Nicole Brewster was given the responsibility of ascertaining the health benefits of drinking bottled water. Based on the information of experts in various fields related to this issue, such as medical professionals, scientists, and water specialists, Brewster discovers that drinking bottled water had no any health benefits, hence not any special than the water supplied by most municipalities. She decided to publish her exact findings. Whereas her position is likely to get the support of her seniors, the Spring Natural Water Company, which has an advertising company, is determined to prevent the findings going public because it is likely to interfere with its business. The Company threatened to withdraw its advertisement deal with the publishing company, in the attempt to force it to publish a story stating publicly the benefits of bottled water. With the advertising contract in line, the supervisor instructs Brewster to frame the story to meet Spring Natural Water Company’s demands. Therefore, Brewster is faced with decision to make. First, she can either give to the pressure of the Water Company, and this means she could be lying to the public. Secondly, she could go ahead and publish the right information and this could enlighten the public; but then, this means her publishing company would lose the advertisement contract with the water Company.
Based on the facts given in this scenario, it is evident that either of the options would affect the individuals and groups involved. If Brewster takes the option publishing the correct findings of her investigation, that bottled water has no health benefits, consequences would fall on self, her boss, and both the her publishing and water company. First, by publishing the right information, she could have gone against the instructions of her boss and this is likely to cause conflicts between the two. Her boss had explicitly informed her to give into the demands of Spring Water Company on how the story should be structured. One of the possible consequences of not abiding by the instructions of her boss is the possibility of falling out of favor of her boss. In the extreme, based on the magnitude of the damages that her company is likely to suffer in case the water company withdraws from the advertisement contract, Brewster is likely to lose her job. If this is the case, she is likely to encounter economic problems in maintaining not only her lifestyle, both also of those who depend on her.
The two companies, the publishing and Spring Water Company are likely to suffer. There is likelihood that the water company would lose significant revenue. Bring into the attention of the public that bottled water has no healthy benefits would contribute to a reduction of sales, implying that the water company may end up losing business altogether. Furthermore, the story would tarnish the image of the water company for having exploited the public for claiming that their products had health benefits. Equally, the publishing company would be affected financially because the water company would withdraw from the advertising contract. Advertising is one of the major sources of income for media companies, and losing such contract is a big deal to Brewster’s organization. Although the organization would attract the trust of the public for revealing such information, this would not contribute to its financial performance.
On the other, there are also consequences of giving in to the demands of Spring Water Company, of publishing a false story on regarding the health benefits of bottled water. In this case, although Brewster would be working on the instructions of her boss, she will have violated the journalism code of conduct, which requires journalists to uphold a high degree of integrity and honesty in their work. This includes giving information according to their findings without manipulating in any way to suit the demands of certain individuals or group of individuals. She publishes wrong information and later own the same is discovered, her actions are likely to attract legal actions.
In coming up with a decision framework, I would definitely focus on the wider interest. Fundamentally, philosophy explains that the interests of the majority should at all times be accorded priority. As a matter of fact, the interest of an individual should be subordinated to the interests of the majority. The majority are what define the wider interest. The basis for my decision would be a simple question: who will gain more from what I decide, the company or the general public? As a matter of common knowledge, the interest of the public is more linked to the wider interest than the interest of the company. As such, my decision would be based on the extent to which a single decision affects the concerned stakeholders.
Obviously, consequentialism is one among the few the few important concepts worth receiving the attention of the decision makers. Consequences are often very important, especially where all or most of the stakeholders are concerned about the subject matter. As a matter of common knowledge, the organization that sells the water will be on the gaining side while the general public will continue being exploited over what should not be happening in society. On the other hand, the newspaper industry will lose revenue if it didn’t go by the demands of the water company. Conversely, the company would maintain or even increase revenue if it altered the advert to match the demands of the water company. According to the principles of consequentialism, every decision making party will have to bear and accept the consequences of the decision it goes by. For instance, by violating the boss orders, Nicole Brewster should be ready to be dismissed from duty. Similarly, by the publishing company accepting to violate the condition given by the water company, they should be ready to forego the consequences of having to forego the revenue from the advertising contact.
I, being a member of the general public, will have to live with the consequences of the decision. As a member of the public, various decisions could impact on me differently. In this case, the possibilities are not as many. Among the primary possibilities is the reality that the company may decide to abide by the orders and conditions of the water company, and the general public will not know the truth. The second option is that the publishing company will publish the issue, in which case the water company will have to be present. The other possibility is that the publishing organization will fail to publish the company, but the general public will know the whole truth. In this case, the reputation of both countries will have gone down.
The groups concerned are affected differently. In the event that the publishing company decides to coerce Nicole Brewster into writing the article praising bottled water, the reputation of the organization will be negative, especially if the general public gets to know that the published information is false. The personal values of the boss will be called to question if the organization forces Nicole Brewster to print that article. If Nicole Brewster publishes the article, she may lose her job due the fact that she will have disobeyed the boss. If Nicole Brewster fails to publish the story on the goodness, the water company may lose sales because people will see that the municipality as a cheaper option offering the same degree of confidence. Whether the organizations and the individuals will be affected positively depends on the outcome of the decision to be made by Nicole Brewster.
According to the principles of deontology, every decision should be evaluated with regard to the intrinsic goodness it is associated with. Deontological theorists advocate for inherent goodness of the decision made. Apparently, deontology is the direct opposite of utilitarianism since according to utilitarianism; a decision focuses on the outcome of s decision. The outcomes of a decision are evaluated for goodness independently. Utilitarianism is a more realistic approach to decision making that is deontology. Deontology argues that lying, for example is justified, as long as such lying brings about good to the majority of the public. On the other hand, deontology, which is based more on idealism and not realism, rejects such things as lying. Telling a lie, according to deontological principles, is especially wrong since lies are in themselves wrong. In this case, deontology will apply regarding duty and obligation. Duty of Nicole Brewster is to report. Apparently, as a matter of codes of conduct, the reporting should b done in such a way that no lie is told to the public because, apparently, the public depends on what the media tells them. Nicole Brewster is therefore obliged to report, and to speak the truth regarding the findings.
If I were Nicole Brewster would focus on what I owe the clients. Looking at it from the professional point of view, I have the obligation to inform the general public and the various stake holders. For instance, in this case, the dilemma would come in if the duty of care that I owe to the organization (publishing) is different from the code of ethics embraced in the fields that people take. Apparently, I am much obliged to report what is true to the general public, and doing so should I should let the boss know what the code of conduct requires me to do. In prioritize the conflicting part of the decision; I will definitely go for that decision that is in line with my ethical standards. Such ethical decision should be in line with the theory of public interest. Individual interest should always try to remain subordinate to wider interest.
Virtue ethics focuses on the person. Virtue ethics majorly concerns itself with the innate beliefs and conducts of an individual. In virtue ethics, the fundamental assumption is that personal principles come into play. The virtue ethicists argue that this is the most subjective way of making decisions since that which is virtuous varies depending on the individual’s perception of positivity. In virtue ethics, the decision makers try to as the question: who am I? in this kind of decision making, the decision maker seeks to explain to themselves what exactly is the building block beneath their beliefs.
In this case, the fundamental principles in play revolve around honesty. Honesty is the question here because Nicole Brewster has the capacity to write up the right story. Similarly, Nicole Brewster can opt to go for the wrong story, in which case honesty will have been abused and ethics will have been forsaken. If I were Nicole Brewster I would feel quite a number of norms violated. Among the foremost violated norms I would feel have been challenged would be the tendency to speak the truth. Truth is one of the virtues that I usually work with at all times. Lying, especially to the general public would haunt me for the rest of my life since I may not forget it. Among the key values affected are the belief in honesty and general well being. In this case, it is rather clear that I am being asked to do that which I do not believe in.
The decision
In telling lies by publishing an article on the health benefits of drinking bottled water, I would have acted as an accomplice to the water company, which has malicious intent of making themselves rich at the expense of the poor uninformed public, which just spends instead of using such money on better endeavors. Judging from deontology, the decision that I have chosen is right. Apparently, according to deontology, it is about the inherent good of a decision. Deontology focuses on the intrinsic value of a decision. From this case, Nicole Brewster will be deontological wrong if she decided to tell lies for the sake of convenience.
According to utilitarianism, I would have been right because essentially, it would be wrong to publish a wrong story for the sake of a few stakeholders. The most important stakeholder in any business relationship is the customer. Whether or not the decision is right depends on the stakeholders concerned and how the decision impacts on the most important stakeholder. For the purposes of this case, importance of the stakeholder could be evaluated on basis of number. As a matter of observation, the most important stakeholder in this relationship is the final consumer. Such a consumer has the right to be served with the right information. This justifies my decision.
There are many lessons that can be learnt from this case. First and foremost is the fact that in making any decision, all that should be considered is the importance of the stakeholders, especially through focusing on number. For the purposes of this paper, it would only be wise of Nicole Brewster to publish the right article. What cab ne learnt from this article is the reality that ethical dilemmas do come about in daily private and business endeavors. Such dilemmas should be tackled in such a manner that the highest good is attained. The guiding principle should be the rule of the majority. Where an individual is torn between two options, they should go for that option that maximizes satisfaction. True reasons and fact should at all times be differentiated from mere excuses and baseless ideology.
