The morality of the newspaper columnist breaking her contract relies, largely, on the legality of her breaking the contract. If it is legal, however, the utilitarian perspective will support the action. The pleasure/harm from the action between both companies competing for the columnist will balance each other out, and the columnist will derive the most happiness from a larger salary (Pels, 2020).
From a Kantian perspective of categorical imperatives, the breaking of a contract would largely be seen as an unethical action. Since the imperative suggests projecting the action on everyone to determine its value, a situation where everyone breaks contract whenever they are offered a slightly better option would make the world a less pleasant place to live in (Pels, 2020). Therefore, the action would be seen in a negative light.
Finally, virtue ethics would not support the decision of breaking the contract on the grounds of loyalty. The concepts of holding true to one’s word and doing what was promised are at play here (Pels, 2020). Switching over to another company so soon after being hired just to receive more would be seen as greedy as well as disloyal and, therefore, unethical.
In this scenario, the answers are influenced by how dangerous the heart murmur is. If it is a sign of a serious disease, then, from a utilitarian perspective, the doctor should inform the patient about the heart murmur. Should the pilot fail to report to his company, the doctor would have to deliver the news herself. The lives of many people and the potential harm caused would far exceed the retirement benefits of one person (Pels, 2020).
From a Kantian perspective, the doctor should maintain her silence. Kant’s categoric imperative values the long-term consequences of doctors violating their patients’ trust to be far above the chances of one plane crashing (Pels, 2020). The former may have far-reaching effects on how much patients divulge to their doctors, causing greater damage in the future.
From a virtue perspective, the answer would also be in favor of keeping the patient’s trust, but for different reasons. Mutual trust is a virtue, and the doctor should not assume the patient to be a dishonest man. She should trust that the pilot would be honest enough and report to the company on his own. Besides that, the doctor should keep true to her word, thus practicing another ethical virtue.
All three theories are in a relative agreement on this dilemma. From a utilitarian viewpoint, the individual taking extra days off is causing problems and unhappiness in a great number of people in order to achieve his own happiness (Pels, 2020). The amount of distress exceeds the amount generated; therefore, it is unethical.
From a Kantian perspective, the employee’s actions are also seen as unethical. If everyone were to treat their work in such an irresponsive manner, coming and going as they see fit, companies and businesses would have a much harder time keeping their obligations (Pels, 2020). Employees and managers would have to stay overtime all the time to make ends meet, making such irresponsibility unethical.
Virtue ethics do not support this sort of entitlement as well. In a working environment, trustworthiness and reliability are important virtues (Pels, 2020). Many people, both in the office and outside (the customers), are counting on the individual in question to do his duties. Failing to do so is a sign of laziness, which is an ethical virtue that should not be practiced or cultivated.
The subject of morality of gossiping depends on the theory applied to the case. From an ethical perspective, the practice is only unethical if it causes harm (Pels, 2020). If the gossip in question is harmless and does not result in the person’s reputation being tarnished, then gossiping is considered a good thing, as it facilitates happiness and conversation.
From a Kantian point of view, however, gossiping is deeply unethical. The theory does not differentiate harmless gossip from harmful and states that if all people talk behind each other’s backs, it will result in an erosion of trust (Pels, 2020). Such a long-term perspective would harm society and the individual, therefore, gossiping should be avoided.
Virtue ethics view gossiping as an unethical practice as well. It promotes two unvirtuous actions, these being slander and laziness, as gossiping can hardly be considered a meaningful conversation, instead of constituting a waste of time (Pels, 2020). In addition, it is often considered unvirtuous to discuss a person that is not there to defend themselves or give context to their previous words and actions.
From a utilitarian point of view, there is nothing wrong with adjusting the resume to ensure she will get the job. Retail is not a position that requires great skill, and the chances of her causing any damage to the company by having a bit less experience than it is needed are low. At the same time, getting the job will generate great amounts of happiness, therefore the action would be deemed ethical (Pels, 2020).
Kant would disagree with that assessment of the situation, however. According to his theory, if everyone lied about their credentials in order to achieve their ends, the world would be thrown into chaos (Pels, 2020). Such lies should be avoided to maintain a stable and ethical society.
Virtue ethics also consider lying to be morally wrong, though less strictly than Kant. Some lies may be deemed acceptable if they are done in pursuit of another virtue (Pels, 2020). Therefore, a case could be made that Helen would be justified in lying if she thought nobody else could do this job better than her. Given its unlikelihood, however, the action would remain unethical.
Reference
Pels, P. (2020). Embedding ethics. Routledge.