Ethical Dilemma in Information Access

Author

Institution

Introduction

Decision making revolves around making a choice between two conflicting alternatives. It goes without saying that all choices have consequences and benefits. In most cases, there is a clear line between the issues pertaining to the choice to be made, in which case an individual would not have much of a problem. However, there are instances where one would be faced with two choices, none of which would be resolving the problem in a way or manner that can be said to be ethically acceptable (Alexander, 2012). These are known as ethical dilemmas, which are complex situations usually involving an obvious mental conflict in an individual between varied moral imperatives (Howell, 2013). Following one moral imperative would lead to the transgression of another.

While I have faced varied ethical dilemmas, the most vivid one comes as the one involving information access. It goes without saying that the introduction of emails into the business world created an entirely new ground for the cropping up of moral dilemmas pertaining to information privacy and access. At one time, I was working as a data analyst in one of the biggest casinos in my hometown. I was struggling to clear some crucial project when I realized that I missed some data and information, which was sent through my co-worker’s email. Unfortunately, I could not reach him on his phone. However, I had seen him on countless times keying in his password, so I decided to log in and send the files to my email. Once I had logged in, however, an email pertaining to gambling bets that my coworker had placed some days ago with another sports book popped up. It is worth noting that casino employees are forbidden from participating in gambling activities as such activities would be likely to result in conflict of interest. I had an obligation of reporting my coworker to the management. However, such an action would have amounted to an admission of having violated the casino’s regulations pertaining to information technology through logging into my coworker’s computer. On the same note, warning my coworker against betting would necessitate revelation of the source of the information. This meant that any action that I took would be transgressing another moral rule or obligation.

In resolving this ethical dilemma, I used the three-step strategy. First, I analyzed the likely consequences of any action that I would have taken including the positive and negative consequences that apply to each of them. The key questions here were on who would benefit or lose from the action, what were the benefits or loses in this case, as well as how this action would look both in the short run, as well as the long run (Howell, 2013). These questions were asked so that I could determine the course of action that provided the most desirable blend of benefits over and above harms.

The second step revolved around analysis of the actions from an entirely different perspective that did not consider the consequences. This analysis solely concentrates on the actions themselves in an effort to determine how they measured up against varied moral principles such as equality, honesty, fairness, respect for other peoples’ dignity and rights (Alexander, 2012). Of course, I had to consider whether these actions crossed the line pertaining to things that were simply decent to things that would be considered crucial ethical principles. In this strategy, one would consider whether there is any way where one principle can be seen as more crucial than the other especially in instances where the principles conflict with each other (Howell, 2013). This is all in an effort to determine the option that comes with the least problematic actions.

The third step involved decision making, where both parts of the analysis were considered. Nevertheless, I had to consider which moral rule or principle overrode the other between honesty and protection of the employee. Needless to say, my coworker would have been handed a disciplinary action for defying the regulations, which would have possibly spelled doom on his job in the casino. This would have been the result of my honesty and strict adherence to the rule of law. On the other hand, warning him about the consequences of his behavior would have done the trick, and I was under no obligation whatsoever of disclosing my source of information.

Looking back at the decision that I made, I acknowledge that I followed utilitarian principles. This is especially considering that I took into account the net costs and benefits to all stakeholders at an individual level. The strategy that I used aimed at achieving the greatest benefit for the largest number, while establishing the least harm or preventing the most amount of suffering (Alexander, 2012). For the utilitarian approach, the most ethical option comes as the one that offers the most appropriate balance for benefits over harms for the largest number of stakeholders (Alexander, 2012). My decision to warn the coworker was informed by the fact that it had least harmful effects on his job prospects in the casino yet it would be likely to be just as effective.

However, taking a deontological approach in this case would have produced a different conclusion as I would have had to determine whether the action or decision would have been morally right or wrong only (Howell, 2013). In this case, reporting my coworker would have been the most probable conclusion.

References

Alexander, J. (2012). Experimental philosophy: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Howell, K. E (2013). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. Portland: Book News, Inc.