A newspaper columnist signs a contract with a newspaper chain. Several months later she is offered a position with another newspaper chain at a higher salary. Because she would prefer making more money, she notifies the first chain that she is breaking her contract. The courts will decide the legality of her action. But what of the morality? Did the columnist behave ethically? In my opinion the columnist did not behave ethically. If she signed a contract with a newspaper chain, then she can’t break that contract, even for more money. What does that say about her principals to the new company anyway. To incorporate the good vs. evil on this case is simple, because the good or what should be, is her staying with her current newspaper chain, making less money and complying with her morality, and evil would be her first instinct, and also what actually happens, in many cases, is the columnist going with the other chain, the chain that pays more money, even if it means she isn’t being morally correct. I believe both Augustine and Aquinas would decide against the columnist living her current newspaper chain, because the both believe that ethic is doing what is morally correct, fighting against human nature, or adapting human nature to what is correct, and also being conscious of our decisions. “Conscience is where Thomas Aquinas began to depart from theological ethics through the discovery of reason as Aristotle used it. Aquinas observed that conscience operates in all cultures and without direct connection to the religious faith of a troubled person” (Lecture for Week 2) An airline pilot goes for his regular medical checkup. The doctor discovers that he has developed a heart murmur. The pilot only has a month to go before he is eligible for retirement. The doctor knows this and wonders whether, under these unusual circumstances, she is justified in withholding the information about the pilot's condition. No, she is not justified in withholding the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document