Ethics Reflection Paper: Leading Through Crisis

DM254083( THARUN SAI G)

This paper reflects on my experiences in leadership simulations and group discussions, analyzing my decision-
making process through the lens of various ethical theories explored in class.

Simulations: Leading a Pandemic Response

The leadership simulation placed me in a pivotal role – leading a nation ravaged by a deadly pandemic. The
decisions revolved around public health, military involvement, communication strategies, and resource
allocation.

Thought Processes and Ethical Principles:

My primary focus was on utilitarianism, maximizing overall well-being. This meant prioritizing public health
measures like lockdowns and mask mandates, even if they hurt the economy (terminal vs instrumental
values). I heavily invested in research and development (R&D) for vaccines and treatments, acknowledging the
importance of both individualistic (protecting individual health) and collectivistic (ensuring herd immunity)
elements.

Role Identity and Moral Integrity:

As a leader, I strived for moral integrity, consistently upholding ethical principles during media interactions
and controversies. To gain public trust, I adopted a transparent communication style, addressing concerns
honestly and emphasizing the collective fight against the pandemic.

Unconsidered Aspects and Ethical Theories:

During the simulation, the long-term psychological impact of the pandemic on individuals and communities
wasn't a major focus initially. Reflection reveals the importance of considering self-concept and personal
identity when implementing stringent measures. Lockdowns, for example, while vital for public health, could
negatively impact mental well-being. This highlights the need for a balanced approach incorporating mental
health resources alongside physical health initiatives.

Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Zombieland:

As the governing body of Zombieland (the name we assigned to our country), our journey through the
simulation provided an array of ethical dilemmas that demanded careful consideration and strategic decision-
making. Each scenario presented a unique opportunity to strike a delicate balance between communal welfare,
individual rights, and the integrity of our nation. The initial discussion among the group was fun and most of us
stuck to a single option but as the simulation progressed a variety of thoughts came up that led to a series of
debates to get to a common answer.

Prioritizing Public Health and Safety

Prohibition of the Pilgrimage:

One of the guiding concepts for our decisions was a collectivistic approach that prioritized the well-being of our
society. This approach was reflected in our decision to prohibit the pilgrimage to the Faith Tower. Regardless of
the pilgrimage's cultural significance, we made the decision to prioritize public health and safety before
individual religious rituals. With a population of more than 72 million (the population figure that was assigned
to our country), the potential threats posed by an influx of pilgrims, especially during a pandemic, were too great
to ignore. By enforcing the restriction, we hoped to slow the spread of infection and safeguard the public.
Subsidizing Healthcare: Ethical Considerations of the Anti-Zombie "Pseudo Vaccine": Similarly, our decision
to subsidize the alleged Anti-Zombie "pseudo vaccine" reflected our commitment to safeguarding public health.
While the effectiveness of the vaccine was questionable, the potential benefits of reduced infection rates
exceeded the risks. By subsidizing drugs, we hoped to provide affordable healthcare to all citizens, regardless of
socioeconomic status. However, it is critical to consider the ethical consequences of supporting a medicine with
unknown efficacy. While our intentions were to preserve public health, there is a risk of spreading
misinformation and false hope among the population.
Transparency and Accountability: Addressing Flawed Blood Tests: Despite our common emphasis on
societal well-being, we recognized the value of individual rights and liberty. Our choice to go public about the
flawed blood tests demonstrates our commitment to transparency and accountability. Considering evidence from
an informant, it was critical to address the matter openly and honestly, choosing our citizens' safety and trust
before corporate interests. We hoped that by openly acknowledging the error, we would be able to undertake
corrective efforts and restore trust in the healthcare system.
Humanitarian Approach to Crisis Management: Nonviolent Tactics in Dealing with Infected Civilians:
Furthermore, our decision not to launch a military assault on infected civilians demonstrates our respect for
individual dignity and human rights. While the temptation to use force to prevent the spread of infection was
strong as per our groups discussion as we know that launching an attack might reduce the spread of the
infection, after series of discussions we realized the ethical responsibility to prioritize nonviolent tactics
whenever possible. Instead, we decided to PULIPATI SAI KIRAN KUMAR (DM251062) 2 strengthen military
participation to aid with medical evacuations, emphasizing a humanitarian and compassionate approach to crisis
management.