Silvia Clark
Assistant Professor of Organizational Leadership, UVU

Angela Schill
Assistant Professor of Organizational Leadership, UVU

Maureen Andrade
Professor of Organizational Leadership, UVU

Jeff Peterson
Associate Professor of Organizational Leadership, UVU

Jonathan Westover
Chair, Department of Organizational Leadership, UVU

Moderator
Jill Jasperson
Associate Professor of Organizational Leadership, UVU
 

Meaghan McKasy
Assistant Professor of Communication, UVU

Meghana Rawat
Assistant Professor of Communication, UVU

David W. Scott
Professor of Communication, UVU

Jessica Robinson
Assistant Professor of Communication, UVU

Moderator: Stevie Munz
Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Ethics, UVU

 

Presenter: Kim Abunawara
Director, Humanities Program, UVU

 

livestream

Laurel Dias
Assistant Professor of Secondary Education, UVU

Adam Ogurlu
Assistant Professor of Elementary Education, UVU

Moderator: Bryan Waite
Professor of Secondary Education, UVU

livestream

 

Moderator: Alaina Sapp
Philosophy major & Ethics Student Fellow, UVU

Case 1: You are in a position to determine the curriculum at your school. Some parents have approached you complaining that one of their children’s teachers is teaching about the history of racism (slavery) in our country, and it is making them feel bad about themselves (they are white). They want the lessons on slavery and social injustice to stop and the teacher disciplined. What should you do?

 

Case 2: You are responsible for ordering food stuffs for your university. You’re made aware that one of your suppliers is a factory farm, which has many complaints against it from animal rights activists. You know there is another supplier from whom you could purchase the same meat from, and they have been certified as humane. Though they would cost you more, which cost would have to be passed on to the students. What should you do?

 

Case Analysis:

 

I. Get the Facts: What are the three most relevant facts of the case? Which facts might need to be researched? (The historical circumstances leading to the situation, scientific considerations, economic considerations, legal & political considerations, cultural factors and customs)

 

Fact 1:

Fact 2:

Fact 3:

 

Facts to be researched:

II. Identify the Stakeholders: What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Is there a privileged stakeholder? (One that for some reason is more vulnerable than the others due to age, ability, etc.)

 

Stakeholder 1:

Stakeholder 2:

Stakeholder 3:

 

Most vulnerable stakeholder (one of the three above):

 

III. Identify the Moral Issue: What’s wrong? Where is the conflict or clash of interests between the stakeholders? What is the most important thing to be decided in this case?

 

IV. Identify three approaches or resolutions to what needs to be decided: What are three possible options for acting?

 

Option 1:

Pros Cons

Option 2:

Pros Cons

Option 3:

Pros Cons

 

V. Answer the question. What is the right thing to do?

 

Run the approaches through the following moral criteria to see which one is the most morally praiseworthy response. Some principles may be more relevant than others.

 

The best moral approach to this case will satisfy the basic ethical requirements of respect, fairness, beneficence, and care.

 

Principle of Respect: This choice respects everyone as persons of worth and values. Treating others as I want to be treated.

 

Principle of Fairness: This choice is fair to everyone. No one gets more or less than they deserve. It treats everyone’s interests and needs impartially and without prejudice.

 

Principle of Beneficence: This choice produces the most good and least harm in the outcome.

 

Principle of Care: This choice increases trust and minimizes violence and future conflict.

 

Answer:

According to the principle of respect, the best response would be:

 

According to the principle of fairness, the best response would be:

 

According to the principle of beneficence, the best response would be:

 

According to the principle of care, the best response would be: Overall, the best response would be:

 

VI. Objections & Refutations: What might someone reasonable say against our solution? How would we respond to that objection?

 

Objection:

Refutation:

Objection:

Refutation:

 

livestream

Cinimin Kofford
Site Manager, Capitol Reef Field Station, UVU

Michael Stevens, 
Director, Capitol Reef Field Station, UVU

livestream

Ryan Vogel
Director, Center for National Security Studies, UVU

Brandon Amacher
Director, Emerging Tech Policy Lab, UVU

livestream

Christa Albrecht- Crane
Professor of English & Literature, UVU

Matt North
Chair, Department of Information Systems & Technology, UVU

David Connelly
Associate Provost for Student Success, UVU

Moderator: Brian Birch
Director, Center for the Study of Ethics

livestream

For more information, contact Courtney Burns at [email protected]