Analyzing a Case Study: Best Course of Action using Ethical Concepts

Structure of the essay

You are expected to write a final essay in which you analyze a case study provided, state the best course of action, and justify it using ethical concepts discussed in class. Your essay should also raise an objection to your decision and respond to that objection.

Your essay should engage with two of the articles we’ve read this semester (see more information below). You can choose any two readings from the list I include here.

Structure of the essay:

• Paragraph 1: an opening paragraph that includes the following: oA brief overview of the case;

o  Some possible courses of action (at least a few of them);

o  The decision that you choose to make as a corporate executive.

• Paragraph 2: a paragraph explaining and justifying the decision you made, drawing on one of the readings you chose.

o Your decision should be detailed, explained and justified by relying on ideas or arguments provided in one of our readings. This paragraph should include at least two direct references to the reading you chose.

• Paragraph 3: a paragraph raising a possible objection to the decision you made, drawing on the other reading you chose.

o Your objection should be detailed, explained and justified by relying on ideas or arguments provided in one of our readings. This paragraph should include at least two direct references to the reading you chose. N.B. The reading chosen for this paragraph should be different than the one used in paragraph 2.

• Paragraph 4: a paragraph responding to the objection raised in paragraph 3.
  • You are encouraged to use ideas that we have discussed in class in your response to the objection if you can, but you are not required to include references in this paragraph.

• Paragraph 5: a short concluding paragraph summarizing the decision you made and your reasons for taking that course of action.

Your main argument (on the one hand) and your objection (on the other hand) must each rely on a different reading. You are allowed to use any article we’ve read this semester, but I suggest the following ones in particular:

You are the leader of a new political party in Canada. Let’s call this party the “Party of Real Change”. Dalia, who acts as director of communication for the Party of Real Change, requests a meeting with you. She wants to share her concerns about Jim, a fellow member of the Party of Real Change. Jim, who plans on running as a candidate for the next election, has recently used his professional Facebook page (promoting himself as a candidate) to share fake news. More precisely, Jim has shared a Facebook post accusing Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia’s provincial health officer, of having violated her own rules about non-essential travel during the pandemic¹. As you and Dalia know, this news story is entirely made up.

Dalia has already met with Jim and explained the problem to him. Jim, however, claims that since he did not write the post himself (he shared a post that someone else had written), he should not be held accountable for it, and that it is not his job to fact check every detail he reads online. He is also unwilling to remove the post. While some of Jim’s followers have liked the post, other party members have started complaining about the post.

As the leader of the Party of Real Change, how do you handle this situation? Explain the decision you make and the reasoning guiding it. (Make sure to follow the structure emphasized on p. 1: first, present and justify your decision; then, introduce an objection to your decision; and finally, respond to that objection.)