Ethics in the workplace is very important for the success of the organization. Often, when employees engage in unethical practices, the organization experience negative effects. The ethical issue under examination in this paper is employee theft and the dilemma of reporting stealing employees. The incident in Part 2 of the assignment involved employee theft through lapping; one accountant was embezzling the company's funds while his friend experienced this and failed to report to the management. This scenario will be examined through the lens of teleological ethics and the Christian framework.
Teleological Ethics
Teleological ethics, also known as consequentialist ethics, are concerned with the consequences of an act as the primary focus. The judgment of whether an action is right or wrong is determined by its consequences. If an action results in an unpleasant outcome, then it is wrong, but if its outcome is harmless, it is correct. Under teleological ethics, there is hedonistic utilitarianism, which has a number of characteristics. The features include identifying a good act independently, balancing everyone's pleasure regardless of any differences, and characterizing good acts as the ones that produce the maximum good possible.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In identifying a good act independently, it means that if a person chooses to report the theft, the good outcome they had in mind when acting should be enough to characterize the act as good. Additionally, people's pleasures are balanced, so if an action is characterized as good, it is good in everybody's eyes. Lastly, characterizing good acts as those with the best outcomes depends on the outcome of an action, so if the outcome is good, then the action was good and vice versa. Therefore, funds embezzlement from a company is wrong since it results in the company incurring losses. According to teleological ethics, accountant 1 from the scenario in part 2 of the assignment, who was involved in funds embezzlement, was wrong in his actions since the company was affected negatively. The company incurred losses as a result of his embezzlement. If the accountant was not dishonest in his work and worked as per the work ethics, the company would not be at a loss. After the embezzlement of funds, which he performed, the company was short of funds; thus, it was at a loss. Teleological ethics concentrates on the outcomes of an action to determine if it is wrong or right (Muel & Johan, 2002). Therefore, through teleological ethics' lenses, the other accountant who knew about the embezzlement was in a position to report his colleague since by doing so, he would have saved the company from making losses.
The accountant would have made sure the issue is known by the management for the sanity of the company. As much as he wanted to cover for his colleague, the reason he was working in the office was since he was serving the company; thus, acting for the good of the company was the best option. However, most company thefts go unreported since employees cover for each other while they try to save their friendship, but in a real sense, they risk their job since if the company incurs losses which leads to liquidation, they would definitely lose their job. Besides, work ethics requires one to be honest in their work, and if that were the case with the embezzlement witness, the company's finances would be safe.
Christian Worldview
Additionally, from an ethical Christian worldview, employee theft is unacceptable, as well as witnessing and not acting against the act. The Bible in Colossians 3: 1-14 talks about avoiding earthly pleasures such as evil desires and greed as well as placing love before everything since it binds all other Christian virtues together. Additionally, it talks against lying in verse 9, since as a new being who has chosen the path of the Lord, one should act only in the manner that pleases God. Therefore, from a Christian's view, the accountants from the scenario in part 2 were both wrong, although differently.
Accountant 1 was wrong for embezzlement of funds. The Bible is against any person who is driven by earthly desires such as greed, which was the main reason for Accountant 1 stealing. He was greedy to own money that was not rightfully his, which led him to steal. He betrayed the company that had trusted him to work as an accountant since they thought he was loyal and honest. He knew what was expected of him in that department but opted to betray the management by doing it secretly to avoid being noticed (Muschenha et al., 2011). By betraying the management, it was clear that he failed to place love before his actions. He was selfish and wanted to have it all by himself at the expense of the company that trusted him. As the Bible states, love holds all other virtues together. Truly, if accountant 1 had love in his heart before he embezzled the funds, he would have thought of how much the management had trusted him and how much damage he would have caused to the company. Therefore, he would have stopped the evil desire and moved on as a loyal employee. On the other hand, the accountant that witnessed the embezzlement was wrong to keep quiet on the sensitive information. Perhaps, according to him, he had love in his heart, that is why he covered for his colleague for him to prove his loyalty to him. However, from a Christian's perspective, he had a love for evil in his heart, which means he supported the evil deed that his colleague had done.
He was aware of the consequences of the deed to the company since it is clear, but he chooses to cover for his colleague at the expense of the company. If it were his company that was at stake, he would have definitely acted differently to save the company, but since he was just an employee, who if the company goes bankrupt he would just search for a job elsewhere, he chooses to cover for the act. From my point of view, he lied since he had the choice, to be honest as per work's ethics but failed to deliver. The Bible is against lying since, as a new being in Christ, one should follow the path of God, which should be without sin. Therefore, since lying is being economical with the truth, he did not act as an ethical Christian in dealing with the dilemma.
Teleological Ethics and Christian Worldview
Therefore, teleological ethics share views with Christian principles on what is good. Since teleological ethics are concerned with the outcome of an action, if it is good, then the action is considered good; they can be viewed in Christian principles as Christian principles concentrate on good outcomes too, that aligns with God's teachings. Teleological ethics also support Christian principles since by doing which whose outcome is good, it is for the good of humanity. Christian principles support morals in humanity, and so does teleology ethics. For this reason, both teleological and Christian ethics agree that the employees who engaged in funds embezzlement, either directly or indirectly, were both wrong. In conclusion, according to the teleological and biblical framework, employee theft is not a good deed. According to teleological ethics, both of them would have thought of the consequences before acting. If they had thought of the outcome before acting, accountant 1 would not have stolen while accountant 2, the witness, would have reported the case to the management for early taming before things got out of hand. Teleological ethics needs one to think about the outcome of an action before acting since by doing so, one can identify if the action is going to be wrong or right. Failure to concentrate on the consequences lands one on actions whose outcomes are unpleasant, while it could be avoided. On the other hand, they both violated biblical principles by being greedy, not placing love before everything, and lying, respectively. Accountant 1 was greedy and was not driven by love, while accountant 2 was a liar and was not driven by love as well. Therefore, bearing almost similar values, teleological and biblical frameworks are seamless in the determination of good or bad.
References
Kaptein, M. & Wempe, J. (2002). Three general theories of ethics and the integrative role of integrity theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.2139%2Fssrn.1940393
Muschenha. A.W, Van Haaften, A. W, Slors, M, & Spiecker, B. (Eds.). (2011). Personal and Moral Identity . Springer Netherlands.
Gruden, W. (2018). Christian Ethics: 10 Things You Should Know about Christian Ethics. Crossway. https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-christian-ethics/
