Suppose you find a major problem with the
You know you can probably fix it in time for the delivery.
Suppose also that you are customer facing and asked whether there are any big problems.
If you say "There is a big problem but it's probanly fixable in time" you know the customer will cancel the order and your client's company goes down the drain, together with the jobs of 5,000 people
(hey, it's a thought experiment !!!)
You know that if you say "NO" and cannot fix the problem the customer will "merely" apply penalty clauses and the company will survive.
So do you tell the truth and condemn 5,000 people to the dole, or do you lie and hope you fix it.
Both strategies are ethical in different ways
I came across this when considereing the British convention that Government ministers do not lie to Parliament.
I envisaged a scenario where if asked a direct question the truth would cost 1,000 lives and 10,000 jobs, but a lie would give time for the problem be resolved with no adverse consequences. Would it then be ethical for a Minister to lie and apologise later if found out?
Bottom line: If you are going to talkj about ethics you need to consider the consequences of your actions a bit more carefully.
I've highlighted extreme cases in order to point out that the ETHICAL situation may be less clear cut than you think.
Clearly it is best to avoid telling lies as much as possible.
Keep Up with TechRepublic