Moral Dilemma - 1
Steve has the responsibility of filling a position in his firm. His friend Paul has applied and is qualified, but someone else seems even more qualified. Steve wants to give the job to Paul, but he feels guilty, believing that he ought to be impartial. That's the essence of morality, he initially tells himself. This belief is, however, rejected, as Steve resolves that friendship has a moral importance that permits, and perhaps even requires, partiality in some circumstances. So he gives the job to Paul. Was he right?
22 comments:
I think steve has a tough decision to make.
Both of which have pros and cons and neither of his choices can be completely right.
Is anyones decisions ever completely correct? There are drawbacks and advantages , consequences and rewards to every decision one makes.
I think that pete will be seen as wrong and right .. to a certain extent in light of which ever decision was made as he cannot be right to not help his friend but he cannot be wrong to fulfill his job. I think whatever he decides - there is no right choice. There is wrong in which ever way , he is basically put in a tough situation. However, If he decides to stick to his responsibility and does not help his friend , he may be wrong not to help his friend but is justified , because he was sticking to his responsibility. Same goes to the situation vice versa.
Who can judge what is right and what is wrong ? At the end of the day steve has to do what ever lets him sleep at night , selfish or unselfish , wether its right or wrong in another individuals eyes or steve's eyes .. a mans got to do what a mans got to do.
Is anything in this world completely right ?and if so , who decides the standard we measure against ? is that being superior to the rest ?
or is that being simply an imaginary figure the world use to enforce and influence the majority's influence ?
It comes down to a matter of belief and opinion.
Wrong decision.
"Friends" are something we humans made up, but, in truth, we do not know who the other guy is, so, if someone else is more qualified, why risk an entire company for a friend? And would that friend, do the same for you? You cannot sacrifice greater things for smaller things, as the loss would be greater, and we create things for us to become more comfortable with each other, like marriage and peace treaties and so on...
So, he was not right, because that friend is nothing more than a friend (and im sure his manager would of fired him for that), as he is risking more than hurt feelings.
Morality:
WordWeb describes morality as "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct". Its synonym being an "ethical motive".
So ethics and being moral for Steve should have been giving the job to the person who was more qualified for it. That person worked hard to achieve a position and deserves it. While on the other hand, Steve's friend gets the job even when he is not completely deserving. I am not saying that he didnt work hard but just that he is not 'fully' deserving.
He was favoured because the decision was in his friend's hands.
It is not fair or justified. I do not agree to morality being synonym to discrimination, on whatever basis that is. In this case, being a friend of the interviewer.
How would we react to it if something like this happened to us, or maybe a loved one?
We never realise and completely comprehend the situation unless we are sailing in the same boat.
He's human, and a very good friend.
Maybe he didn't make the best decision, but hey: he'll keep a friend.
Coming to what would have been otherwise ideal for the company itself, he should have chosen the more qualified person. He should have; but he didn't. Still, his friend was qualified enough to actually have gotten the job anyway.
We don't know the whole story. We do not know what background Paul had, we do not know how needy he was, we do not know anything except that he was qualified enough.
You know what; if my friend was living in a shoddy apartment with no functioning water and little to no funds to pay for the basic necessities of life, I would damn well give that job to my friend. After all, a friend in need is a friend indeed.
*shot for cheesy phrase.*
Besides, the other guy could have been a serial killer in disguise - you never know 8|
I think what he did was ethical from his point of view.He was right as a friend but wrong as an employee.The two friends could have teamed up and become much better for the company instead of the company just employing the guy with better qualifications, who Steve might have not liked.So you never know whether he was right or wrong for the company or his friend.
Sonal Vohra
11 B1
Steve wasnt right, he wasn't wrong either. When making a decision, one has to look into all sides of the outcome. Steve chose Paul who is qualified for the job, and also his friend. I dont think it's wrong for him to choose Paul if he's truly qualified and can do a good job. Also, he can help Paul too. Though it might be a partial decision but hey, who would you rather choose to have a guaranteed job, a friend you can trust or a stranger who might be more qualified (or overqualified for that matter) but has a very flashy attitude? Steve wants to be certain of things that will occur eventually, and it also shows that he cares about his friend.I agree with his wise though inadequate decision.
Well, in different societies there would be different answers. It would also matter what firm Steve was in. Take for example the UAE, if you were to work in Media, you would obviously need the contacts to get around easier.
Anyhow, in this dilemma, I think it was unfair to the more qualified person, but Steves decision wasn't particularly wrong.
Think of ourselves, we obviously put our loved ones before work and play (well, most of us do, and the ones who don't? Look where it gets them... Hollywood isn't always irrational). So whether or not there even is a right decision, in the end, it depends on a persons own personal opinion
To some, friends are very important to them and they would like to help them out in any circumstances. If you look at it in your shoes, it does seem ethical to help your friend. The other person maybe more qualified but atleast your friend has some qualifications and not someone trying to get a job because he is your friend. That would be inethical as a friend. Though it is unfair to the other applicant but in this world most things are unfair.
Well, it was a really tough decision. And really, if his friend is qualified he is technically not hurting the firm. Yes he will feel a bit guilty about letting the more qualified candidate go, but he has partially fulfilled his duties as a part of the firm and completely fulfilled his duties as a friend. It's a bit hard to have a clear verdict on his decision. But as long as his friend was a proper candidate and competitor, Steve wasn't completely wrong.
One could never say Steve's decision was completely wrong. If you look at it from a friends' point of view, it seems very right as a person's usual reaction is to help their friend first rather than a stranger in any kind of circumstance.
On the contrary, if you look at it from an equitable point, what he did was very wrong.
As long as the friend is qualified for the job it is alright to appoint him/her.
Well I've got to agree with Sonal Vohra. What he did was right as a friend. As the old saying goes, a freind in need, is a friend in deed. In this case Steve's friend was in need of a job. In this case, I beleive that what Steve did was right. But, if you considered this in the view of an employer, what he did was wrong.
But I've got to say, if it was me in Steve's situation, I would have given the job to Paul.
I feel that Steve is right because HE thinks that friendship has a moral importance. Then again, if it was someone else in Steve's place, who did not consider friendship a moral importance, he/she would probably employ the other man. This just goes on to prove that every person differs in their thinking.
It seems to me that everyone has come to this almost unanimous point of view that it depends on the person. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, who knows? (That's the essence of the argument isn't it?)
Well anyway, let's say it DOES depend on the person, even though I think otherwise, then I think we should all at least tell what we would have done had we been Steve, and explain.
So here's what I believe would be the right thing to do ..
Not give Paul the job simply and solely based on the friendship that ties us together. It could happen that Paul actaully deserves the job more than the other candidate, and in that case, that would just be fate smiling at you. But nevertheless, it could very well be that the other candidate deserves the job more, and in that case I would grant the other candidate the spot.
I think what most people would tend to do is come up with excuses that they believe that if they keep telling themselves, they will eventually sound convincing and hence giving them strong reason to give their Paul the job. I know that would probably be a thought that will go through my head. But it's still wrong, because you're denying someone - flesh, blood, emotions, he too has friends and family and a life - the right to gain what he had rightfully earned.
I know friendship is important, but is it THAT important? That we throw our moral guide out the window? Doesn't seem right to me.
Another argument wil be that if Steve doesn't give Paul the job, then he will feel guilty as well, so it's a lose-lose situation, but in this case, he'll feel guilty AND lose a friend.
Well, if Paul is an understanding person, with clear prioritized principles, I think he will understand and value Steve even if it takes him time ot accept Steve's decision. However, if he deliberately makes Steve feel guilty, then excuse me, but Paul would be a jerk then. And that's fine, because I really do believe that it's only in testing situations like this one that we come to see someone's true colors and what they're really made of.
It's a really tight position to be put in, but I think this is where we should apply the seperation between our career and our personal lives. Frienship shouldn't affect our career related decisions at all.
uhmmm decisions decisions, and what a difficult one this is. personally I also feel that if his friend is qualified so it doesn't really hurt the firm, but truly speaking I am a person who strongly believes in professionalism. I am a very friendly person and love my friends to an comprehensible limit but when it comes to decisions that affect a firm, my studies or any such thing which has importance for me and my future I will do that which is best for my future or in this case firm. I know it sounds clichéd but a true friend would understand my dilemma. And yes frankly speaking this is the "morale" way I think.
As a good friend I would agree with what Steve but to be honest, I would give the job to a person who is more qualified because Steve was given the responsibility of choosing someone that would be helpful for his company. He had to choose the best man for the job not his best friend.
.....Yusra Shah 10g1...
"It's nothing personal, it's just business"- Donald J. Trump
This man has been one of my idols since I was 12. His Rock hard persona, minute quantities of affection towards his employers (if none at all), logical (NOT emotional)thinking, Risky decisions while ENJOYING EVERY BIT OF IT, makes a boardroom meeting with him equivalent to dragon slaying.
Yet, this man is highly respected in the corporate world and has always rewarded "good" employees.
Business, is a situation where your "heart" is nothing but a blood supplying pump. Making money requires only brains and guts and if that involves making tough decisions such as giving the more qualified guy the job, so be it.
Personally, if I were Steve's boss, I would say "Steve, YOUR FIRED!".
Daniel,
"Making money requires brains and guts."
The big question is how much is enough? And is it only about the money though? :)
I dont think there is a right or wrong decision in this situation, but there is a better or worse. Steve followed his own morals and hired his friend. This for all we know would be the better decision as Steve and Paul can cooperate and get along so there would be no debates as to how their work would progress. But isn't it also true that conflict produces better answers and ideas? Not everyone is biased in their decisions so with that little push the decision or the idea could evolve into something much better, something great for the reputation of the business. So here the better choice would be the better qualified person.
Then again there are no right and wrongs in this matter and what
Steve did was put his friends best interest at heart, not the business'. (nobody's perfect)
I agree with Steve's decision though it was not entirely fair.If he would have thought entirely about the benefits of his firm he would have employed the more qualified person.But he also kept his friendship in mind.Honestly speaking if I was in Steve's position I would have done the same!!
Aisha Bashir
10G2
No I don’t think that Steve was right about giving the job to his friend-Paul over a person who was more qualified than Paul as it would be unfair for the other qualifier as Steve has been appointed by his firm to fill up a position he has to remember that his personal life is completely separate for his office life, he cannot just give a job to a less skilled person just because he was his friend. If Steve had given the job to the other person, then he could have explained the situation to Paul and he most probably would understand his situation as both being friends and Steve could help him find a better job. But also Steve’s decision wasn’t completely wrong.
Just noticed this, but better late than never! :)
For starters, life is never fair. Some gain, some loose. There will always be people who deserve things they do not get. There will always be someone better for the job. There are millions of unemployed people in this world, are they all untalented and useless? I doubt it. Yet, they have no jobs.
Everything you obtain in life you achieve because of your talents, your hard work, we all know this for a fact. But there's still that element of luck that everyone needs to be successful. Paul was lucky his interviewer was his friend. And it's not like Paul is COMPLETELY unqualified for the job; there maybe is someone better but that someone wasn't lucky enough this time!
Post a Comment