My ethics class assigned a situation that I have to analyze and resolve:
"My top software designer suddenly refused to use our e-mail system. He explained to me that, as a Christian, he could not use a product built by a company that provided benefits to the partners of homosexual employees. He'd basically cut himself off from our team, creating a major obstacle to our product development. What should I do?"
I'm not asking for the answer by any means; I'm not sure which direction to take the situation in order to arrive at a realistic solution. It'd be to my benefit to learn more about ethical decision making, especially when I get bombarded with more situations like this one. It is important to me that I figure this out, I'm just a little stuck right now.
To my understanding, the clear dilemma is this: the designer refuses to use the e-mail system because of his religious beliefs. It is creating a major obstacle to the team's product development.
Relevant facts (stated, not based on assumption):
Designers decision is based on religious beliefs.
He is the top designer of the team.
His decision is negatively impacting the rest of the team.
His actions were unexpected.
His religious beliefs are not wrong.
The designer is not breaking any laws by standing by his beliefs.
Can't be fired for beliefs - illegal.
The sudden or unexpected actions calls for a quick solution?
Designer's team has to respect beliefs of his coworker.
Falls under individual vs. community paradigm?
When making a decision, I know I have to analyze the possible consequences of both parties and see which outcome would seem to have the greatest good, and least good, etc. Am I analyzing the possible consequences that I gathered from the situation?
If so, where is a good starting point for recognizing the possible consequences? I'm at a loss. Let's say the designer gets fired. Even so, he'd be without a job and could take legal action against the team - this isn't choosing which is best for both parties...
...If he is referred to a different area of the corporation, the team would be without a top designer.
One of the steps involved in decision making is analyzing the situation from various perspectives and forming a solution accordingly. How can I do this if I don't have more information to work with? Also, how do I identify the values of the stakeholders? The situation doesn't assign any type of emotion to the individuals involved (from what I can tell).
How can I take this situation further?
Thank you to anyone that helps me out.
"My top software designer suddenly refused to use our e-mail system. He explained to me that, as a Christian, he could not use a product built by a company that provided benefits to the partners of homosexual employees. He'd basically cut himself off from our team, creating a major obstacle to our product development. What should I do?"
I'm not asking for the answer by any means; I'm not sure which direction to take the situation in order to arrive at a realistic solution. It'd be to my benefit to learn more about ethical decision making, especially when I get bombarded with more situations like this one. It is important to me that I figure this out, I'm just a little stuck right now.
To my understanding, the clear dilemma is this: the designer refuses to use the e-mail system because of his religious beliefs. It is creating a major obstacle to the team's product development.
Relevant facts (stated, not based on assumption):
Designers decision is based on religious beliefs.
He is the top designer of the team.
His decision is negatively impacting the rest of the team.
His actions were unexpected.
His religious beliefs are not wrong.
The designer is not breaking any laws by standing by his beliefs.
Can't be fired for beliefs - illegal.
The sudden or unexpected actions calls for a quick solution?
Designer's team has to respect beliefs of his coworker.
Falls under individual vs. community paradigm?
When making a decision, I know I have to analyze the possible consequences of both parties and see which outcome would seem to have the greatest good, and least good, etc. Am I analyzing the possible consequences that I gathered from the situation?
If so, where is a good starting point for recognizing the possible consequences? I'm at a loss. Let's say the designer gets fired. Even so, he'd be without a job and could take legal action against the team - this isn't choosing which is best for both parties...
...If he is referred to a different area of the corporation, the team would be without a top designer.
One of the steps involved in decision making is analyzing the situation from various perspectives and forming a solution accordingly. How can I do this if I don't have more information to work with? Also, how do I identify the values of the stakeholders? The situation doesn't assign any type of emotion to the individuals involved (from what I can tell).
How can I take this situation further?
Thank you to anyone that helps me out.
