AN ETHICAL SURVEY

An Ethical Survey: Should You Follow The Law Even If It Harm Someone?

An Ethical Survey: Should You Follow The Law Even If It Harm Someone?

Introduction

An ethical surveyShould you follow the law even if it harms someone?'Ethics, ethical behaviour and taking personal responsibility for choices are important in professional life and management today.' This case study mainly talks about professional ethics, the concept of teleopathy, breach of confidentiality, whistleblowing and public and private morality. Here Citizen's gas company is involved in a fraud of putting a gas pipeline in Mr Manders property without his knowledge although it was written clearly in the report submitted by the two independent surveyors it hired, that the land was not for Mrs Kildare. The latter who thought the plot of land was hers gave her consent but it is actually for Mr Manders who is clear that he does not want any pipeline on his land. The problem is that none of them are aware of whose part of the land is whose according to the legal description and maps.

Discussion

There are two main ethical issues which are involved in this case study. The two surveyors have the choice of staying quite or they can do whistle blowing which is one who is concerned totally or predominantly motivated by notions of public interest, who initiates of his or her own free will an open disclosure about significant wrongdoing in a particular occupational role to a person or agency capable of investigating the complaint and facilitating the correction of wrongdoing and who suffer accordingly. If Mrs Kildare stay quite there are different outcomes and impacts that will raise and if they blow the whistle many more problems will arise but the two independent surveyors will show that they are professionals and will abide by the law that they have accepted towards professional ethics which concern one's conduct of behaviour and practice when carrying out professional ethics.

Lastly, Mrs Kildare doubters have pointed out that the supposed general obligation to obey the law must be redundant in every normative theory that has any plausibility whatsoever. That is because every such theory must contain proscriptions against assault, reckless endangerment, fraud, breach of serious promises, etc., whose conjunction arguably specifies each important moral interest that we are bound to respect. Hence, regardless of whether a theory provides specifically for obedience to the law, it will imply trivially ...