The Insider Essay

The Insider Ethics in the with child(p) Society Jeong Pyo Son 09/17/2012 Business Ethics Johns Hopkins University The Insider Es word The Insider is a great example of the whistle blowing puzzle and way for us to question right versus right ethics. I would like to analyze the essay snap on the two main cases and how they prepare their lasts when they argon standing at their turning points. The main two characters are Jeffrey Wigand who is the whistle blower of brownness Williamson Corporation, and Rowell Bergman, who is a TV producer of the show 60 Minutes, who sets up an reference with Wigand, in the dissipate.In the movie, I think both characters are facing shaping snatchs. For Jeffrey, one right is consistent with his role as an honorable scientist who knows the muff his gild is involved with and the other is in his role as an termination shufflingr member in his company who is obliged to withhold confidentiality. His actions could clash a large number of s pr evailholders. Blowing the whistle could have a serious impact on the companys brand image. It would also affect competing companies since the problem involves the entire tobacco industry.Bergman is also frustrated because he is supposed to come across the interview to the universal as a producer but at the same time he is opposed by CBS, for the interview poses a high potential financial risk for the company. If CBS airs the film it could be liable for tortuous interference and be sued by dark-brown and Williamson. at last Wigand and Bergman both decide to become whistle blowers. So what factors would have made them make these lasts? The most rough factor for Jeffrey make his decision is in all probability choosing between his personal/ passkey rights and duties.Personally he has a family to sustain. He has a mortgage to pay-off and has a sick daughter who needs expensive aesculapian treatments. It was affordable for him to solve these problems while he was still work for Brown Williamson. He knows that by choosing to side with the press, revealing the dirty truth intimately his firm, his familys safety would be put at stake. This is one of the study reasons why whistle blowing is particularly difficult for him. If he were alone, he would in force(p) have to worry about himself, but in this case he has to take responsible of his family.According to Sissela Bok(1980), although one is expected to show more verity to ones country and for the public rather than other individuals or organizations, population are still afraid of losing their careers and the capability to support households. Emotionally, people want to dissent over wrongdoings, but they cannot do it rationally. It was as difficult for Bergman as Wigand to make his decision, but he lone whatever(prenominal) had his career at risk. His personal and professional set are centered on being an honest, straight precedent journalist.These prys conflict with his duties as an employee worki ng for CBS, which force face a huge honor suit if it airs the interview with Wigand that he has arranged. His whistle blowing was easier because he cling tod his career and his virtuous character more highly than his responsibilities to CBS, and he saw his character being finished in front of him by his company. People hold diverse set and reason about them in different ways. How did Wigand and Bergman think in philosophic terms we have learned in class?From a functional perspective, Wigand basically made the right choice. In the Utilitarian way of thinking, he needed to make decisions that could maximize the satisfaction, or happiness, or benefits for the largest number of stakeholders. (Hartman & DesJardins, 2011). In that case, his actions could be regarded as a success since he let the public know the truth and the benefit to the public would be greater than that to the company if he were not to disclose the inside information. It is the same for Bergman in do his decis ion.Insisting on airing the interview might cause trouble for CBS, and sure would damage the reputation of Brown and Williamson and the tobacco industry but along with Wigand he chose to reveal the truth to the world. Does the deontological way of thinking apply to Wigands decision? Deontology is a matter of prescript. Legally thinking, Wigand broke the law for not keeping the confidentiality of his company. Even if the information he held was lethal to the public, a law is still a law and it is a principle promised in the society. It is mentioned n the textbook that the Deontological way of thinking creates duties for the person to follow. (Hartman & DesJardins, 2011) But Wigand not only has a duty as an executive who is banned from opening his lip he also has a duty as a come and as a scientist. His role in his family as a arrest is to maintain a secure household. Facing the company would leave his family in danger. in any case his duty and principle as a scientist collides with his role as an employee in his company. It was one of the reasons he got fired from his company too.In this Deontological way of thinking, Bergman did not really have to have inner conflicts as Wigand because he did not break any important ethical principles. Although, he would have felt up guilty for leaking information to another press, he still maintained his principle as a journalist to publish the facts out in the public. Also he did not have major damages for his family too. His wife is working in the same industry and would have understood him for his decisions. So did Wigand value his personal integrity more than his family and loyalty to his company?Can we say he is a severe person and made the right decision? According to Kidder(1995), kind people make tough decisions too. Although their values are clearly defined, it is difficult for people to find the right thing to do. there is a good example introduced in the article of Kidder. A coach-and-four is taking charg e of a broadcasting filming scene interpreted at his company parking lot. After the film shooting was over, the film director tried to credit the tutor for helping them borrow the location. The manager now is facing a decision making situation whether he should receive credits on behalf of the company or not.Kidder(1995) said, For him, it was hardly that simplistic because of his core values of honesty, integrity, and fairness, and his desire to avoid even the appearance of evil. all in all, he felt that there was some right on both sides, which it was right for him to be compensated. This explains that even when someone has a potent self integrated value it is still tough for him or her to make ethical decisions. This also applies to Wigand and Bergman. Joseph Bardaracco(1997) made a term Defining Moments to garnish the choice of right-versus-right problem. There are 3 characteristics of Defining Moments which are Reveal, Test, and Shape.Bardaracco(1997) said, Right-versus-rig ht decision can reveal a managers basic values and, in some cases, those of an organization. At the same time, the decision tests the strength of the commitments that a person or an organization has made. Finally, the decision casts a shadow forward and shapes the character of the person or the organization. So how did Wigand and Bergman decide their defining moments for the decision? Wigand was a person of honesty however he was forced to keep the secret from his company. His family wanted to keep the secret and live safely.But after he and his family got threatened by Brown and Williamson, he decides to step out to the public. He vox populi Bergman and the press were on his side, so he got his courage to take action. This was Wigands defining moment and after it was finished, he needed some time to shape himself because his whole family had left him. After the defining moment passed, Wigand became a truthful and honest scientist as he wished to be from the beginning. In case of Bergman, we could say that he already shaped his character relating this place since the beginning of the movie. He was a professional journalist with integrated value of honesty.Unlike Wigand, he did not have much inner conflicts about making his decision. He argued with the CBS board members and revealed the interview to other presses and he was not as serious as Wigand making his decision. His priority was airing the interview and he had to make it happen as an honest journalist. In conclusion, I was very(prenominal) interested to deal about this subject with this movie because I was braggart(a) in a family associated with the press. Both of my parents are journalists and I have seen them discuss about this subject once in a while. I thought that I should ask them when their defining moments were next time I converge them.It also made me think when my defining moments were and how they shaped my character. As Pinker(2008) questioned in his article about the Universal Moralit y, everyones moral value is different after our stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood. We all make decisions in our own life with our principle and value that has been shaped by defining moments. It is time for me to think what my true values are in my life. References Badaracco, J. (1997) Defining moments, when managers must choose between right and right. (pp. 5-24). Harvard Business Press. Bok, S. (1980). Whistleblowing and professional responsibility.In Donaldson, T. , & Werhane, P. H. (2008). Ethical issues in business, a philosophical approach. (8 ed. , p. 128,131). New Jersey apprentice Hall. Hartman, L. P. , & DesJardins, J. (2011). Business ethics Decision making for personal integrity and amicable responsibility. (2 ed. , pp. 109-110). New York, NY McGraw-Hll. Kidder, R. (1995). How good people make tough choices. (1st ed. , pp. 24-25). New York, NY Fireside. Kidder, R. (1995). How good people make tough choices. (1st ed. , pp. 26). New York, NY Fireside. Pinke r, S. (2008, 01 13). The moral instinct. The New York Times. Retrieved from http//www. nytimes. com