Ethical Quandry

[Elliot Kane]

Also there's the twin ethic of when it is right to snitch on a colleague. As Jang says, it's one thing to uphold one's own ethics (A highly praiseworthy thing) and another entirely to force them onto other people.

One of the major problems with a fragmented 'society' such as the one we inhabit is that often 'right' and 'wrong' are purely a matter of personal preference. If someone believes that defrauding their employer is a 'harmless perk', there is no code we can point to to say "You should not do this!" that is universally acknowledged.

The real bind, as I see it, is that Metalliman was caught between betraying the trust of his colleague or betraying the trust of his employer, and neither is a good thing.

Personally, my sympathies are entirely with Metalliman on this one (His colleague being entirely in the wrong, IMO), but upsetting the apple cart is rarely a good thing for anyone. Far better to find a good way of heading off any impending ethical clashes before they occur - as he in fact seems to have done

[ss]

Glad the problem resolved itself Metal...

I agree with Glance...character (or the lack of it) will eventually out itself and will have to be dealt with..

When you wrestle with the dilemma, as you did, then I believe you should obey your conscience...whatever the outcome...after all, you still have to live with your own ethics...

I for one just got a very positive view of yours..which makes me glad to know you, even if only on the screen...

[metalliman98]

janggut said:

that much i agree, Glance. however this is more of an ethical quandary whereby do we impose our ethics to others, or are we enforcers of our employer's set of ethics, how far do we extend our sense of justice, etc etc.

This is where I have trouble. I don't see it as imposing "MY" ethics onto someone else, I see it as imposing ETHICS, period. It is nonsensical to me for there to be more than one set of ethics operating here, or anywhere. Something is either right or it is wrong in regards to this case, there is no gray area. It goes back to the fallacious philosophical argument (at least I think it was fallacious, trying hard to remember my Philosophy 101) that right and wrong depends on culture, that there is no absolute right or wrong about anything. That might be true for some things, but there are a few things which I believe are always absolutely right or wrong, and claiming an expense which you did not incur is one of those wrong things.

[Glance A'Lot]

It's a bit like tax avoidance versus tax evasion...

In the latter you 'steal' from the state's income, which supposedly is 'everybody's'.
Of course the socialist societies made a point of saying all property is everybody's, and it ended up somehow to be 'nobody's' - and who are 'nobodies' if not politicians...

[janggut]

absolutes? i don't know. as far as i know i am born to a family, society, state, & country. i do not apply or convert to be part of any of those. so who is to say i should follow said ethics when i do not agree to adhere to it in the first place when i was born? so no, i don't think i agree to an idea that ethics in part or whole or in any way or form, absolute. it is as fluid as humanity is fickle.