Question 1
Bryan’s case is quite complex and may require one to follow up on the case only up to where it is logically acceptable. But as pertains to the morality involved in all the scenarios, it is ethically unacceptable to have people spending company resources for self gratification in morally degrading ways. Viewing of pornographic material is unacceptable behavior regardless of one’s academic achievements. It is clear that there is a misconception in society that certain mistakes can only be done by people below a certain IQ. One’s position usually hides ill traits and habits. All in all we are all human, peasant or professor.
Unethical practices such as viewing of porn stem from the strict and restricted lifestyle of most elites. It is some kind of release mechanism. Normal people go through that stage in life as a phase during their teenage years, but they drop these habits on marrying or settling down. Most elites find themselves single late into their lives, and this plays a significant role in fueling their pornographic and other obscene urges. Sometimes work and family pressures may drive normal employees to engage in similar activities.
Question 2
Bryan’s case
Bryan was right in acting as he did. This is because in as much as the senior employee was in the wrong and Bryan wanted to prove it, he actually didn’t gain any personal benefits from pursuing the case any further. Since he worked for the company, it was only logical that he do his part only and leave the rest to the concerned parties. If Bryan had taken the issue to the authorities, he would have to obtain authority from the company secretary who handles all legal cases. Bryan being an employee of the company could not sue the senior employee using a personal lawyer, as this would now mean he was using company resources and secrets as his evidence.
Company politics is existent in most companies, and this might have disadvantaged Bryan if he pursued the case further. He had more to lose than gain by making any extra effort in seeking for justice to be served. The fact that he had reported the problem through the proper channels was sufficient, in case any follow up was made on a later date.
Question 3
Gary’s case
There is no difference between refusing to install unlicensed software and not stopping someone from doing the same. This is especially so if one has the authority or responsibility of ensuring that all software used in the company are licensed. Gary’s case is actually a show of prejudice seeing as he was very strict to another employee as concerns the use of a former employer’s mailing list.
He was more lenient on his boss because he knew he stood to benefit from favors and other special treatment from his both by allowing him to bend the rules. Rules are laid on a common platform for all employees. Some are not meant to be the ones that maintain the compliance at high levels while others do as they wish.
Real World Activities
Question 2
It professionals have access to company’s hardware and software. Many employees in this department steal these company resources since they are quite expensive in the market. Some even start their own business from such ventures. Others sell company secrets to competitors in exchange for a substantial amount of money (Reynolds, 2011).
