Ethical case analysis

Ethical case analysis

 

This document is being worked on by a hyperresearcher.

“What to Do About Mrs. Carmichael” is a project that the Municipal Redevelopment Agency (MRA) is working on in Victoria, one of Urbopolis’s more established neighborhoods. Victoria has been designated as an acceptable area for rehabilitation by the Urbopolis City Council since the majority of the turn-of-the-century houses are in a critical state of disrepair. You have been chosen to serve as the project’s assistant director, and your main duty will be to choose which homes should be renovated and which need to be torn down. Two experts in residential construction and municipal building codes are part of your crew. They have been tasked with inspecting the homes in the first project area on-site and creating a report for publication that includes their recommendations. They should be finished with their fieldwork in another two to three weeks. On the intercom, one of the two specialists, Harmon, buzzes you to let you know that he and the other specialist, Franklin, need to speak with you as soon as possible. They wish to discuss Mrs. Carmichael, who has been in Project 1 for thirty years and resides there. The salary of Mrs. Carmichael, who is now 82 years old, barely covers her essential living needs due to inflation, her husband’s death, and her age. Taxes and upkeep charges were incurred despite the fact that the mortgage was paid off. Mrs. Carmichael started putting off home maintenance a while back as her money’s value decreased year after year. Harmon sums up the situation by acknowledging that Mrs. Carmichael’s home should be demolished based on the standards they have been using everywhere in the first project area, saying, “Now, her house is in pretty bad shape.” Harmon, however, finds it difficult to advocate for the home of the elderly woman to be destroyed. He has completed four rebuilding projects and has previously witnessed similar events. Harmon never felt very good about it before, but he just cannot stand to do it again. “Elderly people, whose homes cannot justify rehabilitation loans, are relocated into apartments or board and care homes, only to lapse into senility and sometimes death.” He claims to know what the law stipulates and what the MRA project rules need, but it doesn’t seem right. You are moved by Harmon’s compassion for Mrs. Carmichael, but you are unsure of what it means for you and the project. He claims that “the government has no business treating decent people who have worked hard all their lives as though they were disposable trash.” You see, Franklin has been silent, so you inquire as to whether he concurs with Harmon. Franklin does not concur. He experiences the same emotions as Harmon, just not in the same way. Franklin laments that Mrs. Carmichael and all the other Mrs. Carmichaels who find themselves in similar situations are unfortunate, but there is nothing that can be done to change the situation. He informs you that the MRA’s responsibility is to demolish when it cannot be rebuilt and to rebuild when it can, and that certain laws, regulations, and standards must be followed when making these judgments. Franklin maintains that you can’t just make exceptions for people; you have to be fair to everyone, which entails treating everyone equally. Special favors cannot be given, or the enterprise as a whole will be compromised. Nothing will be done because everyone will ask for an exemption. The best way to handle this situation is to follow the rules exactly. “Let the relocation unit find her a satisfactory place to live; that’s their problem,” Franklin asserts. He knows that the house is beyond repair according to the standards used by the MRA for all other such projects and says, “Our problem is to decide whether to fix up her place or tear it down.” A furious confrontation between Harmon and Franklin breaks out at this time, as their tension has been building. As they retake their seats, you make an effort to cool their tempers and show gratitude for the two men’s worries. You reassure them that you appreciate their opinion and say that you’d like to think about it before talking about it again. Harmon and Franklin express their gratitude for you listening to them before leaving your office. We don’t want to try to solve Mrs. Carmichael’s house problem; instead, we want to use this case to explain some of the ideas we just covered in this chapter and to point out ways to make the situation more clear so that we can make a decision. You start by thinking about the information pertaining to your objective obligation. As an illustration: 1. The condemnation and demolition of inferior structures is expressly permitted by the regulations governing this redevelopment project. The structure can be demolished if the owner is unable or unwilling to undertake the required repairs. 2. This type of action has been supported in a protracted series of judicial cases. 3. The criteria for identifying substandard structures are clearly laid out in both the Urbopolis building and safety code and the agency recommendations for such projects. 4. You have to provide recommendations to Bronson, the Victoria Redevelopment Project’s director, about which buildings ought to be removed and which ought to be renovated. You might need to talk to him about this case if it appears that there will be a disagreement about it or if you are unable to come to a conclusion on your own. 5. You are unsure of what is required of you in this situation in order to uphold the public interest. You need to find out what the general population thinks about it, at least in the Victoria area. Then you go over in your head what you already know about Mrs. Carmichael’s case and what crucial data you require. You have some degree of confidence in the following: 1. Harmon’s description of her home suggests that it should be demolished. Franklin agreed, and Harmon did not attempt to downplay the harsh facts of its situation. 2. Due to its poor condition, the house will not be eligible for a federal grant or loan big enough to fund the repairs needed to prevent condemnation. 3. Mrs. Carmichael couldn’t be approved for a loan from a private lender, and even if she was, she couldn’t afford the installments. 4. If the building is demolished, Mrs. Carmichael would not have the money to redevelop the current location. 5. Mrs. Carmichael will be compensated at market value if the agency condemns the home for demolition. Regarding a few other details of the case, you are far less confident. You feel that the following needs to be clarified: 1. What does she think of the circumstances? Harmon is quite worried about rescuing Mrs. Carmichael’s home, although he never once mentioned it in his explanation of the issue. It might be wise to drop over and see her responses in person. She could want to relocate to a location that would be easier for her to manage. 2. Is she capable of adjusting to a new home? What are her current physical, mental, and emotional conditions? Is she in fair health? You are aware that Harmon is correct about some older people feeling a major negative influence, but probably not all of them. 3. What choices does she have if her house is destroyed? Will she have enough money after the agency buys her home to purchase a different home or maybe an apartment? She might be able to invest the money and earn enough extra money to pay for a luxury apartment. 4. Does Mrs. Carmichael’s situation really stand out, though? Are there any more senior citizens in project area one who are in danger? They might merit consideration as a unit. 5. What are local residents’ opinions of Mrs. Carmichael’s case? Is it conceivable to evaluate how other people think their interests might be served or thwarted by the way her case is handled without invading her privacy? Finally, you consider your own unique tendencies. You make an effort to make clear in our own minds what your subjective duty is toward Mrs. Carmichael. You consider it for a while and come to the following conclusions: 1. You generally have a great deal of regard for older folks. Since you were a young boy visiting your grandparents, you have had a veneration for people who have weathered the ups and downs of modern life. They instill a respectful sense within you. 2. This attitude is made up of various beliefs. You see them as having “paid their dues,” as having put in a lot of effort and earning our respect as a result. You think that young people frequently fail to appreciate the important wisdom and experience that older people have gathered. You think that older people are frequently abused and overlooked. Usually, they don’t get what’s coming to them. 3. Some values that you have long recognized in yourself are concealed under these beliefs. You value wisdom gained from information and experience about how to live in the real world. You care strongly about using the time given to you as effectively as possible. Your value system places a high value on perseverance in the face of adversity. One of the most fundamental values is fairness, or equity. Another one of your principles is being understanding of other people’s emotions. Based on these reflections, you come to the conclusion that your strongest feeling of subjective duty pushes you to try to settle the issue without doing any harm to Mrs. Carmichael. Do not interfere with her personal affairs. You do, however, also have other responsibilities. You are the administrator in charge of recommending something regarding Mrs. Carmichael’s residence. You agreed to fulfill this obligation when you accepted the job, and MRA is paying you to do so. Since it is your direct obligation, you cannot disregard it while you are in this position. You also have additional ambiguous duties related to your administrative position. You are in charge of keeping employees’ spirits high and working together as a team. You respect efficiency and think that these characteristics are necessary for a successful organization. Because you appreciate other people’s respect and because it would disrupt the orderly schedule of work and result in decreased productivity, you also feel responsibility for avoiding conflict with the citizens of Victoria. You want the locals to believe that you have treated them fairly. You also feel accountable for upholding the agency’s reputation to Markham, the executive director of MRA, and Bronson, the director of the Victoria Project. You value your loyalty to the organization. You can just act in accordance with the strongest and most unambiguous sources of objective accountability, which may be your superior, the law, or both if they cohere. Another option is to let strong emotions make the final decision. The viewpoint presented in Chapter One holds that we need to be more systematic if we want to make ethical decisions in a more conscious and logical way. There is a means to carry out this task, and it involves following the steps of the process described there. We look for a good fit between the realities of a situation, our values, and our external commitments as we weigh our options, their likely outcomes, and how each might be defended. When we are able to envision a different scenario that meets our need for consistency in our core self-image, we have found resolution. This enables us to keep our sense of integrity, our sense of being a recognizable whole, and our sense of being the person that we think ourselves to be. It goes without saying that this feeling of self and integrity should be greatly influenced by a normative administrative identity and an internalized public service ethic.

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

the following in writing: 1. a summary of the information given. 2. evaluation of the issues 3. recommendations for problem-solving measures 4. Effects your suggestions will have on the organization’s operations “What to Do About Mrs. Carmichael”
One of Urbopolis’s more established neighborhoods, Victoria, has a project that the Municipal Redevelopment Agency (MRA) is a part of. Victoria has been designated as an acceptable area for rehabilitation by the Urbopolis City Council since the majority of the turn-of-the-century houses are in a critical state of disrepair.
You have been chosen to serve as the project’s assistant director, and your main duty will be to choose which homes should be renovated and which need to be torn down. Two experts in residential construction and municipal building codes are part of your crew. They have been tasked with inspecting the homes in the first project area on-site and creating a report for publication that includes their recommendations. They should be finished with their fieldwork in another two to three weeks.
On the intercom, one of the two specialists, Harmon, buzzes you to let you know that he and the other specialist, Franklin, need to speak with you as soon as possible. They wish to discuss Mrs. Carmichael, who has been in Project 1 for thirty years and resides there. The salary of Mrs. Carmichael, who is now 82 years old, barely covers her essential living needs due to inflation, her husband’s death, and her age. Taxes and upkeep charges were incurred despite the fact that the mortgage was paid off. Mrs. Carmichael started putting off home maintenance a while back as her money’s value decreased year after year. Harmon sums up the situation by acknowledging that Mrs. Carmichael’s home should be demolished based on the standards they have been using everywhere in the first project area, saying, “Now, her house is in pretty bad shape.” Harmon, however, finds it difficult to advocate for the home of the elderly woman to be destroyed. He has completed four rebuilding projects and has previously witnessed similar events. Harmon never felt very good about it before, but he just cannot stand to do it again. “Elderly people, whose homes cannot justify rehabilitation loans, are relocated into apartments or board and care homes, only to lapse into senility and sometimes death.” He claims to know what the law stipulates and what the MRA project rules need, but it doesn’t seem right. The government “has no business treating decent people who have worked hard their entire lives as though they were disposable trash,” he claims.
Harmon’s care for Mrs. Carmichael moves you, but you’re not sure what it means for you or the project. You see, Franklin has been silent, so you inquire as to whether he concurs with Harmon.
Franklin does not concur. He experiences the same emotions as Harmon, just not in the same way. Franklin laments that Mrs. Carmichael and all the other Mrs. Carmichaels who find themselves in similar situations are unfortunate, but there is nothing that can be done to change the situation. He informs you that the MRA’s responsibility is to demolish when it cannot be rebuilt and to rebuild when it can, and that certain laws, regulations, and standards must be followed when making these judgments.
Franklin maintains that you can’t just make exceptions for people; you have to be fair to everyone, which entails treating everyone equally. Special favors cannot be given, or the enterprise as a whole will be compromised. Nothing will be done because everyone will ask for an exemption. The best way to handle this situation is to follow the rules exactly. “Let the relocation unit find her a satisfactory place to live; that’s their problem,” Franklin asserts. He knows that the house is beyond repair according to the standards used by the MRA for all other such projects and says, “Our problem is to decide whether to fix up her place or tear it down.”
A furious confrontation between Harmon and Franklin breaks out at this time, as their tension has been building. As they retake their seats, you make an effort to cool their tempers and show gratitude for the two men’s worries. You reassure them that you appreciate their opinion and say that you’d like to think about it before talking about it again. Harmon and Franklin express their gratitude for you listening to them before leaving your office.
We don’t want to try to solve Mrs. Carmichael’s house problem; instead, we want to use this case to explain some of the ideas we just covered in this chapter and to point out ways to make the situation more clear so that we can make a decision.
You start by thinking about the information pertaining to your objective obligation. You’re aware, for instance:
1. The condemnation and demolition of inferior structures is expressly permitted by the regulations governing this redevelopment project. The structure can be demolished if the owner is unable or unwilling to undertake the required repairs.
2. This type of action has been supported in a protracted series of judicial cases.
3. The criteria for identifying substandard structures are clearly laid out in both the Urbopolis building and safety code and the agency recommendations for such projects.
4. You have to provide recommendations to Bronson, the Victoria Redevelopment Project’s director, about which buildings ought to be removed and which ought to be renovated. You might need to talk to him about this case if it appears that there will be a disagreement about it or if you are unable to come to a conclusion on your own.
5. You are unsure of what is required of you in this situation in order to uphold the public interest. You need to find out what the general population thinks about it, at least in the Victoria area.
Then you go over in your head what you already know about Mrs. Carmichael’s case and what crucial data you require. You have some degree of confidence in the following:
1. Harmon’s description of her home suggests that it should be demolished. Franklin agreed, and Harmon did not attempt to downplay the harsh facts of its situation.
2. Due to its poor condition, the house will not be eligible for a federal grant or loan big enough to fund the repairs needed to prevent condemnation.
3. Mrs. Carmichael couldn’t be approved for a loan from a private lender, and even if she was, she couldn’t afford the installments.
4. If the building is demolished, Mrs. Carmichael would not have the money to redevelop the current location.
5. Mrs. Carmichael will be compensated at market value if the agency condemns the home for demolition.
Regarding a few other details of the case, you are far less confident. You feel the following needs to be clarified:
1. What does she think of the circumstances? Harmon is quite worried about rescuing Mrs. Carmichael’s home, although he never once mentioned it in his explanation of the issue. It might be wise to drop over and see her responses in person. She could want to relocate to a location that would be easier for her to manage.
2. Is she capable of adjusting to a new home? What are her current physical, mental, and emotional conditions? Is she in fair health? You are aware that Harmon is correct about some older people feeling a major negative influence, but probably not all of them.
3. What choices does she have if her house is destroyed? Will she have enough money after the agency buys her home to purchase a different home or maybe an apartment? She might be able to invest the money and earn enough extra money to pay for a luxury apartment.
4. Does Mrs. Carmichael’s situation really stand out, though? Are there any more senior citizens in project area one who are in danger? They might merit consideration as a unit.
5. What are local residents’ opinions of Mrs. Carmichael’s case? Is it conceivable to evaluate how other people think their interests might be served or thwarted by the way her case is handled without invading her privacy?
Finally, you consider your own unique tendencies. You make an effort to make clear in our own minds what your subjective duty is toward Mrs. Carmichael. You consider it for a while and come to the following conclusion:
1. You generally have a great deal of regard for older folks. Since you were a young boy visiting your grandparents, you have had a veneration for people who have weathered the ups and downs of modern life. They instill a respectful sense within you.
2. This attitude is made up of various beliefs. You see them as having “paid their dues,” as having put in a lot of effort and earning our respect as a result. You think that young people frequently fail to appreciate the important wisdom and experience that older people have gathered. You think that older people are frequently abused and overlooked. Usually, they don’t get what’s coming to them.
3. Some values that you have long recognized in yourself are concealed under these beliefs. You value wisdom gained from information and experience about how to live in the real world. You care strongly about using the time given to you as effectively as possible. Your value system places a high value on perseverance in the face of adversity. One of the most fundamental values is fairness, or equity. Another one of your principles is being understanding of other people’s emotions.
Based on these reflections, you come to the conclusion that your strongest feeling of subjective duty pushes you to try to settle the issue without doing any harm to Mrs. Carmichael. Do not interfere with her personal affairs.
You do, however, also have other responsibilities. You are the administrator in charge of recommending something regarding Mrs. Carmichael’s residence. You agreed to fulfill this obligation when you accepted the job, and MRA is paying you to do so. Since it is your direct obligation, you cannot disregard it while you are in this position.
You also have additional ambiguous duties related to your administrative position. You are in charge of keeping employees’ spirits high and working together as a team. You respect efficiency and think that these characteristics are necessary for a successful organization. Because you appreciate other people’s respect and because it would disrupt the orderly schedule of work and result in decreased productivity, you also feel responsibility for avoiding conflict with the citizens of Victoria. You want the locals to believe that you have treated them fairly. You also feel accountable for upholding the agency’s reputation to Markham, the executive director of MRA, and Bronson, the director of the Victoria Project. You value your loyalty to the organization.
You can just act in accordance with the strongest and most unambiguous sources of objective accountability, which may be your superior, the law, or both if they cohere. Another option is to let strong emotions make the final decision.
The viewpoint presented in Chapter One holds that we need to be more systematic if we want to make ethical decisions in a more conscious and logical way. There is a means to carry out this task, and it involves following the steps of the process described there. We look for a good fit between the realities of a situation, our values, and our external commitments as we weigh our options, their likely outcomes, and how each might be defended. When we are able to envision a different scenario that meets our need for consistency in our core self-image, we have found resolution. This enables us to keep our sense of integrity, our sense of being a recognizable whole, and our sense of being the person that we think ourselves to be. It goes without saying that this feeling of self and integrity should be greatly influenced by a normative administrative identity and an internalized public service ethic.

You should write:
1. a summary of the information given.
2. evaluation of the issues
3. recommendations for problem-solving measures
4. implications of your suggestions for how the organization will operate

 

 

"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon
"FIRST15"

Order Now