My predicament is paradoxical, and each decision that I make will be consequential. I have to acquire an internship position in XYZ Inc one way or the other. Lying is an option that I can explore because the company cannot seek my GPA scores from my college. Most companies do not do that, so the chances are that XYZ Inc will take me for my word. However, lying is not only ethical, but it will have a ripple effect. There are far-reaching consequences that can become a problem in the future if I chose to lie. I may rest and go ahead with an internship, and after graduating, I will acquire a position as an employee in the company. I will work hard, graduate in the company’s hierarchies, but at some point, someone may start to question my credibility if I was to hold an essential position in the company. They may look back and discover that I lied so that I could be a member of the company. The other school mates may also become workmates, and they can exploit my lie. My integrity will be questioned, and in the financial world, honesty is of great importance. In the end, my reputation will be destroyed, and everything that I worked hard to build will all come crashing down. Ultimately, I will end up in the back where I was before having a chance to be an intern.
Under the social contract theory, humans have given off their freedom to the notion of law and justice. As such, all people are equal in the eyes of the law regardless of background. So if a person was to craft an ideal legal system in which he has no recognition of his needs, such a person creates a veil of ignorance because he has no notion of himself. This is to say that he does not recognize his sex, race, and background. The veil makes the person rational and moral because he has no recognition of who he is, so he has no needs. However, such a thing is far-fetched because even if a person has stripped himself of religion, race, and nationality, there is still the question of sex that is natural and cannot be removed.
The world is composed of people who belong to multiple religions, sexes, backgrounds, and cultures. These are the distinguishing factors that all societies are comprised of, and every member of these factions is driven with individual needs to survive. In other words, people are selfish and will always strive to put their needs ahead of others because they are supported by the veil of ignorance. Therefore, a rational person who is driven by self-interest would not want to be a member of a faction that is discriminated against. For instance, the black power movement was created to give the black man freedom from their white oppressors. They adopted the veil of ignorance to support their fight because their informed, rational decisions taught them that the unfairness subjected to them was not justified.
Lying is both illegal and unethical (Arndt n.p). However, I can argue my choice as a necessity based on the perspective of justice theory. The premises for this argument are the consequential outcomes if I do not attain a position in the company. I will have to drop out of school because my future rests on achieving the internship during this time. Justice theory states that every person is at liberty to enjoy equal freedom. Therefore, I have a right to acquire a position in the company because I worked so hard, and even though my low GPA does not qualify me, I can work twice as hard and prove why I am an exceptional member of the company. I can also use the veil of ignorance to my advantage in the event my lie is discovered. The veil of ignorance makes me immune to the consequence of my lie because I can argue that I had no option and that I did not expect the results of my lie to be that great.
The categorical imperative theory discusses morality as a universal law. It is the dominant and definitive order that all duties and obligations must abide by. Simply put, it invokes all individuals to carry themselves out such that they can their actions to become the universal law. An example is a case where a robber gets into a home and murders one of the house members then escapes with the murder. If a kin to the deceased member tracks down this killer and murders him, then this person is well within his rights under the categorical imperative theory. An eye for an eye is therefore justified so the kin of the murdered person cannot be questioned because he has done that which he believes is fair and would like to see in the world. This theory gives people the opportunity to create their truth as long as it does not exceed the tenets of morality
The categorical imperative theory cannot support my lie if I stress the consequences of not attaining the internship position at the time (Arndt n.p). Lying is immoral, regardless of motivation. I may support my lie with the argument that my family will be financially strained, and I may have to drop out of school or apply for a part-time job so that I can afford my tuition. Taking part-time jobs and going to school is a slippery slope that can be a gateway to stress and anxiety, and thus compromising my education. So, the outcomes of my predicament, if I do not acquire the position in the company, will pose dire consequences. However, I can not use this to justify my lie, and I can support my lie with the fact that the company is unfair in not considering me even though I was close to the required 3.0 GPA, but my situation is different from a person who seeks revenge. Even the bible justifies vengeance, but lying is considered among the greatest sins. We should not be motivated with our desires, also if the possibilities are promising.
The second option is not to mention my GPA in my resume. Instead, I can express my professionalism, skills, and knowledge. The resume will be the only thing that seals my fate in the financial world rests on, so I have to convince the company why I am exceptional. I will have to mention the opportunity in the management degree, which fortifies my credibly. I will not be lying, so my credibility will not be up for questioning. If I manage to secure a position in the company, I will have to work twice as hard as the other employees, so I do not become expendable. If I work hard and manage to rise in the ranks of the company, my integrity will not be up for questioning because I will have two fallbacks, being a hard worker, and also two professional experiences. There will be no legal or ethical implications if I have to choose this option, and as a result, my future will be sealed.
Suppose the company discovers that I did not mention my GPA even after I have been part of its team, I am liable to sue them because the justice theory can be argued out. I did not break any moral or legal grounds by not mentioning my GPA scores in the resume. I was only exploring my liberty to equal employment opportunity, and I would be working twice as hard to support it, so my premises are justified (Arndt n.p). From the perspective of the categorical imperative, my choice of not mentioning my GPA scores cannot be put to question. I was only acting so that my future could not be compromised, and it will be justified because I stuck to my word by working twice as hard and also being a valuable asset to the company by having degrees in finance and management.
This second option does not cross any moral boundaries so that it can be justified with the categorical imperative theory. The rationale is that in going out of my way to express my skills and qualifications, I will be encouraging myself to express the virtues of authenticity and tenacity, both of which are important in the financial world. The justice theory also supports this option because, in going out of my way not to acknowledge the requirements of the company in my resume, I will be fighting for my rights to attain the position. My motivations will be self-driven, but they are the veils of ignorance that support why I have the right to go out of my way to secure the internship position. Everything else will take second place just as long as I do not break any ethical premises such as lying.
In conclusion, my future rests on attaining the internship position. I cannot write to XYZ Inc. and state my predicament in the hopes that they will consider me. The company is sure not to consider me because it is highly competitive. Lying can be justified by both the justice theory and the categorical imperative theory, but the moral implications are tremendous, and I cannot afford them in this occupation. The only best option is not to mention my GPA scores by putting up a convincing resume.
Ready to order an essay instead of browsing samples? – Do it now! Order personalized help me write my essay service according to your requirements!
Work Cited
Arndt, Sonja. "Dialogic Ruptures: An Ethical Imperative." Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol 49, no. 9, 2016, pp. 909-921. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/00131857.2015.1135776.
