Summary
The article evaluates if lying during an interview is right or wrong. It explains this ethical issue from three perspectives. The first perspective views the case, according to deontologists, who believe that what determines good or bad is the structure of the act. The purpose of job applications and interviews is to evaluate the best candidate, and if everyone lied during these processes, hiring would be more difficult and random. This perspective identifies lying as immoral because it distorts human communication.
The second perspective is from a consequentialist point of view. The article justifies lying during a job interview for the greater good. The theory suggests that the morality of an action is judged by its consequences. If the consequences are good and the harm is limited, then the lie is justified. For instance, if one lies about their qualifications during a job interview, got the job, and can provide for their family, they are right to do so.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The third perspective that could justify this lie is the degree to which it will benefit the individual. If getting the job will be of long-term benefits, then the lie is termed as moral. This is mostly done by egotistic people who believe that one does whatever they have to do to help them get ahead. They are not governed by rules and do only what is right for them. However, with the rise of technology, there are high chances of the lie coming out.
Analysis
According to the class discussion, consequentialism is a normative ethical theory that is used to evaluate morality. If lying during a job interview is analyzed against consequentialism, it could be proved to be morally right. Moral quality is a function of consequences, and if the results of this lie will be a better life for the job seeker, then the action is not wrong.
If the lie has the best outcome, it maximizes the result's pleasure, and this is morally correct according to the version of consequentialism known as the hedonistic act utilitarianism. Some theories argue that consequences only determine part of an action's moral quality, and they should not be used to evaluate ethics. These theories challenge consequentialism and prove that lying during a job interview is morally wrong. They focus on assessing the action itself, not the consequences. These counter theories condemn wrong actions even if they provide the most benefits to an individual.
Response
I believe an action should be judged as it is no matter the consequences. In as much as the argument of consequentialism seems plousible, I think it might cause people to justify wrongdoings just to achieve their goals. The mentality of 'means justifying the end' will lead people to commit evil actions and explain the outcomes. An example could be an employee killing their colleague to get a promotion. Murder is unquestionably an unethical act, but if someone looked at this action through the lens of consequentialism, they would find grounds to justify such an atrocious act.
In my conclusion, I believe lying during a job interview is wring no matter how beneficial it could be for the individual. The adverse outcomes might even outdo the positive ones because if the interviewee lies about their qualifications and gets the job, they are most likely to produce unimpressive results. The employer will be inconvenienced to look for another employee. Even though some people justify this or have lied during an interview, there is no moral perspective that should support the wrong action. I think it is selfish for one to look out for their benefits alone, not caring how their actions would affect others.
