To: Professor X
Date: December 5, 2012
Subject: Case Study #3 City Council Politics
The situation is about two politicians- Farwell that has a history of unethical behaviors. She is running for a position that could fire Newman an old partner and what seems like the one politician that was put in an unfair situation. In the past Farwell has abused the system by not doing her job and receiving money from it. Newman a former partner saw this but couldn't do anything because she did it legally. Still he believes this was ethically wrong and she shouldn't be given another opportunity to try it again.
It's an eye for an eye so to speak so every politician should always watch their backs.
Now she is running again and finds an opponent that could potentially hurt her so she does what most politicians do today and attack his campaigns by continually bashing his appearance. A request to see all the connections between the two politicians is sent out to Newman. He could refuses to show them based on ICMA Code of Ethics for guidance and could deny access. She defends this with several policy that are in acted to protect politicians form media scrutiny. The Question that is left is; whether or not Newman(decision maker) should release information and kill his campaign or if he should leave it as it is and it will go away? It's made clear that if Farwell wins the election, Newman will lose his job and the citizens (the major stake holders) will have to live with Farwell decisions even if their are truly not in their best interest.
Svara's Ethics Triangle
Under Svara's idea of virtue, it would be morally wrong in a degree for him to not to release that information. The problem with this is that there has to be a point when it too much. Farwell has abused her right to the people of the city by resigning after she received the money the first time. In contrast I feel that Newman has already acted under this ideal because he...