Moral Minefield

Assignment Guidelines
For the following questions, be sure to connect to the reading material in your book. This is a writing
assignment, so answers should be written in complete and coherent sentences and paragraphs. Answers
in the A range will refer to the text and fully explain how the concepts learned in the text apply to the
question.

You may type your answers directly into this document after the prompts, save it, and then upload it into
the submission box.

Play through the Moral Minefield level for this week and answer the following questions:

1. Copy and paste (or screenshot) your Level overview and scores. You can find this information
again in your Overview & Profile.
2. Reflect on the scenarios presented in the game. Was there anything you found particularly
difficult? Anything that surprised you?

Reflecting on the scenarios presented in this week’s game what I found particularly difficult and
surprising at the same time was question number 3. Question number 3 “The Union” had to do with
making a decision on making damaging information public or withholding it. Making said information
public would have the effect of removing a particular union boss that Pharma Karma has been
working with on salary agreements and that has proven to be unreasonable and because of it Ulban
launch is being threatened. The union boss had previously been involved in anti-union activities and
someone provided Pharma Karma with the information anonymously. The reason that I found this
decision difficult and surprising at the same time is that when reviewing the situation to determine
whether or not disclosing the information would be ethical, I realized how difficult it would be for a
leader to make the ethical decision. In one hand the information appears to be factual and Pharma
Karma could investigate to verify before making any of the information public, the union boss is not
being reasonable with the salary negotiations and the future of Karma Pharma would be on the line if
the launch is stalled. On the other hand, the career of one person (the union boss) would probably be
ruined, and the timely launch of Ulban would not be affected. In this course we have learned that
when making ethical decision we should look for the position that would provide the greatest benefit
to the largest amount of people and also that the motive behind the decision can also determine the
ethicality of a decision. To me it just felt wrong to use some’s past to get them out of the way and seek
personal benefit out of it and that is why I decided to withhold the information. I also thought that
even if I decided to make the information public that did not warrantied that the replacement union
representative would be any better for Pharma Karma. Regardless of my decision on the game and
me hoping that if this was a real situation that I would had made the same decision, I find it eye
opening on how difficult making ethical decisions can be for people in leadership positions. They
have to weight their reasonability towards all the people that depend on them to keep their
organization going and making sure that the decisions they make are ethical not only on their own
eyes but everyone else’s.

3. Explain one of the decision-making scenarios you were given in this level and analyze it in terms
of one of this week’s theories.
(Note: for full credit, be sure you name the theory you are using, explain the theory fully, and then
explain how the scenario illustrates that theory)

For this week’s level 5 simulation I will be analyzing one of the decision-making scenarios in terms
of the normative stakeholder theory. The decision-making scenario that I will be analyzing is
question 7 “The Whistleblower” and the perspective of taking every stakeholder into account when
making management decisions. The normative stakeholder theory holds the view that “business
executives have responsibilities to all the stakeholders who are associated with their company”
(Fryer, 2015, p364). Stakeholders not only include the company shareholders but also employees
and customers along with any others or affected by the company’s busines, because of this
“executives should not focus all their efforts on serving their shareholders by building share value;
they should also take into account the needs and expectations of all those other stakeholders” (Fryer,
2015, p364). The normative stakeholder theory takes the stakeholders intrinsic ethical significance
into account and gives them importance for who and what they are regardless if they provide any
benefit to the company. There are three supporting rationales for “normative stakeholder theory: a
stakeholder-investment argument; a respect-for-persons argument; and a reciprocity argument”
(Fryer, 2015, p389). I like the respect-for-persons argument because “it point out that shareholder
theory entails that all other stakeholders should be treated purely as a means to the end of generating
shareholder wealth, which is inconsistent with treating people with the respect that is due to them as
rational beings” (Fryer, 2015, p394). I also like the reciprocity argument because it states that if you
receive or benefit from something or someone you have a responsibility to that something or
someone. In the case of the whistleblower at Pharma Karma the executives have a responsibility to
the allow the whistleblower to raise her concerns not only because the whistleblower should be
allowed to make her concern heard but because it is for the best interest of the company and its
stakeholders for any possible safety concerns to be brought forward. If the safety concerns brough up
by the whistleblower end up being legitimate customers will be spared from possible health issues
brought upon by Ulban and the company will also mitigate a big public relations problem and
financial problems if customers decide to sue Pharma Karma for any health issues brough upon by
using Ulban.

4. How could you use the concepts discussed in this simulation in your job today? Relate these
concepts to the other course materials and to your own experiences.
(Note: for full credit, be sure discuss a specific scenario, a specific example from your own experiences,
and a specific connection to something you learned from the text)

One of the concepts from this week’s simulation is relevant to my work in the construction industry is
the whistleblower scenario. In my industry there are occasions on jobsites when there might be
questionable unsafe activities that either our employees or other companies’ employees might be
participating on. Our reasonability as a witness to these actions is to make an attempt to make the
situation stop and when our direct involvement is not enough to stop the situation, we need to get the
General Contractor involved and even get our safety director and government organizations involved.
Sometimes there are situations on jobsites when it is dark and clutter which makes it unsafe for the
construction workers and even though our contract is with the General Contractor and we have a
responsibility to help them build the project we have a greater responsibility towards all stakeholders
in this situation the workers that could be seriously hurt because of unsafe working conditions. As we
learned back in chapter 3 of our text about Kant’s formula of the end in itself, we have a responsibility
to treat everyone with respect for the only reason that they are people. We cannot sit back and let the
General Contractor cut corners and not provide a safe working environment, just because they want
to save money or time on the job to keep their shareholders happy. The project managers of those
jobsites need to understand that they “have an ethical responsibility to take into account all those
stakeholders who are affected by corporate activity” (Fryer, 2015, p388). And if they do not
understand their responsibility to everyone working on their jobsite, we have to remind them and get
the necessary agencies involved to make their jobsites safe for all workers.