Ethical issues require critical thought before making decisions. Contrary to popular approaches to decision-making, which relies on gut instincts, proper decisions require that individuals follow stepwise approaches to analyzing the ethical scenarios at hand. The issue recognition, information engagement, option consideration, action explanation, and evaluation of potential outcomesis one of the popular methods of analyzing ethical case scenarios. This paper applies the five-step framework of analysis in deciding the most ethical decision of the famine story from the DIT2 experience.
Issue Recognition
The issue recognition phase is the first stage of the 5-step analysis process. According to Ruggiero(2014), individuals should always engage in a reflective process that considers their gut intuitions to the situation at hand. The persons at the center of the ethical issue should consider the judgements and preconceptions that they might bring to the case at hand as well as the origins of such preconceptions. Furthermore, the cited literature suggests the need for individuals to state the conflict in their perception and predetermine the best ways of reaching a solution to the challenges faced. Importantly, the affected persons should consider the urgency with which they should make their ethical decisions and the stakeholders who have implications for the decisions needed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Mustaq Singh should use his gut intuition to understand that his decision will save his family from starving to death, which to him is an ethical duty to protect the family. Mr. Singh should understand his moral obligation to provide for his family and that she should do everything at his disposal to intervene the situation. The stakeholders in his decisions are his family, which he must save, the rich businessperson, who hoards food to exploit people because of the famine. Singh must understand that he needs to make an urgent decision, which should achieve the maximum benefit for his family.
Information Engagement
The second phase of the 5-step model is a complex one because it entails a significant level of information and fact-finding. The person at the center of the decision making process should consult the different stakeholders included in the decision-making continuum. The phase also calls for the decision makers to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of their decisions, including the legal, cultural, and other aspects (Paradice & Dejoie, 2015). Without proper analysis of the risks and benefits associated with the decision, it will be impossible to make the right decisions. Mr. Singh should seek the opinion of his family about the idea of stealing food from the businessperson. He will understand their need for urgent help. Before resorting to steal, Mr. Singh must also ask for the opinion of the businessperson, especially because of understanding their readiness to help.
The analysis will leave Mr. Singh with two decisions, which are to steal the hoarded food and to beg the businesspersons for something for his family to eat citing the fact that they are starving and are at near-death. Stealing guarantees food for his family yet it risks legal implications and societal scrutiny. Contrarily, begging for food would spare Mr. Singh’s reputation while risking the availability of food.
Option Consideration
The idea decision will be to steal. The rationale for this decision is the fact that it insists on the moral obligation that Mr. Singh has towards his family, including catering for their basic needs, especially food. The most urgent issue now is to save the family from dying of hunger, which informs why he should not bother about his reputation or possible legal repercussion. Apart from the ideal decision, Mr. Singh may choose to beg for food, but he is not guaranteed that his request will be granted. In this case, the worst will happen; his family will starve to death.
Action Explanation
Action explanation is the fourth phase of the model of decision-making during which persons should decide. Importantly, the affected persons should understand the ethical reasoning for their decisions during this phase. Mr. Singh should steal food from the warehouse to save his family from death. First, begging for food may not yield the desired outcomes because the trader is exploitative of his community for profit. Second, stealing is ethical justified in the sense that Mr. Singh must know of his moral duty to care for his family. Something of moral duty must not be sacrificed for lighter reasons. Singh must steal to act in his responsibility as the breadwinner of the family.
Evaluation of Potential Outcomes
Stealing has the positive outcome of providing food to the starving Singhs and contributing to Mr. Singh’s fulfilment of his moral responsibility. Regardless of other negative outcomes of their decisions, including the possibilities of being discovered, Singh will enjoy the fact that he executed his duty as a father and provider of his family. Since the central issue in the ethical dilemma is the help the family, stealing would be the most ethical decision because it will do good to his family.Singh’s behavior could possibly expose the exploitative behavior of the businessperson for possible governmental scrutiny, which will have far-reaching effects on the rest of the community, especially when the government issues an order stopping the hoarding of products. If the latter scenario emerges, Mr. Singh should feel the gratification in his decision because of its utilitarian outcomes on the population.
References
Ruggiero, V. (2014). Thinking critically about ethical issues . McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Paradice, D. B., & Dejoie, R. M. (2015). The ethical decision-making processes of information systems workers. Journal of Business Ethics , 10 (1), 1-21.
