Ethical Dilemmas a Newspaper Columnist

Ethical Dilemmas

A newspaper columnist signs a contract with a newspaper chain. Several months later she is offered a position with another newspaper chain at a higher salary. Because she would prefer making more money, she notifies the first chain that she is breaking her contract. The courts will decide the legality of her action. But what of the morality? Did the columnist behave ethically?

The columnist behaved in an ethical manner. She had the desire to make more money which her current position was not offering. The decision she made was based on what she wanted to achieve and this was a moral decision to her. Had she continued working for the first newspaper chain, she would not be happy and this would have affected her work performance. The decision to break her contract will not be perceived to be ethical to her employer, because she was going against a legal agreement they have both signed.

The right decision for the columnist to make was breaking her current contract. This was the right decision because it was not guaranteed that the other newspaper company would reserve the position for her till her contract ends. Though the decision can be seen to be wrong when analyzed morally, one needs to understand the columnists overall desire and need. Looking at her desires and needs, it is clear that the decision to break her contract was right. The decision was also right because it would have made the columnist happy, or it would have led her to her final goal.

According to Thomas in Stepinova (2011)

the decision for the columnist to break her contract was based on the human aim of achieving completion, well-being, and happiness. Her decision was good because it would have contributed to her achieving her aims in life. On the other hand, Augustine would see this decision been wrong. This is because Augustine believes that when humans have free will they tend to make wrong decisions. Free will lead the columnist to break her contract, it made her choose between the two companies, and in the end she did wrong by breaking her contract.

An airline pilot goes for his regular medical checkup. The doctor discovers that he has developed a heart murmur. The pilot only has a month to go before he is eligible for retirement. The doctor know this and wonders whether, under these unusual circumstances, she is justified in withholding the information about the pilot's condition.

Withholding the information would be dependent on the severity of the pilot's heart tumor. Considering the pilot will be flying an aircraft that carries over 200 human beings, the doctor would not be justified in withholding the patient's condition. The doctor should instead report the condition and make recommendations to the airline regarding the best course of treatment. Since the pilot has only a month to retire, withholding the information might be detrimental to the doctor's and pilot's career.

The good decision would be to report the pilot's condition to the airline, this would ensure that the airline is aware of the pilot's condition and though they might allow him to continue flying, the airline would have taken the necessary measures to ensure the pilot is medically fit. If the doctor withholds this information, the pilot might get a heart attack while flying, and this might cause death to him and the passengers on board the aircraft. This would result in investigations which would unearth the doctor knew of the pilot's condition and would ruin the doctor's career. The airline would not understand the doctor's ethical dilemma, as the doctor's decision would have led to many losses.