Chapter 5
1. You can still ask whether deceiving the customer is generalizable if loyalty to coworkers is
one of his reasons. What is the answer?
If salespeople always deceived customers when loyalty to their coworkers is at stake, then
2.* Suppose your customers study the software and conclude that it is adequate for their
purposes. You know better, because you are more familiar with problems that arise after
installation. However, you say nothing about this, and the customers continue to believe that the
software is adequate. Is your silence ethical?
There is no clear case for deception here, because you say nothing to cause customers to believe
that the software is appropriate for their needs. They already believe this, based on their own
Even if there is no deception, we must apply the generalization test directly. Your objective is to
make a sale. Suppose that sales representatives in your business always failed to correct the
The more critical test in such cases is often the utilitarian one. Selling the customer the wrong
product is not only nonutilitarian in most instances, it is plain bad business. It alienates
A third factor is virtue ethics. Although we are granting that there are no loyalty obligations to
individuals in the client firm, due to the lack of long-term personal commitment, a sale of this
3. You buy a number of expensive items at a store. On arriving home and looking over the
itemized receipt, you realize that the cashier forgot to ring up a Sony DCR-HC46 MiniDV
Digital Camcorder with Optical Zoom, which retails for $599.95. What should you do?
There is a sales contract between you and the store. You have not met the terms of the contract
until you pay the agreed-upon price. Violating a sales agreement merely to save money is
4.* Suppose that in the previous exercise, the cashier forgot to ring up a 50¢ pack of gum rather
than the camcorder. What should you do? Why should the value of the item make a difference?
Hint. Sales agreements can be modified with mutual consent.
You can’t simply say that you can forget about 50¢ because it is a small amount. You owe 50¢,
be it a small or large amount, because it is part of your sales contract with the store. However, if
you were to contact the store manager about this, she would almost certainly tell you to forget
There is a lesson here. We can’t forget about ethical obligations simply because they are small.
All obligations are equally binding. You can forget about the 50¢ because you are not obligated
5. Suppose your boss invites you to bring your wife along at company expense. What should
you do?
Despite the boss’s invitation, bringing your wife is contrary to company policy. It would
therefore be a breach of your employment agreement and ungeneralizable on that basis. If the
6. Suppose the travel agent asks you who the third party is. What should you say?
We have already established that you have no obligation to inform the company of what your
boss is doing. If a company official were to ask you this question directly, you might be bound
7. No oversight at the brokerage. I was a retail stockbroker working on a team that catered to
high net worth speculative investors. One night I had some spare time, so when our team risk
report arrived, I decided I could do a favor for the teammate who normally signed off on risk
reports and take care of it myself. I was astonished to find that she had not done any oversight
for weeks. As a result, we had been in violation of New York Stock Exchange regulations for
quite a while, and dozens of client accounts were illegally overextended. Three accounts had no
equity left, and our firm was stuck with hundreds of thousands of dollars of customer losses. My
teammate had signed off on all of the daily risk reports, attesting to our accounts being in good
standing. This was a shock, given that we were a tight-knit group. The problem had to be
corrected, but I didn’t want to be the one to expose it. Revealing the lapses would embitter my
manager and teammates and perhaps invite reprisals. It would do nothing for my advancement
and would poison the collegial atmosphere of our team. I wanted to look the other way and let
someone else discover the problem. Did I have an obligation to speak up? Hint: How does this
case differ from the above?
This case differs from the above in that monitoring risk is this employee’s direct responsibility,
while monitoring expense accounts was not a responsibility of the employee in the previous case.
8. Reporting cheaters. While an undergraduate student I witnessed three friends cheating on an
exam. If caught, they would be expelled from school, which could bar them from finding a good
job or getting into another school. They were smart, and the exam was relatively easy, but they
cheated nonetheless. Should I have turned them during the exam or just let it pass and talk to
them about it later?
There could be a utilitarian obligation for turning in a cheater, if letting an ignorant student get
Failure to turn in the cheater is generalizable. The reasons for not turning in a cheater are
Young students often use the term “friend” loosely to mean someone they hang out with
(Facebook “friends” are an extreme case of this phenomenon). However, if there is truly a
Schools often have “honor codes” that oblige students to report cheaters. If a student signs such
a code, this could be interpreted as a promise to comply with its terms. No honor code is
On the other hand, reporting cheaters is also generalizable. The student has no ethical obligation
9. In the previous exercise, would it make a difference if the penalty for cheating were milder?
10.* Suppose the supplier representative phones you a couple of days before the game to say
that he can’t make it, but he will have his company purchase the tickets for you and your
girlfriend. Is it ethical for you to accept the tickets? Why would the timing of the ticket purchase
make a difference?
The timing could make a difference to the utilitarian calculation. The ticket purchase money
comes out of someone’s pockets, perhaps those of stockholders or employees. If they lose more
Professional obligation is a little different now, because the tickets are intended as an outright
gift rather than an outing with the sales rep. While company policies on gifts differ, modest gifts
(perhaps with a company logo) are often permitted. Yet if these hockey tickets are as expensive
11. Suppose you have already made a long-term contract with a competing supplier, and there is
no chance you will source from the supplier who invites you to the game. Yet he is unaware of
this, and he phones you a couple of days before the game to invite you and your girlfriend. You
reveal the situation, but he tells you not to worry about it. The company has already bought the
tickets, and he and his wife would like to enjoy the game with you. Should you and your
girlfriend go along?
The fact that your company has settled on another supplier doesn’t change the outcome of the
However, you told him all about this. Perhaps the supplier should have asked you for an update
12.* If you decided not to use the salary information for negotiation, would you nonetheless
have an obligation to tell the company you discovered it?
It is hard to find an obligation solely on contractual grounds. Employees are not contractually
obligated to take an action simply because it might benefit the company. Telling all of your
However, there is probably a utilitarian obligation to help the company avoid harmful
repercussions of releasing sensitive information, assuming of course that the risk incurred by
Assisting others in need is often seen as supererogatory rather than obligatory. We believe we
have no duty to “go out of our way” to help a stranger, even if it may be laudable to do so.
13. A free online news service requires users to register by providing certain information, such
as address, gender, age, and salary bracket. The Web site promises that the information will
remain confidential. Despite this promise, the news service provides the information to some of
its advertisers, with no strings attached. Is this policy generalizable?
14. Suppose a sealed note is mistakenly placed in your office mailbox. You open it and start
reading before you realize it is addressed to your coworker Brad, who is married with three kids.
It is a passionate message from a lover in another division of the company with whom Brad is
having an affair. They evidently exchange love notes through company mail. Is it OK, or even
obligatory, to inform his wife about this? Don’t just say, “Of course not, it’s none of my
business.” Provide an argument based on the conditions for rational choice.
Violating confidentially is normally ungeneralizable, but this is not a violation of confidentiality.
One can’t violate confidentiality without having someone’s confidence, which is not the situation
here.
Some may say that the wife “deserves” to know what is going on, but I don’t know what this
Meanwhile, the utilitarian argument is overwhelming. The downside risk of meddling in this
The intuition that this is “none of my business” is related to our concept of privacy. Privacy is a
complex topic that deserves more astute analysis than it generally receives. Privacy obligations
15.* A revealing plant visit. I visited a manufacturer’s facility to investigate its ability to scale
up our manufacturing process for widgets. We didn’t sign a confidentiality agreement before
entering the plant. During the tour, we passed a production line that manufactured gadgets for
a competitor. Gadgets are unrelated to widgets, but the competitor had long undersold us on
gadgets, and we had been trying to reduce our manufacturing costs. The representative who was
showing us around was unaware that this company was our competitor and proceeded to tell us
all about the gadget product line and its performance level. Should I have stopped him?
To focus on the underlying ethical issues, let’s suppose it would be legal for you to use any
information you gathered during the plant tour.
It’s not hard to show, as in Case 4.1, that industrial espionage is ungeneralizable even when it is
legal. In the present case, however, there is no spying. The information is delivered to you, and
I have problems, however, understanding your rationale and its scope. Under exactly what
circumstances are you willing to take information, and why? Suppose that while visiting a
I think this lies at the root of my misgivings about your action. You seem to be confused about
why you are willing to use the information in this case and not others. It is a borderline case