I NEED THIS DONE ASAP PLEASE!!

Setup

Sofia is a student at the University of Waterloo. She is nearing the end of her first work term at FlimFlam Financial. Although she has enjoyed certain aspects of her job, she has been uncomfortable with some of the requests made by her supervisor, Krueger. For instance, Krueger approached her cubical early on in the term and asked her to selectively find financial data to support claims he wanted to make in a letter to his clients. Although she had not been asked to do anything explicitly illegal, Sofia felt uncomfortable cherry-picking data that would support her supervisors claims, while ignoring any data that might not fit his claims so well. In her mind, clients need good information in order to make rational investment decisions. She ended up doing what Krueger asked her to do, but she felt bad about it since she thought she was helping Krueger hide important information from his clients.

But now something else has cropped up, making Sofia even more uncomfortable about Krueger. With two weeks of work left, Krueger asked Sofia to come into his office to discuss her performance evaluation. Sofia felt like things were going well until Krueger mentioned that he could really use her help with something. Krueger then asked Sofia if she would be willing to friend another co-op student from uWaterloo on Facebook. Krueger was thinking of hiring the other co-op student but wanted to make sure that the student would be the kind of person hed want to work with at FlimFlam. Krueger asked Sofia if she would be willing to snoop around the co-op students Facebook profile and report back to him with what she found.

Sofia is really uncomfortable with Kruegers request, but fears that she will receive an unfavorable work-term evaluation if she does not comply.

Question

What should Sofia do about Kreugers new requesti.e., his request that she check and report back to him about the students Facebook profile? (Answer this question using the Decision-Making Worksheet.)

Decision-Making Model (Step by Step)

Step 1: Determine the facts

State the morally relevant facts. (Who?, What?, When?, Where?, How?)

Remember, you are listing the facts of the case. You are not trying to define the ethical issue just yet. You are not making any value judgments just yet.

Step 2: Define the ethical issue

Who are the stakeholders, and what is at stake for each one? Which stakeholders have proximate and genuine interests in the case?

State what the ethical issue is and explain why the issue is an ethical issue (and not just a prudential issue).

Examples of questions to ask:

Is someone being harmed? Is there a conflict of interest? Are someones rights being ignored? Is someone failing in his or her obligations? Is it an issue of fairness? Honesty? Promise keeping? Acting in good faith?

Step 3: Identify values

What are the stated or unstated values of the relevant stakeholders? Why might they act as described? If a relevant stakeholder is not described in the case, consider what about the case would likely matter to them.

A value is something of importance, worth, or usefulness.

Things that are valued are desired or pursued. Values motivate and direct action.

What do the parties want to preserve or gain? What are they willing to give up? What might they value differently if they had more information?

Example:

Value: money

Action: work toward increasing efficiency of production

Step 4: Specify the alternatives

Set out the status quowhat would be (or has been) done in the absence of alternatives. Quite often the status quo is to do nothing.

Identify three to five possible plausible alternatives to the status quo. Explain what values the alternatives involve and how the alternatives address the moral issue while giving appropriate consideration to the values of the relevant stakeholders. (Fewer than three unnecessarily limits your options; more than five makes it hard to distinguish a best option.)

What can be done differently to achieve a compromise or to limit negative effects of the status quo?

For each alternative, state short and long-term consequences, and positive and negative consequences for the relevant stakeholders.

Step 5: Compare alternatives

Which alternative will best resolve the ethical issue? (This isnt the status quo.) Take into account any dirty hands that may result.

Identify the relevant prudential, legal, and regulatory constraints (time, resources, reporting, etc.). Which alternative, including the status quo, is the most plausible given the prudential constraints? Which is the next best? (This may be something completely different from the most plausible.)

Step 6: Make your decision

Decide on a course of action that best reflects your assessment of the alternatives.

Give reasons for your decision, making reference to short and long-term consequences, and positive and negative consequences for the different stake-holders.

Does your decision pass the light of day test? (For example, would you be okay with your decision being at the top of the CBC News web page?) What features make the course of action acceptable in the eyes of the public?