Case 1 Analysis

Case 1.3: What are Ethics? From Line- Cutting to Kant

Discussion Questions

1) According to the Moral Relativists theory, the embezzlement is ethically justified. The reason being is the weight of the action overtakes the evil deed. The pressure of the moment made the person embezzle $6,800 from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the specialized medical treatment for their dear family or friend. If the person did not take the money from their work then their dear family/friend would not survive. Death was not an option for embezzler. The question for this theory is how far would you go for a loved one? On the other hand, if the Utilitarian theory is implied, the embezzler would not be ethically justified. This is because the impact on those who are affected is not for the greater good to the greatest number of people. Saving one person’s life would not stop the ripple effect it would have on the company’s respect, reputation, the employees, the customers, the embezzler’s family/friends, and the community. If the person was caught, the company would be on the headlines for a new hot scandal. The trust of the customers would be on hinges, they would not know if they should use that DMV anymore because their employees are not trustable. The person who took the money would be fired immediately resulting in a financial loss because work would be hard to find. And on top of it, how would he or she support their family? Moreover, this action could be justified by the Ethical Egoism theory. People have their own agendas that would only benefit them. So the person who took the money had self-interest of saving their loved one instead of standing grounds on his or her credo. But this action is not justified legally. There are other alternatives to this ethical breach. The person, who needed the money for their loved one, did not have to steal the money. He or she could have gotten a loan from the bank, got insurance or better insurance, or went...