Testing for honesty in housing allowance programs

Testing for Honesty

I would be hesitant to submit to an honesty test as a precondition for employment. There are several reasons for this. Honesty tests are one issue where I tend to take a deontological view. The moral imperative is represented in the norms set by the company. Thus, if a company's norms and culture are such that the company attracts criminals and dishonest individuals, that hints at the sort of toxic environment I would prefer to avoid.

Moreover, if we take the moral imperative as something that in our society is by-and-large understood by most individuals, then it seems reasonable that the company should have an inherent trust in the individuals it hires. While it is not immoral to subject prospective employees to such testing, that I would be assumed as immoral until proven otherwise runs against my own sense of morality. Not only do I not view myself as inherently immoral until I prove otherwise, I also do not wish to cast others in that light either. A company that takes such an approach to its hiring clearly does not share my view of humanity.

There are few conditions under which I would take such a test. If such a test were standard across all firms and industries, such that employment was virtually impossible without the test, I would likely submit. However, I would do so only for pragmatic reasons, rather than as an acquiescence towards a moral viewpoint with which I do not personally agree.

6. If the government were to demand executives submit to personality testing as a precondition for receiving a government contract, I would expect that the business community would react with outrage. Under the most basic view of business ethics, espoused by Milton Friedman (1970), the moral obligation of business is to increase its profits. Even taking this most basic view of business' moral obligations, we understand that as a rational actor no business would conduct itself in a manner that would jeopardize those profits. Thus, no business would act in such a manner as to lose the confidence of its governmental customers. The morality of business, then, is ensured by very moral obligation of business -- the profit motive becomes the moral imperative.

It could be argued that there are many cases were executives have acted in a manner that runs contrary to the best interests of the shareholders, but a public company should have the proper governance in place to prevent such negative outcomes. The mechanisms of modern capital markets serve the function that the personality tests would serve. Thus at best the tests are redundant and at worst they assume to serve a proxy for more meaningful measures of executive morality. The government would at that point be merely shifting its own responsibility for due diligence in vetting its suppliers to the suppliers merely for the sake of expediency, rather than effectiveness.

As it is natural the business should object, the situation is not a perfect corollary for the situation of employee morality testing. The mechanisms and structures that define the moral imperative of the corporation exist to some extent in the company-employee relationship, but not completely. The employee's imperative is bound by the employee's desire to maintain employment. To the business, however, there is a competing imperative in that it must increase profits. For the cost of a test, the business can prevent a certain degree of losses. Thus, from the businesses perspective its imperative, if applied evenly and universally, would compel it to reject testing of its executives just as much as it would compel it to promote testing of employment candidates.

Q1. Wilson acted wrongly in terms of his contractual duty to the company. In such situations, the moral imperative derives from the employment contract, including the terms of the housing allowance. Wilson defends himself on the basis on consequential arguments -- he is doing more right than wrong in his actions. Weighed on a consequential basis, Wilson is correct in that his wrong actions towards his employer have resulted in greater good for his family. The one defense he offers for the falsification, however, is ethically hollow. That such behavior is standard practice is the country meets neither the standard of the clearly delineated moral imperative nor does it meet the consequentialist standard of the greatest good. Since the falsification is the most contentious aspect of the situation, it is reasonable to conclude that Wilson acted wrongly.

He did, however, have other courses of action available. He could have turned down the opportunity to return to his homeland, thus avoiding the situation entirely. He could also have disclosed his situation to the company. It would not have been unreasonable for his to ask the company to waive his housing allowance and direct that instead to a scholarship program. If he is staying with relatives, he would still have excess salary to donate to his extended family. In his place, this is the course of action I would have undertaken. The moral imperative for Wilson is clearly defined by his employer, and he jeopardizes his job by falsifying his reports.