Ethics

This case brings up many good points about ethical issues conflicting with organizations mean to benefit for the greater good. The question in hand asks if to what extent can an organization compromise their ethics to justify and accomplish their goals that will benefit lots of people. This is one of those questions that have a right-right situation on hand. We have talked this semester about how the hardest decisions are the ones you have to make when a both opposing options are on the level and hold their own merit. It’s when your compass is spinning round in circles is when you know that both options have both negative and positive points. In this case the dilemma of staying on the higher ground and showing good standards of decency toward the opponents viewpoints and comments against name calling and call em’ like we see em’ attitude can be challenging. The reason why both of these situations can make your compass spin is because they both have potential to be right-right situation. Even though from an outside view it may look like the higher ground would be the obvious choice from an ethical standpoint. The hard-hitting practice of “playing hardball” can cloud ethical values. This is because when the other team is playing nasty its hard not to what to play equally as rough. While reading this case I noticed how the ACTION lobbyers played by the rules and ethical standards while providing information and targeting issues of the excise tax on tobacco strongly. They did this by making solid comments on the issue and the facts and statistics of how people who use tobacco products are eating up part of the deficit for treating smoking related illnesses. Also how taxing cigarettes can help keep teenagers from starting to smoke because they are too expensive. There case was tough through these issues while staying on high ground and making it a public issue to be aware of. But when advocate smokers started to making their voices heard they made remarks that personally attacked those apart of ACTION saying that they should tax their makeup and hair dye. Beyond making wild comments that may have no merit in the topic at hand, but instead saying things to be disruptive and vicious. While keeping the high ground they became less and less powerful in making their point heard and remembered. If ACTION were to drop their ethical standard and throw some punches below the belt two things would happen. The first is that they may be able to advocate their case with more of an impact. In turn this will benefit winning their case for the need to tax cigarettes since people will notice their position more. The public tends to pay attention to those that aren’t afraid to lay all their cards out on the table and promote how vital their cause is to the public. Plus when you believe in something so much it’s hard not to give it all you got even if it is unethical. By believing that the decision at hand is the best benefit to the public good. Second thing to consider is that you can lose public trust in your organization if the feel that you’re being malicious and your values in lobbying aren’t up to high standards.