Charlie Davis Case Summary

Should Charlie Davis cover for Alex Adams mistake of not locking up the restaurant because they are best friends and Adams needs this job? This ethical issue conflicts between the principles of role duty and egoism. Role duty is knowing and acting according to your specific duties as a professional and carrying out your job description. While egoism is “me first” and it promotes one’s own best interest over anyone else’s. In this ethical issue, Davis’s role duty is conflicting with Adams’ egoism. Charlie Davis has his own job that he needs to worry about and fulfilling his duties as followed in his job description while conflicting with Alex Adams’ egoism. Alex Adams just wants to protect his own job, even though he didn’t fulfill his duties that ultimately may have led to robbery, rather than tell the truth to his boss like he should.

In this case study, Adams is violating veracity. He has the duty to tell the truth, but he is lying to cover himself as well as trying to get Davis to lie. He is also violating his respect for

persons. Respect for persons states “treat others as you want to be treated”. No one enjoys being lied too, especially when it could ruin your business such as his boss’s. In the case study, it states how hard Karen Keller works to keep her restaurant and she shouldn’t have to deal with employees who lie to her.

There are multiple solutions that could be used in solving this issue, although they may not be doing what is ethically correct.

The first solution to this issue could be for Charlie Davis to lie for Alex Adams. In result to this solution, they would both keep their jobs as well as their friendship. If they pursue this solution, there is always the chance of Keller finding out the truth or Charlie Davis would have to live with the guilt of lying to his boss for as long as he works there. In this solution, altruism is upheld, while it violates role duty, veracity and lawfulness. Altruism is upheld in the solution because Davis his putting his friend first, regardless if it puts himself in harm’s way. It violates role duty because Adams’ did not do as he was supposed to then pushing Davis to follow suit by lying. Veracity is violated because he is not telling the truth and lawfulness is also violated because he is not obeying the law to not

lie.

The second solution could be for Davis to tell his boss that he is unsure that Adams locked the doors the prior night and explain to his friend that he could not lie to Keller about the incident. In result to this solution, Adams may lose his job because he neglected to do as he was told and it resulted in a robbery at the restaurant. In this solution egoism and role duty are upheld while altruism is violated. Egoism is upheld because Davis is putting himself first while violating altruism by not putting his friend’s needs in place. Role duty is upheld because he is doing what he is supposed to do by the role of his job.

The third and final solution could be for Adams to realize that he should not ask his friend to lie for him and should not be putting Davis’ job on the line for a mistake that he may have made. Adams would then have to explain to his boss that he is unsure if he had actually locked the doors the night prior. The result to this solution would be that Adams’ job is on the line but his friends is not. This would ensure that Davis’ job would not be put in harm’s way of Adams’ own actions. In this solution, altruism, respect for persons, role duty, and veracity are upheld while egoism is violated. Altruism is upheld because Adams puts his friend first and realizes that he cannot make his friend lie for his and potentially lose his job because of the lie. By Adams not forcing Davis to lie for him, should that he has respect for him. Adams is treating Davis that way that he should be treated, which upholds respect for persons. By telling the truth and doing the right thing, this solution also upholds veracity because he has a duty to tell the truth. Although these all may be upheld, he is violating egoism by not putting his own wants in front of Davis’ needs.

Out of these three solutions, my choice would be solution three. I believe this is the best solution to this ethical issue because Adams is owning up to his mistakes and not putting Davis in harm’s way. Adams may lose his job for his mistake, but he is at least thinking of his friends needs for this job and understanding that Davis should not have to lie for him. Adams should own up to his own mistakes and take whatever punishment is given and learn from it. If Adams is fired because of this, Keller may need to have to hire a new employee because of the opening position which will take time to hire and train this new employee.

I fully believe that this solution is the right one to choose. The only person who may be punished would be Adams who did not follow his instructions and lock up the restaurant before leaving the night of the robbery. His friend should not have to be punished for his own mistake. I could definitely live with this choice.