What Would You Do...?

[Deleted]

What everyone says; he should have dipped out of the selection process. Of course if the friend already works in the same place and is applying for internal promotion, it is a decision managers have to make all the time; do you go for the one you get on with best, or the one who scores the most points in the selection process?

In the public sector it can be largely a box-ticking exercise because every appointment has to be justified on merit. Interviewers can and do stretch things a bit to make the candidate they want come out top, of course. Jim could claim that Paul performed better at interview, for example. But it would soon become clear that there were personal reasons for appointing Paul and Jim would be in deep trouble.

[Hunny]

Hiring your friend is jeopardizing your job. I wouldnt do that.
A good job is so hard to find, many can't. So no I wouldnt risk it.

As to the moral problem involved:
a)What people do is 'hire the friend'.
Promotions are never about who's most qualified.
It's politics.
b)However clearly the right thing to do is what you'd want
an employee to do for your firm: the best thing (hire the most qualified applicant).
You're getting payed to work for the company, and that involves some loyalty and ethics.

So which way would I go morally? I'd like to think 'b',
do my job ethically and loyally.

But on reflection, I'd do the moral thing, but for a selfish reason: I wouldn't risk my job. That would be the bottom line reason.

THEN I would rationalize about it being the right thing anyway (and it is the right thing)

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

```````````````````````````````````````````


Jean Valjean's Conscience



In Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, the hero, Jean Valjean, is an ex-convict, living illegally under an assumed name and wanted for a robbery he committed many years ago. [Actually, no -- he is only wanted for breaking parole.] Although he will be returned to the galleys for life if he is caught, he is a good man who does not deserve to be punished. He has established himself in a town, becoming mayor and a public benefactor. One day, Jean learns that another man, a vagabond, has been arrested for a minor crime and identified as Jean Valjean. Jean is first tempted to remain quiet, reasoning to himself that since he had nothing to do with the false identification of this hapless vagabond, he has no obligation to save him. Perhaps this man's false identification, Jean reflects, is "an act of Providence meant to save me." Upon reflection, however, Jean judges such reasoning "monstrous and hypocritical." He now feels certain that it is his duty to reveal his identity, regardless of the disastrous personal consequences. His resolve is disturbed, however, as he reflects on the irreparable harm his return to the galleys will mean to so many people who depend upon him for their livelihood -- especially troubling in the case of a helpless woman and her small child to whom he feels a special obligation. He now reproaches himself for being too selfish, for thinking only of his own conscience and not of others. The right thing to do, he now claims to himself, is to remain quiet, to continue making money and using it to help others. The vagabond, he comforts himself, is not a worthy person, anyway. Still unconvinced and tormented by the need to decide, Jean goes to the trial and confesses. Did he do the right thing?

[Hunny]

I don't think any consideration is due the life he has built, and the people who depend on it. They would get on without him if he truly should be somewhere else.

The real question is is your life worth more than someone else's - or, the way this play poses it, is the life of a mayor worth more than that of a pauper.

mm...Well, why would someone blessed and rich be MORE DESERVING of things than someone who has been deprived? Why?

Secondly, can he really rationalize letting someone suffer for his wrong, just because he "does good things" ? ...Again, the people he helps would get on without him. They'd elect another mayor. I think it's a poor excuse that "I do good things, so I deserve". Consider that when a rich man gives 100,000 dollars charitably, it's thought of as so "generous" - but it's only a tiny and re-occuring portion of what the man has; meanwhile a "hapless vagabond" is likely to give away his last 2 bits to a fellow human who needs it more (I've seen this); and so here is someone who gave everything he had, versus someone who's sitting on a gusher of bucks he doesn't work for so he gives a tiny bit of "conscience money" away. So I ask you why is a rich man paying conscience money WORTH more than someone else giving their whole net worth away out of pity, a selfless act?

See, I think just by virtue of being a politician, it means the man (Jean) is UNdeserving, because he's swine, because politicians are swine. (Yes, all, no exceptions, it's a job requirement.) (When one joins the ranks of the special few who get to finagle the rules to enrich themselves and exempt themselves from ever being punished or getting taxed, one becomes beneficiary and accomplice to that.) If the book (no, I have not read it) portrays him as a "good" mayor, the book truly is fiction!

So nothing Jean has done with himself can make him more worthy of a good life than anyone else.

But shall he turn himself in to save the wretch?

Well a) - it doesnt make him responsible for the person's fate that it's him they mistook the guy for. The authorities did wrong here, not Jean.

b) If he does turn himself in, then perhaps he truly is a good man after all,
throwing himself on the grenade in such an egalitarian way -
and for the sake of the story then he could do no else.

c) Let's cut to the chase: There's no God. Right and wrong
are determined only by survival of the fittest - and perhaps
by social pressure which is a dubious source of imposed conscience.
Thus the rule is "if you can get away with it, it's fine". (Yep, sorry,
it's true. Morals are imaginary and arbitrary. Success is absolute.
So if he can get away with saying nothing, my guess is he should.

I would have said nothing, and told myself since the man isn't guilty,
that will be found out anyway.

mm..see and you thought I was so nice!

*thinks* I have been known to do stupid things
when confronted with another's humanity, but
giving your life away to someone else is both
foolish and wastefully wrong.

Is not survival our most basic instinct,
and one we'd not be here if we lacked?

Yea, I'd say nothing and live with it.

But the character needed to do as he did
to stick to the script's condition that he be notably "good".

But good is a fairy tale.
That's what I think!

[Hunny]

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

What Would You Do...?

Every Monday, a new dilemma to sort out -

```````````````````````````````````````````


Battered friend



Your good friend is being abused and threatened by her mate. She wants
to run away, to get away from it, and she turns to you. Do you take her
in, knowing that this crazy person might bring the violence to your home?

[Hunny]

In the past, I'd have said "of course".
But then I had such a friend, and trust me,
her husband would do the same thing to you
for hiding her. So I dont know that I'd get involved.
I might drive her to the police station to get
a restraining order, but where she'd live..mmm
You know there are battered women's shelters
but they don't always have a room available.
So I don't know where she'd go. This may seem
awful, but I'd recommend family or even a hotel if she
has to until she can find a place. And meantime, she
should get a gun and keep the doors locked. If he breaks
in, shoot him. End of problem. It might seem cold, but guys
that beat women can be obsessive, unwilling to let go.
My friend got beat into intensive care two years after her
divorce. So WHEN will she be safe from him? Yea. Shoot him.

This is really tricky because a lot of women would be incapable of pulling the trigger. Battered women can be like alcoholics, co-depending on his problem, covering it up for him, making excuses for it, staying with it. My friend had a gun in her boot when she got attacked in her garage, and she just made an excuse about how she "couldn't get to it". Well, he did beat her unconscious, so maybe. But that's gotta be a hard thing to have to do, shoot the man who has been your husband. But I remember wishing for her that she could. Because her life wasn't hers, even years after leaving him, she lived in fear and with him interfering in her life. Anyway, short answer is THIS is what you'd be inviting to your home if you took your friend in

[Deleted]

Your good friend is being abused and threatened by her mate. She wants
to run away, to get away from it, and she turns to you. Do you take her
in, knowing that this crazy person might bring the violence to your home?


Read more: biglinmarshall.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ethics&action=display&thread=4751&page=7#ixzz2LzldYEde


Yes and no. No because we already have one vulnerable person here who stays regularly - he first came when fleeing from violence, though the people after him didn't know where he had gone.

She would be better trying to get a home somewhere where her violent ex was less likely to trace her, and I'd help. In the meantime I'd give her shelter - and keep a finger on the phone!

(Remember that I don't live in a country with a gun culture. My response might be different if I did)

[sadie1263]

That would be tough. A lot would depend on whether any of my kids lived at home.......

I think I would ideally help her find a place that he wouldn't associate her with......and get her hidden. If I couldn't do that quick enough.......and none of my kids were home......I would say come on over and.........since I do live in a country and in particularly a state with a huge gun culture.......I guess we would arm to the teeth and set up barricades and get ready for a showdown.