What do you do? Do you change the documents? Do you go back and confront your supervisor? What is your decision and why did you make it? What is your next course of action? What other factors do you consider and what other actions do you take? ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS CASE ATTACHED BELOW What ethical framework/Distributive Justice Theory best supports your decisions regarding the case and why?
In analyzing the ethical dimensions of the given case, it is important to consider various factors and potential actions to make an informed decision. The case presents a scenario where a student is employed as a research assistant, tasked with reviewing documents for a supervisor. During this task, the student discovers that the supervisor has altered scientific data to support her hypothesis. The student now faces the dilemma of what actions to take, as well as the ethical framework that best supports these decisions.
Firstly, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of different actions. If the student changes the documents to reflect the original and accurate data, this could lead to the exposure of the supervisor’s unethical practices. However, it could also jeopardize the student’s employment and professional relationship with the supervisor. Alternatively, the student may choose to confront the supervisor directly, exposing the supervisor’s misconduct while risking potential backlash or retaliation. Each decision carries inherent risks and trade-offs, emphasizing the need for a careful evaluation of the ethical framework to guide the decision-making process.
One ethical framework that supports the decision to change the documents and confront the supervisor is the deontological ethical framework, specifically the principle of Kantianism. Kantian ethics emphasizes the inherent value of moral duties and principles, regardless of the consequences. In this case, the student may argue that ethically and morally, it is their duty to maintain the integrity of scientific research and to ensure that accurate information is presented. By altering the documents back to their original state, the student is upholding the principle of honesty and truth, which is a fundamental duty according to Kantian ethics.
Furthermore, confronting the supervisor can be seen as an application of Kantian ethics, as it aligns with the principle of respect for persons. By exposing the supervisor’s unethical behavior, the student is directly addressing the supervisor’s breach of trust and potential harm to the scientific community. Kantian ethics would prioritize the importance of treating individuals as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. In this case, the student’s decision to confront the supervisor reflects the moral responsibility to uphold the principles of honesty, integrity, and respect.
In terms of distributive justice theory, the ethical framework that corresponds with the decision in this case would be egalitarianism. Egalitarianism focuses on ensuring fairness and equal distribution of resources and opportunities. By altering the documents and confronting the supervisor, the student would be promoting fairness and justice in the distribution of scientific knowledge. By exposing the supervisor’s unethical practices, the student is working towards rectifying the imbalance in the distribution of accurate information, thereby upholding the principles of egalitarianism.
In summary, the decision in this case would involve changing the documents back to their original state and confronting the supervisor about her misconduct. This decision aligns with the deontological ethical framework of Kantianism, particularly emphasizing the principles of honesty, truth, and respect for persons. Additionally, the decision supports the principles of egalitarianism within distributive justice theory, as it aims to rectify the unfair distribution of accurate scientific information. It is important to note that each decision carries certain risks, and therefore, careful evaluation of the specific circumstances and potential consequences is essential to make an ethically informed decision.