A Critical Analysis of Ethical Dilemmas in Education and Beyond

In this essay, I'm gonna talk about the dilemmas three companies faced. I'll give some analysis, look at the moral values of leaders through these events, and discuss human nature. Is being unethical breaking the rules? This question makes a lot of people feel conflicted.

Overview

According to Baike on Baidu.com, business ethics is about applying accepted morals to specific business situations. Business ethics starts with understanding business nature and early behaviors, giving us codes to decide if business actions are ethical.

Moral behavior means acting in ways that are good for others and society, controlled by some moral awareness. It's the outward expression of human moral knowledge, a way to achieve moral goals, and the opposite of "immoral behavior." There are two types: moral and immoral behavior. Different times, nations, societies, and classes have different standards for these behaviors. Generally, moral behavior helps others and society, while immoral behavior does the opposite.

I read a newspaper article titled "Why do humans have to be moral?" This piece gave me new ideas on ethics, which I think are closely tied to business ethics. Humans have greed and desire. Running a company is about getting benefits, which can reveal the dark side of human nature. I think business ethics exists in two forms. First, morality is just a tool and not worth pursuing. Second, people follow it to avoid punishment. If being immoral benefits them, anyone might break the rules.

Discussion

I've seen ethical dilemmas in the education field too. I'm really interested in this, so I looked up some info on Wikipedia and made some conclusions.

An ethical dilemma, also called a moral paradox, is when there's a clear conflict between different moral rules. If you follow one, you break the other. Actions might go against your values and morals.

A famous example is the trolley problem. The ethical dilemma goes like this:

• A is a moral necessity. B is also a moral necessity. But I can't do A and B at the same time.

The company I work for is a big tuition chain. It started in 1998 and had over 200 branches by 2018, expanding to Indonesia and Singapore. It's a big name in Malaysia's education community. But in 2019, the company got involved in a large-scale fraud case.

The company hired some poor but talented graduates, giving them job opportunities and a chance to study at foreign universities. But these universities were fake, and the diplomas were fake too. Part of their monthly salary, meant for college tuition, went into the pockets of the management. They hired inexperienced professors to teach, deceiving the new graduates. This was a major scandal in education. Around 2,000 victims couldn't get compensation and were left with nothing. After the incident, the media and victims attacked the group president, but the management wasn't implicated and felt no regret.

As a victim, I want to analyze this case objectively.

• After the incident, should the president take full responsibility?
• How do you feel about this matter?
• The victims didn't check the origin of the diplomas and found out it was a scam. Should they be compensated?

First, the leader represents the entire company. When things went wrong, company people didn't dare face the media because they made moral mistakes and chose to escape. In the end, the leader still needs to take most of the responsibility, as many decisions are made by the leader. Others involved should also admit their mistakes.

Second, this incident shows that people are full of selfish desires, and morality is just a facade. The president seemed low-key, intelligent, and mature, which made many employees angry and disappointed. We need to be vigilant in society. Some people wear masks of goodness to deceive others because they understand human nature too well.

Third, the diploma and future are personal. As students, we should check the authenticity of the diploma and make informed choices. If we make mistakes, we should reflect and learn. Compensation is needed, but it might be hard to get. The victims, willing to learn, might choose to work part-time to reduce their burden.

Now, let's look at another case.

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker had a serious crude oil spill in the Brooks William Sea, USA, heavily polluting the seawater. It was disastrous for the residents. Despite being the latest and most advanced in the fleet, the large hull made it slow to react to changes. After leaving port, the tanker requested a course change to avoid ice. The Coast Guard lost contact with the tanker, which hit a reef. The captain stayed in the cabin. Exxon's response to the accident was inconsistent: first, they showed concern, then they shirked responsibility, and finally, they reluctantly cleaned up the spill. This attitude damaged Exxon's image, even after paying $2.5 billion for cleanup, leaving them with a bad reputation for indifference to the environment.

• How should companies handle environmental protection issues?
• If you're an advisor to Exxon's president, what would you suggest?
• Did the accident mean the organization did something unethical?

First, environmental issues are a big concern now. As they worsen, the public wants more environmental protection. Companies face pressure to take these issues seriously. They need to change production technologies and reduce environmental impact during production, consumption, and transportation. Exxon managers might think it's just a few seabirds, but their delays and excuses didn't win public understanding and hurt the company's image.

Second, Exxon's biggest criticism was their indifferent attitude. If the president quickly appeared at the accident scene and showed concern, it could've been more effective than any ad. Although the spill was serious, it was an opportunity to improve the company's reputation. They needed to abandon short-term interests, sincerely address the crisis, and maintain an open attitude. Otherwise, the company faced a reputation crisis.

Third, the accident caused societal harm, and it's hard to morally blame them regardless of the crime's severity. The Valdez situation was complex with many defaults. Preventive training and proper inspections could've controlled the spill and reduced environmental damage. Exxon holds most responsibility.

Finally, let's look at the last case.

In 1994, at a public hospital in Harlingen, Netherlands, the director found out staff disclosed patient donations. Only a few dozen guilders were stolen weekly. The director took it seriously since these donations were meant for rewarding hospital caregivers at Christmas. The hospital installed video surveillance and contacted the police. They decided to fire the thief when caught. It turned out the thief was the hospital's only neurologist. Firing him meant closing the neurology clinic, leaving 20 staff unemployed, and patients needing to travel 25 kilometers to a rival hospital. After long discussions, the board decided to keep the doctor. They explained it was for strategic reasons despite serious moral consequences.

• How do you rate the decisions made by the hospital board?
• What would you do if you were a board member?
• What do you think about business often prioritizing strategic choices over ethics?

First, the hospital didn't fire the doctor to avoid a crisis, showing that community living standards outweighed justice. Both are moral standards, and the hospital’s strategic choice includes pursuing good morality.

Second, the neurologist's theft showed low moral standards, but firing him would let hospital opponents use it to close the clinic, causing unemployment. This practice isn't just strategic but also implies good employer moral principles.

Third, in business, strategic choices often override ethical requirements. This aligns with business goals of profit and survival. However, if strategic choices contain strong moral elements and charitable consequences, they're morally acceptable.

Conclusion

The whole system of moral philosophy is vast. One argument is that "morality has no value worth pursuing, but it's just a tool for individual interests."

However, it's clear that morality doesn't have to be lofty or dogmatic. It's a way to avoid conflict and live peacefully.