Table of Contents
There are so many dilemmas in life that people do not even think about them. Dilemma is a conception in which a conflicting situation arises for a person to choose between two different choices that seem practically equal (“Dilemma”, n.d.). The current paper analyzes four scenarios from J. L. Buttram’s Ethical Dilemmas Confronting Program Evaluators and tries to provide an option for responding to those scenarios.
Ms. Scott experiences a problem of whether she has to provide names of teachers who are opposed to the new curriculum or not. The core of this problem is an ethical aspect. Of course, if she tells the names, there will be no danger for those teachers. The principal promised to speak with all educators. Even if he/she tries to assure only those individuals who do not want a selection of the new curriculum, it will be just a conversation without any violent impact. However, it means deterioration of attitude for Ms. Scott. Teachers will know that she has told their names to the principal and they will consider her to be wheedling and coward. The best option for this scenario is not to tell the names of opposed pedagogues because it does not matter who exactly is an opponent if the principal wants to speak to all teachers. Therefore, telling the names will cause ethical problems for Ms. Scott.
The ethical problem of this scenario is the understanding that the principal can be transferred due to negative staff’s feedback. However, the evaluator promised to share his/her research with both the faculty and the principal. These promises must be implemented. The evaluator’s work was just to combine a survey and he/she does not need to pay the attention to what would happen when findings will be announced. Moreover, if the staff’s responses are so negative and hostile, it means that the principal does not perform his/her duties properly. Thus, it may be even better if that person will be transferred. The evaluator should share the findings with the faculty and the principal equally to give the principal an opportunity to revise his/her mistakes and to show the staff that their opinions are important.
Max’s problem has an ethical core. He faced up with the injustice. It was his work as well as his thoughts, thus it was very unfair to make Max just a coauthor. John’s action was ignoble and brutal. It is wrong to make Max a coauthor of his own work. It would be fair if John noticed that the evaluator was paid not only for his evaluation but also for his report. The recipient had to inform that he was buying the report and Max would be a coauthor because it is outright plagiarism and the evaluator is highly indignant. This situation is full of iniquity and anger. John is a mean person; even if Max could prove that it was only his work, it would be a waste of time and money.
Limited time Offer
Carlos can solve his problem very simple. Undoubtedly, if there will be no ethical dilemmas, he will not even think about juggling the budgets. However, the director sees that at-risk program is more important than the driver education one. Carlos can use some driver education funds to pay for the at-risk project because it is a right decision from an ethical dimension. His action is illegal, however, if he is sure that nobody will find out about juggling the funds and that this at-risk program is much more important, he can do it. In such a case, his decision will be fair.
In conclusion, dilemmas can cause many problems with making a decision, but they help people to act fairly and solve different ethical issues.
Related Analysis essays