line of actors and believe that there is a strong demand for the phone. The
CEO said that the plan is an excellent bit of marketing and approved it. Comment on O-
Telco’s plan? Use the model for decision making in determining your response.
Consolidated Table
What are the facts? What is not factual? What else do we need to know?

Who is/are the stakeholder/s? What is/are their stakes and/or Power over the situation?
interests in the case?

What are the competing values? _________________ vs ________________

The Alternatives The Values The Consequences

What is upheld? Not upheld by this
alternative?