The Craig's Case

While reading this case I couldnÕt believe how similar CraigÕs problem was to my own from couple years ago. I tried to recall all the facts from my own experience and compare them to CraigÕs. Even though I never had a steady job and I worked only couple of summers, I am pretty sure that many people had experience like this at one point in their careers. Every person in the world is different, and I believe that each person would behave differently in this case. To be fair maybe the outcome would be the same in some instances, but the decision process would be unique to every individual. This is where ethics come into the play, according to this term everyone should act the same in any given situation. Craig is facing very serious decision, just like in ShakespeareÕs Hamlet Š to be or not to be? He is to choose between his physical well being and his conscience. According to Hobbes, in humanÕs nature is to be egoist, and one should always look out for oneÕs best interest, in this case keep the job and graduate from college. On the other side there are many stakeholders depending on the decision he will make, and according to the definition of ethics, it is not about me, it is about others. Clearly, consistently with the definition Craig is not facing a dilemma but a definite choice Š to speak out for himself and the customers that are depending on his decision. Craig must not sign the evaluation sheet and must do the only right and ethical thing. He must take this issue to the top management and complain about the wrongfulness of the previous actions of his superiors. If he is threatened with his tuition reimbursement and even if his job is on the line, he must proceed with his intentions and go to the authorities that are responsible for such cases. CraigÕs duties and obligations in this case are numerous.

According to the text, there are seven basic duties for good and bad conduct. One must keep explicit and implicit promises, where Craig must keep promises given to himself, company, and his customers. For example he must keep the implicit promise given to the customers where he is to do what is in his power to protect their best interest. One must make sure that the goods are distributed justly, where in this case only a half dozen out of hundreds have been acted upon. One must not harm others, where Craig by not acting immediately is harming some policyholders who can not afford other means of care or whatever the policy stated in the first place. (Trunfio, 28-29) There are many moral common sense principles that are addressed and violated in this case. The most obvious one would be lawfulness, where is stated that the laws must be obeyed, and clearly in this instance it is not so. Also, Human worth principle is violated, where his manager is evidently harming Craig. (Trunfio, 24) CraigÕs manager Nancy, deliberately or not, is not respecting him as a human being and is pushing him to do what he is told, not what is right and legal. My opinion is that CraigÕs boss Nancy knows the situation, and is deliberately transferring the responsibility on CraigÕs shoulders. These are only couple of moral principles being addressed in this case. The fact that the actions of this firm are not legal is probably enough for Craig to report this case to the authorities. If he doesnÕt act immediately many clients of the firm will be damaged.

Furthermore this could lead to a lawsuit which could damage the wellbeing of many employees of the firm as well as their agents all over the United States. If he ignores the issue, and I must add that this is not just a minor flaw or mistake but illegal act that will eventually be discovered by the authorities, the results would be the same, he would loose his scholarship and his job and he would possibly be held legally accountable for not acting upon these matters. This fact should be an eye opener for Craig, in sense that if he doesnÕt act the outcome is going to be the same as in case he reports the wrongdoings of the company, the only difference is that in latter case he would be acting ethically. If Craig attempts to rectify the situation he would most definitely lose his job and his scholarship, and would be given the epithet Š whistleblower. However that is nothing compared to the epithet such as unethical or immoral. From the reading I could sense that Craig knows what to do and what will be the best for him. I think he is an ethical person, and he will do the right thing and clear his name by reporting the situation to the top management or proper authorities. My family comes from small Montenegrin nation and there is one saying that is most prevalent there and states, It is better to lose life than to lose face. In this case Craig might only lose his job and scholarship but once when you lose your face it impossible to get it back.