Overview of the Incident
Can an action be wrong, yet it is common does not amount to illegality? This questions for the bone of contention in the ethical dilemma described in Carlson et al. (1989). The article points an accusing finger at the most powerful organization in the USA and perhaps the world, the US Congress. According to the report, members of Congress, both representatives, and senators had been accepting gifts and money from interest groups. In exchange for the donations, the members make favorable decisions for the interest groups. For example, in exchange for a golfing trip, the members were kind to a tobacco company. Similarly, for financial favors in the name of paid speaking engagements, the members ordered 500 trucks that the US army did not necessarily need. Although these actions may seem unpleasant and a betrayal to the responsibilities of the leaders, no laws were broken. According to the article, the Congressmen had found a way to circumnavigate laws that limited accepting gifts from interest groups in the name of lobbying. The primary focus of the article is the resignation of Speaker of the House Jim Wright due to such action that, although not illegal per se, seemed reprehensible.
The Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemma in this story lies in the forced resignation of Jim Wright for conduct that was common among almost all members of Congress. Jim had accepted junk-bonds worth a hundred thousand from a questionable character who had an interest in congressional proceedings. However, as the article argues, Congress could not point at Jim's conduct in good faith, as his conduct was commonplace. Indeed, the primary reason for pushing Jim out was political as the GOP wanted to take over leadership of the House of Representatives from the Democratic Party. Despite the political angel, Jim admittedly did something unbecoming, but he argues that pushing him out was a second wrong that cannot right the first error.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
What the Outcome Should Have Been
The US Congress, as one of the most influential organizations in the world, has a strong obligation to always act in the interests of the populace. When operating under a specific duty, the applicable ethical theory is deontology. Under a deontological approach, an action is right or wrong, depending on whether it aligned itself with the decision-makers responsibilities (Alexander & Moore, 2016). The actions of Jim Wright were wrong as he did not live to his obligation as a representative of the people. The fact that his actions were common or technically legal does not cure the breach of duty. His resignation was thus the right outcome.
Training that Could Help the Organization
Based on the article, Congress at the time was an overly corrupt organization where members place their interests above those of their masters, the voters. Secondly, in pushing out the speaker, the House acted in bad faith as its primary interest was political, not ethical. The members of Congress need training in two main areas. First, it required training on deontology in order to appreciate its official obligations and learn to act per those obligations (Alexander & Moore, 2016). Currently, members of Congress seem only interested in avoiding breaking the law, yet they are working in breach of trust. The second kind of training necessary involves ethical decision-making. Finally, as an organization, Congress needs training in consensus building and compromising. Each group seems focused on its interests rather than those of the voters. Consensus building through compromise would enable them to chart a common path in the interest of the populace.
References
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016, October 17). Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
Carlson, M., Barrett, L. I., & Traver, N. (1989). Have We Gone Too Far? Finger pointing over ethics has convulsed the Capitol and destroyed Jim Wright, but the real scandal with Congress is far more widespread. TIME Magazine , 133 (24), 18.
