On a message board, Ms. G. C. from Miami writes,

Heres the problem: an interior decorators bid is broken down into two parts (A) the decorators services and (B) the cost of labor and supplies. Most customers think (B) is a fixed cost-they forget its not the decorators fault if cabinetmakers charge an arm and a leg. So, where do customers look closest when comparing costs? Thats right, (A) the decorators fee.

Well, decorators are creative people and for years theyve been doing some very creative bidding. Theyve been lowballing (A) and padding (B), expecting laborers to kick back a percentage of their inflated fees to the decorator. Surprised? Everyones doing it. Everyone, that is, except me. Its deceptive. As a Christian, I think its just plain wrong.

The customers final cost is about the same either way you cut it, so most decorators dont feel theyre doing anything wrong. Are they right? Needless to say, blowing the whistle on such a

widespread and accepted practice would only damage my professional reputation.

QUESTIONS

1. Mrs.G. C. confronts a third-party obligation. What is it?

2. Ethics can be weaponizedthat is, used in your personal interest. Show how this could be the case here. Does the fact that she would benefit by getting these kickbacks eliminated somehow make her position less morally respectable? Why or why not?

3. Typically, according to Mrs. G. C, a client contracts an interior decorator. Later that decorator hires a laborer, and the laborer gives the designer a kickback. Theres a conflict of interest here, what is it? What is the ethical case against this kickback scheme?

4. Consequence theories of ethics represent the point of view that acts themselves are not good or bad; all that matters are the consequences. Therefore, lying isnt bad if it means a fleeing criminal is asking you which way is the best escape route, and you point him down the street leading to the police station. Duty theorists, by contrast, believe that certain acts including lying and stealing are wrong regardless of the context and consequences.

o Do you suppose Mrs. G. C. adheres to a consequence ethics or a duty ethics? Why?

o Could you use the idea of consequence ethics to try to convince her to simply join the crowd and do what everyone else is doing? What would that case look like?