Identify a moral agent.
The moral agent or agency in this case is Doctor ‘X’ and I. A moral agent is any being who can act with reference to wrong or right. A moral agent is anything that is accountable for decisions and behavior. Moral agents have responsibilities and rights and have the power to choose as well as make choices. The idea of being a moral agent explains why some people blame others for things they do and others told to take responsibility of their actions. Moral agents have the freedom of making decisions and taking on the consequences.
Being a moral agent does not translate to always making good ethical decisions. It is vital to note that moral agents are answerable for all their actions and behavior regardless if they are acceptable or not. A moral agent should have moral principles, memory and the reasoning faculty which allow the agent to weigh between alternatives and make decisions. For any individual to be a moral agent, they must reside in a world of scarcity where they have to choose between moral and non-moral goals. The choices that moral agents make determine their morality.
What is a stake? Who is a stakeholder?
A stake is a share in something. In this particular case, all students have a stake in the Ratemyproffessors.com. All lecturers too have a stake in the website. Stakeholders are the people who without their involvement, the business would die off. In this particular case, students are the main stakeholders as they play the role of rating their lecturers. Without them, the website would not be important to Canada and United States. A stake with regards to the business is the amount that a person has devoted expressed as a fraction of the total share investment. If a person has a stake in something, the collapse or success of the venture has a direct effect on them.
A stakeholder has concern in a project or a company. Stakeholders are either internal or external. An exemplar of an internal stakeholder in a company is employees. External stakeholders include suppliers, customers, trade unions as well as the civil society. Competitors, as well as government, are also stakeholders in any business. It is paramount to note that stakeholders are different from shareholders. Shareholders are the owners of the company. Stakeholders are individuals who have an interest with the business. The actions of a company may make or break the place of stakeholders. If a business needs to lay off some of its employees, the impact falls on the community who are stakeholders too in the company. Most successful organizations in the world are able to manage their interests and the anticipations of its stakeholders.
Possible courses of action.
A possible action in this scenario would be that I would fall her trick and conform to her wishes. I would rally all my friends and they would help me vote for her in the website. Voting for her would translate to her ratings rising high up. By posting untrue ratings for her, I would be deceiving the students’ fraternity as despite the fact that she has classes; her students do not rate her well. Failing to understand why her immediate students refuse to rate her and proceed with the deceptive act would be unfair and unethical. The whole act of rating her is unethical but is a possible action any moral person would take.
Another possible course of action I would take is to reject her proposal and report her to the website administrators as willing and speculating to commit such a fraud. Reporting her would turn out bad for her. I would refuse to honor her wishes to rally my friends to support her deceitfully and report her to the website administrators.
Consequences of each course of action
The first course of action would offer positive consequences on her ratings. Doctor X would be more famous amongst the students despite her previous poor ratings. Her future endeavors in the teaching career would have a boost by the deceitful rating increase. However, this would be deceitful to the students studying in the university, with special emphasis to her lectures. Possibly, her poor rating was because she had no teaching techniques. Increased ratings on her would mean she has improved her teaching techniques which may be contrary to the truth her techniques could not improve with mere ratings.
The second course of action would have its consequences too. This time, they would be far worse on her. Reporting her to the administrators that she is soliciting for ratings through shortcuts so as to secure her future career would have been bad for her. The administrators would question her integrity as well as her dedication to openness of the system. My testimony would even lead to her expulsion from the list of lecturers in the region.
Analyze the case using two ethical theories.
Act Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which can be used in the analysis of the case study. This theory suggests that any resolution that has to do with business conduct is right only in the condition that the resolution generates the greatest good to most individuals. This theory is applicable in the analysis of this scenario as my action to generate results for Doctor X would not be good because its results are a wrong impression of her among the majority of students across Canada and the United States. The action, therefore, would have been wrong, ethically. The effect of the wrong ratings would affect the level of education across many universities as the only reason she is not getting well rated is maybe because she is poor in her teaching strategies.
The Kantianism theory of ethics can also be used to analyze the above scenario. Kant, in this theory, deemed that certain courses of action were forbidden even in the scenario that the actions generated more joy than sadness. He cited murder, lying and theft as examples. Kant argued that moral people should ask themselves two questions before they carry out the intended activity. Do I wish that all people act like I want to act? Are the goals of my actions for my own purposes or the achievement of the goals of all other individual? If the responses to these two questions are negative, then a moral agent should not undertake the activity. In this scenario, the answer to the actions by either me or Doctor X is no. The act is, therefore, unethical and should not be done.
The ACM Code of Ethics and Software Engineering Code of Ethics
Principle number six, in the Software Engineering Code of Ethics, is Professionalism. All members are expected to act ethically and only vote when it is legitimate. Doctor X should act professionally and not get her ratings by hoax. Principle number one point three, in the ACM Code of Ethics, is of Honesty and trustworthy. Ratings should be credited honestly in accordance with the teaching capabilities of the lecturers.
Tangible action to advocate and support
The decision or course action to report her would, however, be the best to take. Acquiring better ratings through cheating is unethical as well as detrimental. It affects the quality of education as a lecturer compromises his future success with the ratings on the web. Unrealistic ratings have a bigger impact on the bigger population and therefore unacceptable.
References
Sacrament To State. (2014, April 11). Kantian Ethics. Retrieved April 11, 2014, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm: http://www.csus.edu
The Times 100. (2014). Engaging with Stakeholders . Business Case Studies, 1-6.
Wikispaces. (2014). Moral Agent. Ethics in PR, 1.
