Right Vs Right Moral Dilemma Case Study

Is this an example of right versus right moral dilemma or right versus wrong? Explain your answer either by identifying the two stakeholders and the rights in conflict or by explaining what makes this a right versus wrong situation and the rule or law governing the situation.
This case, though dramatic, is a good example of a right versus right moral dilemma. A right versus right moral dilemma is one in which a person has to make “tough choices between competing virtues such as honesty, fairness, respect, objectivity, and responsibility” (Christensen & Boneck, 2010, p54). Certainly, Frank Armani struggled with several of these virtues (i.e. respect, responsibility) in deciding on whether to take Garrow’s case, how to defend Garrow and whether or not Armani should share

Garrow’s confessions (Badaracco & West, 1990). Armani had to decide between the rights of Garrow versus the rights of Garrow’s victims and or potential victims.
Investopedia.com defines stakeholders as “a party that has an interest in an enterprise or project (Investopedia.com, 2015). This definition is commonly known. In terms of ethics, who are stakeholders? Would they be the same parties as in the definition? On the surface, stakeholders are any persons who are impacted by the decisions made by a decision-maker i.e. Frank Armani. In ethical decision making, it is important to understand that stakeholders could be directly or indirectly impacted. Therefore, stakeholders included Robert Garrow, Daniel Petz, Garrow’s victims as well as the Lake Pleasant community.

What were Frank Armani’s moral obligations? Which have the strongest claim upon him?
As Garrow’s attorney, Frank Armani’s moral obligations were to protect and pursue Garrow’s interests within the boundary of the law and to the legal system as a whole.

Given Armani’s actions, his obligations to Garrow appeared as strong as his commitment to the legal system. Consider his actions of publically pleading with Garrow to turn himself in as well as his decision to take the case (Badaracco & West, 1990).

How should Armani go about making a decision on how to handle the meeting with Mr. Petz?
I felt that as Garrow’s attorney, Armani should have declined to meet with Mr. Petz. Though taking the meeting would be a kind gesture, it would add additional pressure to Armani and could only cause more distress for Mr. Petz. In her article, “Lake Pleasant bodies case” (2008), Lisa Adamson shared that Frank Armani casually knew the parents of Alicia Hauck and Susan Petz from the community. Again, imagine the added pressure for Armani in deciding between his obligations to Garrow versus his obligations to the community. According to the article, Armani did not answer Mr. Petz questions but meet with Mr. Petz.

What were Armani’s options for the meeting? What would you choose to do in his

position?
As stated earlier, Armani could have opted out of the meeting or accepted the meeting with the caveat that Armani was under no obligation to take the meeting. Given Armani was empathetic with the parents, his decision to take the meeting was understandable.
I think that I would have met with Mr. Petz as well out of respect for him. However, I would have advised him that given the sensitivity of the case and my responsibilities under the law, I would be limited in my responses.