The Insider Essay

The Insider Ethics in the Capital Society Jeong Pyo Son 09/17/2012 Business Ethics Johns Hopkins University The Insider Essay The Insider is a great example of the go blowing problem and way for us to discuss right versus right ethics. I would like to analyze the essay focusing on the both main characters and how they make their finiss when they are standing at their turning points. The main two characters are Jeffrey Wigand who is the sing blower of Br sustain Williamson Corporation, and Rowell Bergman, who is a TV producer of the show 60 Minutes, who sets up an interview with Wigand, in the film.In the movie, I opine both characters are facing defining scraps. For Jeffrey, one right is consistent with his usance as an honorable scientist who knows the misconduct his telephoner is involved with and the other is in his role as an administrator member in his company who is obliged to keep confidentiality. His actions could impact a large number of s deferholders. Blowing the whistle could have a serious impact on the companys brand image. It would also hazard competing companies since the problem involves the entire tobacco industry.Bergman is also frustrated be hit he is supposed to disclose the interview to the unexclusive as a producer except 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 nonimmune for tortuous interference and be sued by Brown and Williamson. Eventually Wigand and Bergman both decide to become whistle blowers. So what factors would have made them make these decisions? The most difficult factor for Jeffrey fashioning his decision is in all probability choosing between his personal/professional rights and duties.Personally he has a family to sustain. He has a mortgage to pay-off and has a hurl daughter who needs expensive medical treatments. It was affordable for him to solve these problems while he was still functional for B rown Williamson. He knows that by choosing to side with the press, revealing the dirty truth about his firm, his familys resort would be put at stake. This is one of the major reasons why whistle blowing is particularly difficult for him. If he were alone, he would just have to worry about him self, but in this case he has to take responsible of his family.According to Sissela Bok(1980), although one is expected to show more loyalty to ones country and for the familiar rather than other individuals or organizations, pile are still afraid of losing their biographys and the capability to support households. Emotionally, people want to dissent over wrongdoings, but they can non do it rationally. It was as difficult for Bergman as Wigand to make his decision, but he only had his career at risk. His personal and professional determine are centered on being an honest, straight forward journalist.These pass judgments conflict with his duties as an employee working for CBS, which mig ht face a huge lawfulness suit if it airs the interview with Wigand that he has arranged. His whistle blowing was easier because he valued his career and his virtuous character more highly than his responsibilities to CBS, and he saw his character being destroyed in front of him by his company. People hold divers(prenominal) set and reason about them in different ways. How did Wigand and Bergman think in philosophical terms we have learned in class?From a utilitarian perspective, Wigand basically made the right choice. In the Utilitarian way of mentation, 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 permit 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 making his decis ion.Insisting on dissemination the interview might cause trouble for CBS, and certainly 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 principle. lawfully 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 orifice his mouth he also has a duty as a father and as a scientist. His role in his family as a father is to maintain a secure household. Facing the company would leave his family in danger. Also his duty and principle as a scientist co llides 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 intragroup conflicts as Wigand because he did not break any important ethical principles. Although, he would have matte 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 married woman is working in the same industry and would have understood him for his decisions. So did Wigand value his personal right more than his family and loyalty to his company?Can we say he is a best 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 manager is ta king charge of a broadcasting filming scene taken at his company parking lot. After the film shooting was over, the film director tried to computer address the manager for helping them borrow the location. The manager now is facing a decision making pip whether he should receive credits on behalf of the company or not.Kidder(1995) said, For him, it was hardly that simple 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 more or less right on both sides, which it was right for him to be compensated. This explains that even when someone has a strong self coordinated 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 illustrate 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-right 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 apparition 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 become safely.But afterward he and his family got threatened by Brown and Williamson, he decides to step out to the public. He sight 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 issue 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 bestride 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 evoke to discuss about this subject with this movie because I was grown 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 mind that I should ask them when their defining moments were next time I meet 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). estimable issues in business, a philosophical approach. (8 ed. , p. 128,131). New Jersey Prentice Hall. Hartman, L. P. , & DesJardins, J. (2011). Business ethics Decision making for personal integrity and social 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. Pinker, S. (2008, 01 13). The moral instinct. The New York Times. Retrieved from http//www. nytimes. com