TOPIC 5 TITLE: DELIBERATION ON ETHICAL CASES

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this topic, the student should be able to:

a. identify the different factors that shape an individual in his/her moral decision- making;

b. internalize the necessary steps toward making informed moral decisions; and

c. apply the ethical theories or frameworks on moral issues involving the self, society, and the non-
human environment.

Instructional Input:

Some ethicists emphasize that the ethical action is the one that provides the most good or does the
least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm. The ethical
corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who
are affected customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Ethical warfare
balances the good achieved in ending terrorism with the harm done to all parties through death,
injuries, and destruction. The utilitarian approach deals with consequences; it tries both to increase the
good done and to reduce the harm done.

Other philosophers and ethicists suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and
respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a
dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their
lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends and not merely as means to
other ends. The list of moral rights including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of
life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on is widely debated;
some now argue that non-humans have rights, too. Also, it is often said that rights imply duties -- in
particular, the duty to respect others' rights.
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers have contributed the idea that all equals should be treated
equally. Today we use this idea to say that ethical actions treat all human beings equally-or if unequally,
then fairly based on some standard that is defensible. We pay people more based on their harder work
or the greater amount that they contribute to an organization, and say that is fair. But there is a debate
over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times larger than the pay of others; many ask whether the huge
disparity is based on a defensible standard or whether it is the result of an imbalance of power and
hence is unfair.

The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself and
our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of
society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others -- especially the
vulnerable are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common
conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a system of laws, effective police
and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas.

A very ancient approach to ethics is that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues
that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that
enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and
beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-
control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person
will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?" an

Each of the approaches helps us determine what standards of behavior can be considered ethical. There
are still problems to be solved, however. The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of
some of these specific approaches. We may not all agree to the same set of human and civil rights. We
may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and
what is a harm. The second problem is that the different approaches may not all answer the question
"What is ethical?" in the same way. Nonetheless, each approach gives us important information with
which to determine what is ethical in a particular circumstance. And much more often than not, the
different approaches do lead to similar answers.

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for
exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our
choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is absolutely essential. When
practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without
consulting the specific steps.
The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and
dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the
insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

We have found the following framework for ethical decision making a useful method for exploring
ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

Recognize an Ethical Issue

1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group? Does this decision involve
a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?

2. Is this issue about more than what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

3. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the
situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?

4. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are some concerns more
important? Why?

5. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I
identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

• Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm?

• Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake?

• Which option treats people equally or proportionately?

Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members?

Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be?

Make a Decision and Test It

7. Which option best addresses the situation?

8. If I told someone I respect -- or told a television audience -- which option I have t chosen, what would
they say?

Act and Reflect on the Outcome

9. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all
stakeholders?

10. How did my decision turn out and what have I learned from this specific situation?
ETHICAL CASES

(Taken from Markkula Center for Applied Ethics)

Ethical Case #1: Looking Toward a Medical Future (Clare Bartlett)

Anthony conducts research on emerging technologies in regenerative medicine. While on the train
home from work, he starts chatting with the man sitting next to him. When Anthony mentions that he is
researching regenerative medicine, the man becomes very interested and starts asking a lot of
questions. Anthony ends up talking to the man for nearly an hour and explains to him the potential
therapies which could be developed from his research. The man then says that he would want to
undergo these experimental therapies even if it meant he would only live a couple more years. Anthony
then realizes that this man is in a wheelchair (a divider prevented him from seeing this sooner), and that
the man is willing to do anything to regain his ability to walk. Anthony explains that his research is many
years away from human testing, but the man says he would sign up for any testing, even if it wasn't safe.

As a scientist, what are Anthony's ethical responsibilities when discussing his research?

Does a person so desperate for a cure truly understand the consequences associated with experimental
treatments?

Is it wrong to provide hope for these individuals, especially considering that many therapies are years
away from being used in humans?

Ethical Case #2: The Ethics of Rationing (Sarah Ludwig)

Alison is a 19-year-old university student with moderately severe asthma. She w hospitalized once when
she was twelve and caught a bad cold, and she has had some serious attack in the past few years. If
Alison were to catch the flu, it would likely cause an even more sever inflammation of the lungs than a
cold, leading to even more severe asthma attacks. Alison wow be unable to breathe and her fast-acting
inhaler might not be enough to clear her airways. Gettin a flu vaccine is Alison's best defense against
getting the flu in the first place; it can cut her risk getting the flu by up to 90 percent. When she was a
child, her mother always took her to get b flu vaccine, and since she has been away at school she has
been careful to get her own yearl

vaccination. Unfortunately, this year there is a shortage, making it difficult to obtain the seasonal flu
vaccine. Influenza vaccines are not considered very profitable to make, because they are expensive and
any extra has to be thrown away at the end of the flu season, since a new vaccine must be produced
every year. Consequently, not many companies produce the flu vaccine. Given that no single person or
agency is in charge of ensuring that the United States has an adequate supply of influenza vaccines, it is
not surprising that shortages do occur. This year, one of the companies, in charge of producing nearly
half of the United States' supply, had a bacterial contamination that forced them to shut down all
vaccine production.

Alison is very afraid of catching the flu. Her worst asthma attacks have been when she had a cold, and
she is terrified of not being able to breathe. Alison wants to be sure to still get her yearly flu vaccine, but
there is currently no system in place to ensure that at-risk populations receive the limited supply of
vaccines available. It is entirely dependent on each clinic to try to ration their limited supply. To do this,
some clinics attempt to use medical necessity criteria, which are challenging to define; Medicare defines
medical necessity as "services or supplies that are needed for the diagnosis or treatment of your medical
condition and meet accepted standards of medical practice." This is a subjective standard, and is
frequently assessed by an insurance company that never sees the patient, to determine if payment will
be issued. Alternatively, many clinics avoid the issue by using a lottery. The most common method of
distribution, however, is a "first-come first-served" basis, with some consideration of medical necessity
requirements.

In Santa Clara county in the 2009 H1N1 vaccine distribution, the initial shipment to arrive was a nasal
form of the vaccine, so it was limited to healthy children 2 years and older, especially those younger
than 10 years who are recommended to receive two doses; and healthy household contacts (249 years)
of infants younger than 6 months. The next shipments of the injection vaccine were then directed
towards high risk groups such as pregnant women, household contacts and caregivers for children
younger than 6 months of age, health care professionals, all people from 6 months of age to 24 years old
(due to their particular vulnerability to H1N1), and people aged 25 to 64 who have medical conditions
such as asthma that put them at a higher risk of complications from the flu.

To ensure that is she is among the lucky few who receive a vaccination this year, Alison gets up at 4:00 in
the morning on a Friday and drives to the nearest clinic, which opens at 6:00 a.m. This clinic is the only
clinic within 50 miles of Alison's home to have received any vaccine
supply, so everyone from the surrounding area is also coming here for their supply. Arriving shortly after
4:30 a.m., she is number 62 in line for the vaccine. If she does not make it to the front of the line before
all the shots are gone, she will not receive a vaccine. If she makes it to the front, but is determined not
to be "enough" at-risk because she is not a senior, she will not receive a vaccine. Seniors are especially
at risk for contracting pneumonia or bronchitis given their generally lowered levels of activity and
weaker immune systems.

Alison finds herself in line behind a sixty-three year old man who doesn't have any money to pay for the
vaccine, but is not yet eligible for Medicare. Seniors are generally considered one of the high-priority
groups for getting the flu vaccine, because they tend to have weaker immune systems and therefore
develop more complications that are frequently fatal. He tells Alison that he is nervous that he will be
turned away because he cannot pay, even though he is very close in age to the at-risk population. He
also mentions his daughter who wanted to bring her two young children to try and get the vaccine, but
she works at a nearby canning factory and couldn't get the time off to bring them to the clinic. Up at the
front of the line there is some commotion over a young man being turned away because he is not
considered at-risk. He can be heard shouting, "I'll pay anything, just give me the vaccine!"

Is this a fair method of distributing vaccines?

+ Should people with money be able to buy the vaccine, even if they aren't at risk?

Should the elderly man receive the vaccine even if he can't pay?

Is the government morally responsible for assuring there is an adequate vaccine supply or appropriate
distribution plan?

Ethical Case #3: Shhhh, Don't Tell

(Pat Wolfe, Paula Smith, Margaret McLean, and Thomas Shanks, S.J.)
After suffering a back injury at work, Lowell Baxter has completed three weeks of physical therapy.
While unable to work, Lowell has been going three times per week to see therapist Eve Nye who has
been working for three months at a new clinic and is still learning the ropes.

After Mr. Baxter's ninth treatment, his physician, Dr. Felton Cranz, explained that he had made good
progress. Lowell no longer needed PT but was unable to return to his physically demanding job. He
continued the home exercise regimen that Ms. Nye had given him. Dr. Cranz,

who was not adverse to ordering additional physical therapy if necessary, told Lowell to call him if he
had any further problems.

One month later, Mr. Baxter called Dr. Cranz's office and told the nurse that there had been "a flare up"
in his lower back. After talking with the doctor, the nurse called Lowell and told him that Dr. Cranz
ordered another round of PT - 3 times per week for 3 weeks - that he should begin right away.

During his third session, while telling Eve about his recent activities, Lowell mentioned that he slipped
and fell on a rainy night while coaching his daughter's soccer team. He said that this happened "a couple
of days" before the "flare up". Eve asked if he told his doctor about this latest fall. Surprised at the
question, Lowell replied, "Well, no. Why would I? Anyway, I was having some painful twinges in my back
before I slipped. Besides I fell on the soft grass. I'm sure I didn't hurt myself when I slipped. Dr. Cranz is
always so busy and I don't need to waste his time with this. He told me after I finished my sessions a
month ago that I might need another round of PT anyway. I feel better after our therapy sessions ....So,
how about those Sharks the men in teal?"

When Ms. Nye saw Mr. Baxter on his fifth visit, he complained of increased pain with radiation down his
left leg. During her evaluation, Eve concluded that his pain was different from the pain he experienced
after the first fall and was almost certainly related to the second fall. She explained this to Lowell and
suggested to him that he talk to his doctor to ensure that he received the appropriate treatment. Lowell
insisted that he did want to bother his doctor with this.

Now, on his seventh visit, Mr. Baxter is visibly fatigued and short-tempered. He complains of weakness
and numbness in the left leg. Eve strongly encourages him to talk with Dr. Cranz. He adamantly refuses.
"Well, perhaps I should talk with Dr. Cranz for you. I could tell him about your fall at the soccer game
and this onset of numbness and weakness in your leg. You know, Dr. Cranz looks at the notes I write."

"No," blurts Mr. Baxter. "I don't want you to say anything. It's none of your business! This is my injury,
and I don't want to bother him with this. You have to respect my wishes. Your job is to do therapy; not
to interfere. Now, let's get on with it!"

What should Eve Nye do now? Why?

What might Eve Nye have done earlier?

How would you have dealt with Lowell Baxter?

Ethical Case #4: End-of-Life Decision-Making (Elizabeth Menkin)

The public guardian has just been granted healthcare decision making power for Ms. Long, a 78 year-old
woman with severe dementia, diabetes with impaired vision, and poor kidney function, recent recurrent
pneumonia, and prior strokes. You are seeing her for the first time in a skilled nursing facility. She was
transferred there yesterday following a four-month hospitalization. When you arrive at the skilled
nursing facility to see Ms. Long, she looks very thin, and the nurse tells you that there is a large necrotic
pressure sore on her sacrum. The aides are repositioning her so that the speech therapist can do her
evaluation. There is an IV running fluids in the patient's left arm, and her right arm lies limp on the bed.
Some of the time she seems to look at a face and track movements, but sometimes not. She does not
give any answers to simple questions, either verbally or with nods or shaking her head, and does not
consistently look at the person who is talking to her. She does not give any social smile in response to
the speech therapist's attempts to engage her. You notice that the patient grimaces when she's moved,
and cries in apparent pain when she is rolled on her back. She opens her mouth when offered a straw
but does not suck on the straw. She takes a small amount of ice cream that is offered by spoon, but after
two more tries by the speech therapist she pushes it away and slaps using her left hand.

+ Is Ms. Long terminally ill?

What are the treatment decisions at this point?

On what basis will these decisions be made?

Ethical Case #5: Confronting a Fetal Abnormality (Karen Peterson-lyer)

Leyla Ansari, 30, a recent immigrant from Afghanistan who is 22 weeks pregnant, is admitted to East
Valley Hospital-a large, suburban, non-teaching hospital--with severe cramping A preliminary ultrasound
indicates brain abnormalities with her fetus. She is accompanied by her husband of eight years (also an
immigrant) and her mother, who speaks no English and lives with the couple. Mrs. Ansari (Leyla) also
speaks very little English, though she does understand some. her husband speaks English better, though
somewhat haltingly. Their primary language is Dari Mrs. Ansari is stabilized, and further scans are
conducted on the fetus. The physicians soon discem

that the fetus is afflicted with a relatively severe encephalocele; its size and location make survival
outside the womb extremely unlikely. The attending physician, Dr. Fox, is not previously scquainted with
the patient, since any earlier prenatal care she obtained was inconsistent and not at this facility.

Dr. Fox enters Mrs. Ansari's hospital room, where she had been meeting with an Afghan female friend
(who apparently also speaks English reasonably well) while waiting for news of the fetus with her
husband and mother, all of whom appear agitated and anxious. Mrs. Ansari's other children (all girls,
ages 2, 5, and 6) are in the outside waiting area, accompanied by an aunt. Before Dr. Fox begins to
speak, Mr. Ansari, noticing a look of deep concern on the doctor's face, asserts that his wife is sick with
fear and anxiety and that she herself would prefer that her husband handle any news of the situation.
He requests that Dr. Fox meet separately with him first, outside of his wife's room. Moreover, it is the
traditional time for Muslims to offer prayers, and, since he and his family are devout Muslims, they
would prefer to do so before any difficult conversations are had with the doctor. Mrs. Ansari, obviously
upset but remaining silent, makes no visible objection to her husband's wishes. The friend also is silent.
Mr. Ansari repeats his request that the doctor meet separately with him.

Dr. Fox, unsure of how to proceed but not wanting to stress Mrs. Ansari further, agrees to meet the
husband separately across the hall, in an empty office; but he also informs Mr. Ansari that they must talk
now, for he does not have time to wait for him to complete his prayers. Mr. Ansari silently follows the
doctor to the empty office, where Dr. Fox discloses the most recent scan results to Mr. Ansari. Dr. Fox
recommends termination of the pregnancy. Stunned, Mr. Ansari sits in silence for several minutes.

After several moments, there is a knock on the door from Mrs. Ansari's mother. She immediately
discerns from the husband's face that something is terribly wrong, and asserts (in Dari) that her
daughter must not be told anything of the situation until she is in a better frame of mind. She converses
for some time with Mr. Ansari, becoming increasingly agitated through the course of the conversation.
Dr. Fox eventually interrupts and asks the husband to translate, which he does, relaying that Mrs.
Ansari's mother insists that the medical information from the scans may be faulty, and it would be bad
luck for her daughter to learn the scan results at this point. In fact, she asserts, her daughter may "lose
the baby" from stress over the results. She wishes for the hospital to keep her stable and let the fetus
continue to grow inside her uterus in order to see "what

God intends." She herself firmly believes (though there has been no information in this regard) that this
baby is the long-anticipated boy that the entire family has been hoping for, and that God would not visit
such an unhappy result on such a devout family.

Mr. Ansari then turns back to Dr. Fox and insists that the doctor refrain from telling Mrs. Ansari the scan
results, assuring him that he will tell his wife himself once she is emotionally ready for the news. The
doctor, increasingly frustrated with the direction of the conversation, informs the husband that such a
choice is not his to make. He gets up and proceeds back across the hall, where he walks in on Mrs.
Ansari awkwardly performing her prayers. Dr. Fox interrupts her and asks the friend (who is still present)
to help him translate his news for Mrs. Ansari. He then gently but firmly informs Mrs. Ansari of the scan
results, as the friend awkwardly translates for her. Mr. Ansari has stayed across the hall, and Mrs.
Ansari's mother retreats, wailing, to the waiting room. Mrs. Ansari struggles to keep her tears at bay as
she listens to the doctor.

Ethical Case #6: Who is responsible for ensuring trustworthy news? (Mark Zuckerberg)

The 2016 election season generated many headlines, some of which are notable for being blatantly
false. Fake news ranged from, "the Pope endorsed Donald Trump" all the way to "Hilary Clinton is
running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop."
Did "fake news" influence the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election? While the answer is
unclear, one thing is certain. The rise of fake news has reached unprecedented levels and has raised
serious concerns about how citizens receive their news and form opinions.sue-tie

The increase in fake news has several sources. Social media platforms like Facebook gave these stories
the same visibility as news publications, such as those from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal.
Moreover, these posts often had higher engagement rates (comments and reactions) resulting in them
receiving even higher visibility and prevalence in users' news feeds.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg initially downplayed the problem, calling it a "pretty crazy idea" that
fake news on Facebook influenced the election. Zuckerberg has since begun to address the fake news
issue, but warns, "We must proceed very carefully... and must be extremely cautious about becoming
arbiters of truth ourselves." yori adi saal op reg 201

The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics with four principles: seek truth and report it;
minimize harm; act independently; and be accountable and transparent. But the transition to online
platforms has fundamentally changed journalism. Google and Facebook control 80 percent of ad
revenues; the same revenue source that news publishers depend on. Moreover, more than 40 percent
of people now get their news from social media networks making Facebook a de facto middleman in
people's intake of news.

Facebook is taking the problem seriously, albeit with a great deal of caution. They have introduced
efforts to help users spot fake news and inject indicators of trust (disputed tags) into their posts in
partnership with a few institutions. They have also banned fake news sites from advertising on the
network.

+ Does Facebook have an obligation to address the fake news problem? If so, what should be done
about it?

Ethical Case #7: Targeting a Broken Heart (Irina Raicu)

In 2017, Facebook's "People Insights" blog published a post titled "What Mends a Broken Heart on
Facebook." In it, the company's researchers detailed insights that they had gathered by examining "how
the break-up moment influenced the online behaviors of people across France, the Netherlands, Poland,
the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom who indicated on Facebook that they recently went
through a break up."

One of their findings was that "there could be a gap between the break up itself and the Facebook post
announcing it. During the two weeks before and the two weeks after their break-up announcement,"
they explained, users "accepted more than one invitation to an event 40% more than [during] the 60
days before and 60 days after their announcement."

The researchers also noted that ""Healing,' 'detox,' 'drowning sorrows, 'binge watching' and 'suffering'
are just some of the words and phrases that are more pronounced in men's posts before they mark
themselves 'Single.' The same types of words and phrases are more pronounced in women's posts on
the actual day of their announcement."

As to what helps people get over a breakup, Facebook researchers wrote that "gaining new
experiences... seems to be more therapeutic than buying things." Under the subhead "What it means for
marketers," the post then asks, "How can brands be a part of the journey to help mend

people's broken hearts?" Suggested answers include "Empathize with them" and "Offer them new
experiences." The post concludes by encouraging potential Facebook advertising clients: "Tracking
signals of intent to travel, experience new things or take up a new hobby can help you reach this group
with a relevant ad at the right time."

Is it ethical for Facebook to mine its users' posts for signals that those users are about to go through a
break up?

Is it ethical for the company to then help its clients target their ads based on this research?

Is what Facebook is doing different from what other companies do?

Ethical Case #8: Easy on the Wallet or Easy on the Earth? (Meghan Skarzynski)
Fashionforward! is an online auction site where those who have more style than money can bid on
designer apparel. The site registers members for $30, who are then allowed to bid on exceptional deals.
In an effort to stand out from the crowded field of online bargain sites, Fashionforward! reached out to
the local community in search of help marketing their company to college students.

Part of this effort included hiring a student intern, Carly LeBlanc. At that point, Fashionforward! had no
formal marketing strategy for targeting consumers. As someone who grew up in the digital age, LeBlanc
knew she had to kick start the company on the Internet. Her marketing knowledge centered on the
benefits of viral technologies, especially Facebook and Twitter.

LeBlanc immediately revamped the Fashionforward! Facebook page to make it more user- friendly--
adding quizzes, polls, discussion boards, and photo albums--as well as setting Twitter blasts to go off
repeatedly throughout the day. During her three-month internship, LeBlanc quadrupled the
Fashionforward! Facebook fan base. Her project helped catapult the company into prominence. In the
three months of her internship, Fashionforward! increased the number of items offered on the site
threefold.

The CEO noticed LeBlanc's success in social networking and asked her to launch a guerrilla marketing
campaign on her own campus to create buzz for Fashionforward! among her peers. The CEO challenged
her to register 100 new clients within the week.

A member of a sorority since her freshman year, LeBlanc decided to use her Greek connections. She
appeared at four campus sororities that week. Promising a free Fashionforward! f-shirt with the
sorority's name for every membership purchased, LeBlanc registered 300 new members in one night.

Reporting to work the next day, LeBlanc was excited to share with the team the quick acceptance
Fashionforward! had received on campus. She believed she had developed an easy and effective
marketing strategy that could be replicated at schools all over the country. LeBlanc planned to order
different T-shirt designs for different sororities, highlighting the Fashionforward! logo in bold lettering.

That's when she faced a difficult ethical decision: She could order the shirts from a low- cost company in
China or she could order them from a fair-trade company in San Francisco, which provided safe
conditions and higher wages for the workers who made the clothing. The fair trade shirts were $28.65,
making the grand total for her project $8,595. In contrast, the Chinese T-shirts were $5.50 each, and the
company's Web site promised fast and free delivery for a grand total of $1,100.
LeBlanc remembered from her Venture Capital Finance class that startup companies need to focus on
making the most money during the first two years. She also knew that the T-shirts from China would be
cheaper so that she could create a more elaborate design with more graphics and color. She realized her
school was a "testing campus" for Fashionforward! and that if her marketing module worked, her
internship work would spread to other college campuses. She thought of how easy it would be for a
factory in China to produce large quantities of shirts to give away for free as a promotion that she could
promote on the Facebook page she had worked so hard on. She also wondered if the higher cost of the
T-shirts would affect the grade the CEO gave her for the internship.

On the other hand, her International Management class had exposed her to the harsh reality of working
conditions in China: low wages, rigorous work schedule, poor safety regulations, and the complete lack
of worker's compensation and benefits. When LeBlanc had sailed on the Human Rights and Social Justice
Voyage with University of Virginia's Semester at Sea, she saw first-hand a Bulgarian clothing factory's
destitute environment. She wasn't sure how the public would react if they knew Passionita had taken
advantage of outsourcing cheaper t-shirts rather than supporting a U.S. company during the global
recession.

Then LeBlanc weighed her other option of ordering t-shirts from a San Francisco T-shirt company she
had already used once when she worked with a community service studem organization. While the
shirts were more expensive, they were fair-trade, organic, and eco- friendly, all attributes she thought
would appeal to students. LeBlanc reasoned students would be more likely to wear a shirt that was
fashionable and better quality than one that was made cheaply LeBlanc didn't want to disappoint her
boss. She knew she was working on a deadline and didn't have time to research the prices of T-shirts at
other companies. Even though she could have created a bidding war with local T-shirt companies for the
business, she preferred to buy from a company that she could trust. At the same time, the $7,495 she
would save if she bought from the Chinese manufacturer was too good not to consider. She knew if she
made her boss happy, she'd be promoted and enjoy more independence with her future projects.
LeBlanc wants Fashionforward! to increase its popularity and become a topnotch company among
college trendsetters.

What should she do and why?

Should she quit her internship and drop the class?

Should she ask for an extension on her assignment?

Should she assume the Chinese company doesn't treat its workers fairly?

Ethical Case #9: Academic Performance Enhancement (Akshay Vyas)

Frank and Bobby are freshmen at a university on the semester system. They meet at orientation and
bond over their major, Economics, and their hobby of playing sports. They decide to request one
another as roommates, and both enroll in the same mathematics class: calculus for business majors.

The two get off to a bad start academically. They are experiencing the freedom of living on their own for
the first time. No parents are around to make sure they are keeping up with their homework
assignments or readings. In fact, since Frank and Bobby are both in the same math class, they often take
turns going to class. It starts off with the boys alternating going to class, but eventually turns into both
boys often skipping.

One evening, midway through the semester, Frank and Bobby run into a classmate who informs them
they have a midterm the next morning. They successfully get her class notes,

however, they soon realize they don't have enough time to study unless they pull an all-nighter.

Bobby doesn't believe he can stay up all night and still perform well on the test the next porning. He
decides that it's in his best interest to create a cheat sheet and plug equations into his alculator.

Frank is against cheating. He calls out Bobby, saying that this is unethical. Instead, he buys No Adderall
pills from a student in their dorm who has ADD. He has heard that taking Adderall helps you stay awake
and focus,

Bobby gets upset when he finds out Frank is taking Adderall to study. Bobby claims that here is no
difference between taking a drug that isn't prescribed to you to help you study and ringing in a cheat
sheet. Bobby says they are both forms of cheating. Frank disagrees, claiming that at least he's going
through the process of studying for the midterm.

+ Do you believe it's cheating to take an academic performance-enhancing drug that isn't prescribed to
you? If so, is it cheating to the same degree as blatantly bringing a cheat sheet to your midterm?

Is relying on academic performance-enhancing drugs to study dangerous in long term?

Ethical Case #10: Caught in the Middle (Ghloe Wilson)

Ben and Tyler have been best friends since day one of college. Now seniors, they're still inseparable,
despite many ups and downs over the years.

Lately, though, Ben's been noticing that something's a bit off with Tyler. He's been spending a lot of time
with this girl Lucy, and less time with his actual girlfriend, Kendra. Ben asked if something was going on
between them, but Tyler insisted that he and Lucy just have a lot of classes together and work together
on homework, sometimes late at night. Ben knows how much Tyler loves Kendra, and trusts that his
friend is telling him the truth. Later, though, Kendra confides in him that she thinks Tyler is cheating on
her. He waves away her concern, telling her that Tyler loves her and wouldn't do anything to hurt her.

However, this shady behavior continues for a few weeks, and Ben is starting to have doubts about his
friend's honesty. These doubts are unfortunately confirmed when, at a party, he sees

Tyler flirting with Lucy. Kendra is spending the evening in the library, so Ben realizes that Tyler is taking
this opportunity to have a little fling. He watches from across the room as Tyler leads Lucy to his
bedroom, shutting the door.

Ben feels a strange mixture of emotions: confusion, betrayal, anger, and still an irrational sense of
protectiveness over Tyler's integrity. "Tyler's just drunk," he tells himself. "Everybody makes a mistake
every once in a while." Still, he feels hurt that Tyler lied about being attracted te Lucy, and angry that he
would cheat on Kendra. Even though Tyler is his best friend, he still considers Kendra a close friend, too.
What should Ben do?

Should he go home and pretend he didn't see anything?

Should he bang on the door and tell Tyler to knock it off?

Should he tell Kendra what he saw, so that she doesn't get hurt? If he does that, where does that leave
his friendship with Tyler?

Ethical Case #11: A Tale of Two Downtowns (Judy Nadler)

When Michael Nguyen was elected president of the Vietnamese Chamber of Commerce, he had a long
"to do" list. First among his many priorities was to foster closer relationships between the burgeoning
Vietnamese business community and the Centerville City Council. His first opportunity came in a matter
of weeks. At their annual goal-setting meeting, the mayor and council created an Office of Economic
Development, and Michael was appointed to the Task Force. As the owner of two small dry-cleaning
stores, he was particularly concerned about how local businesses could compete with large chains,
especially in the outdated downtown.

As his term as chamber president drew to a close, Michael was drafted to run for an open seat on the
city council. The Vietnamese-American community celebrated his campaign kick-off with an old-
fashioned political rally, complete with rousing speeches. His finance chair and good friend, Kevin Tran,
had no problem raising enough money for a successful race. Although he didn't envision himself a
politician, Michael found he enjoyed the hand shaking, speech making, and celebrity status that went
along with the campaign. The press covered his every move, as he was the first Vietnamese-American
candidate in the city's history. His platform included many things

on his chamber "to-do" list, with the revitalization of the downtown as his number one-campaign
promise.

After his successful election, the pressure began to mount about how and when to re- develop the
downtown. Tran, his finance chair, owned two-blocks in the core area and proposed a citizens'
committee to advise the council and the Economic Development Task Force. Michael had resigned his
position on the task force, and although he felt a little uncomfortable, he decided to appoint Tran,
rationalizing that it was because of his insights as a property owner and not because of his campaign
fund-raising efforts.

The citizens ultimately recommend two proposals to the city council. The first provided low-cost loans to
businesses to refurbish their buildings. It created a business improvement district, and collected
membership fees from owners for advertising and marketing. This model had been successful in turning
around a neighborhood shopping center in the historic district of town.

The second proposal called for the city to establish a redevelopment agency, purchase a six-block area
at the core, and create a new downtown. The businesses affected would be given first priority for
relocating in the new buildings and would be given a subsidy during the construction period to counter
any loss of business in their temporary locations.

The Vietnamese business community was unanimous in their support of the project. While he could see
the benefit of the "brand new" downtown, Michael felt businesses in other parts of the city were not
likely to receive the same level of support and would view the proposals as favoritism. Because of his
business experience and stature in the Vietnamese-American community, Michael's council colleagues
were looking to him for guidance. He had to weigh his strong allegiance to the community of supporters
who elected him, and especially to his former finance chair, against what he saw as a fairness issue.

Should Michael Nguyen's ethnicity have any impact on his land-use decision?

Why or why not?

How should he balance the request from the Vietnamese-American community and the needs of other
segments of the community?

Ethical Case #12: Doxing or Due Diligence? (Bella Rios)

A student posts a socially controversial post on Facebook about a bulletin board in the residence hall.
The bulletin board is titled, "What is Whiteness?" It includes graphics about whiteness as a social
construct and the ways in which people inadvertently benefit from this identity. The aim of the board is
to educate students about diversity, social justice, and civic engagement.

The student, however, denounces the board as propaganda, alleging that in permitting the board, the
university discriminates against White students. On Facebook, he tags prominent conservative figures,
including political journalist Ben Shapiro (who hosts a television show and frequently makes
appearances on Fox News) and Charlie Kirk (founder of Turning Point USA), which draws greater
attention to the situation. Shapiro has 2.1 million followers on social media. Kirk has 1.05 million
followers on social media.

Shortly after posting and tagging, the student receives online backlash from trolls and bullies. By posting
on Facebook, he intended to shed light on what he perceived as an issue - namely, excessive liberalism
on campus. He did not anticipate nor wish for notoriety for his views. Regretting his decision to post
publicly, he deletes the original post.

Student journalist Andres interviews the student on his motives for publicizing and criticizing the bulletin
board. The student speaks to Andres but asks for his name to be omitted from the article. He does not
want to face further social ostracization for his stance. He believes that people will make assumptions
about his character and that progressive students will condemn him.

Andres believes that confidentiality must be reserved for vulnerable sources in need of special
protection from the newspaper. Such sources include those with less power and resources who will face
severe consequences, such as the threat of deportation or physical harm, if their names are published.

In this situation, the student decided to post his contentious views publicly and now is experiencing the
repercussions of his choice. Vulnerable sources, on the contrary, face harm if their names are published
due to conditions they did not choose.

Andres is also concerned that by redacting the student's name, people might chastise the newspaper for
providing the student with a platform for controversial views without being held accountable for these
ideas. If the article publishes his name, it would be the only digital and printed source to link him to his
original post.
Andres also considers whether the student retains a reasonable expectation of privacy as he posted
publicly. The student tagged famous public figures, but now admits to regretting his decision. Despite his
misgivings, Andres questions whether the student should continue to face the consequences of the
original post, which includes social backlash.

Should Andres grant this student confidentiality?

What are the reasonable expectations of privacy for a student posting publicly on social media?

What are the potential consequences of protecting the source's identity under these circumstances?

What factors should influence a journalist's decision to disclose a source's name?