This week while reading the article, “A Framework For Ethical Decision Making”, I self reflected to determine which one of the six ethical lenses I choose to follow when evaluating right and wrong. I must admit that it was a difficult task to only choose one, being that I can agree with all the different perspectives. The rights lens reminds us to respect individual autonomy and moral principles, while the justice lens encourages us to make sure people are treated fairly. The utilitarian lens focuses on creating the most good and the least harm, and the common good lens asks us to think about what helps everyone as a whole. The virtue lens encourages us to act with honesty, integrity, and good character, and the care ethics lens emphasizes the importance of compassion and maintaining strong relationships.

The ethical perspective I use when making decisions shifts with the situation, as I consider the factors that influence the best decision. In minor situations that impact fewer individuals, it may be easier to focus on the common good or the utilitarian perspectives, but would they be the most effective methods to view ethical issues that have a global impact? Or to that magnitude, would it be more reasonable to focus on creating the most good and the least harm? While I believe each situation is unique and may require different ethical perspectives, I find myself relying most on the care ethics and justice lenses in my daily life. I recognize that relationships are essential to how we live daily, so the care ethics lens guides me to listen, empathize, and respond with compassion, rather than just focusing on outcomes. It is also vital, in my opinion, that people feel treated fairly, which is why I may use the justice lens in decision-making processes. Using these lenses allows me to act with care and fairness because real life requires compassion, but you cannot lose sight of equality.

Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M., Shanks, T., McLean, M., DeCosse, D., Andre, C., Hanson, K., Raiku, I., & Kwan, J. (2021, November 8). A Framework for Ethical Decision Making. Markulla Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

As I read the article “Pig Kidney Transplants Take a Step Forward with Approval of Human Trials” for the Hot Topic Headline of this module, I was reminded of a subject covered in another course I am currently taking. In my Contemporary Moral Issues course, we previously discussed utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher also regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism. According to Bentham and described in his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, the “Principle of Utility” is the idea that the ability to feel pain and pleasure is what makes an action morally relevant. Furthermore, he describes humans and nonhuman animals as “moral subjects” given that they both experience pain and pleasure. Taking both his theory and the article’s cases into account, it leads me to ask how he would view the moral issues presented by the article.

Jeremy Bentham describes “utilitarian calculus” as adding all the pleasure of the world to determine if an action is the best action to take. Applying this philosophy, it is understandable to believe that he would reject these procedures, as they may result in significant pain and suffering for the pigs. However, considering the possibility of significant global benefits from these advancements, what stance would Bentham take within the context of modern society and science? In this case, I believe Bentham would prioritize the greater pleasure and benefit for humans over the pain experienced by the pigs and ultimately accept the procedures. Utilitarianism is often considered to be “lifeboat ethics,” in which the greatest good for the greatest number determines actions to be morally right or wrong.

Kounang, N. (2025, September 8). Pig Kidney Transplants Take a Step Forward with Approval of Human Trials. CNN Health. https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/08/health/pig-kidney-transplant-human-trial-fda

Morrow, D. (2017). Moral Theory. In Moral Reasoning: A Text and Reader on Ethics and Contemporary Moral Issues (pp. 171–174). essay, Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9780190236120.

As I reflect on the case of Lightning Shared Scooter Co., I cannot help but to connect it to a larger history of financial exploitation that minority and low-income populations have faced in the United States. LSSC operated fraudulently, preying on immigrant and disadvantaged investors, many of whom lacked access to reliable financial safeguards. This is often a recurring pattern where those already vulnerable are manipulated into carrying risks that wealthier groups often avoid (although they seem to have been scammed as well). Predatory lending practices have historically targeted elderly and low-income (often minority) populations, steering them into high interest rates or failing to disclose information. For example, payday loan companies often establish themselves in low-income neighborhoods and market short-term relief; the goal of these loans is not to be repaid, but for the debtor to default, trapping these families in cycles of debt. The LSSC scam, although a pyramid scheme, has similar dynamics. Those behind the scam have not taken responsibility for these unethical practices and have left investors, including those that may have referred friends and family, to absorb the fallout. This demonstrates not only a breach of accountability but also a betrayal of trust. When trust is broken, particularly in marginalized communities, recovery is not only financial but also deeply personal and social.

What I am disturbed by the most with this scam and society is how exploitation is often masked as an opportunity. Whether through a fraudulent company or a predatory loan, disadvantaged communities are promised advancement and yet left with loss. The LSSC situation is one more reminder that ethical leadership and oversight are not optional; they are essential protections against cycles of exploitation that have plagued vulnerable groups for generations. Looking forward, I feel a sense of responsibility in my own planned work in public policy. I hope to contribute to building stronger safeguards that prevent these cycles and instead empower vulnerable communities. By prioritizing protections for those most at risk, policy can restore trust, foster equity, and ensure that opportunities marketed as advancement are truly pathways toward stability and progress.

Cornell Law School. (2020, July). Predatory lending. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/predatory_lending

Ortiz, E., Harris, B., & Collier, K. (2025, August 25). The electric scooter sharing scam that fleeced millions of dollars from Americans. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/electric-scooter-scam-lightning-shared-scooter-co-investors-rcna226832

In reading the article “How to Link Personal Values With Team Values”, I was reminded of the formation of a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee in my workplace. When the committee was first being formed, those who expressed interest were asked to review the department’s values. We then centered our efforts on developing ideas for the new committee’s values, drawing inspiration from the established values of the department. Following a process similar to the one outlined in the article, committee members first identified the values they personally viewed as central to our work, then came together to define the shared values as a group, and finally prioritized the list of values collectively. These values serve as the guiding principles for the committee’s work, and we make it a point to revisit them regularly to ensure our actions remain aligned with them, to reaffirm our shared purpose, and to adapt when new challenges or perspectives arise.

The end of the article shows the AT&T southwestern management team’s values statement, and three of the values stood out to me: communication, teamwork, and achievement. I share these same values and understand effective group work is highly reliant on these three areas. Clear communication ensures that ideas are shared openly, tasks are understood, and conflicts are resolved constructively. Teamwork allows individuals to contribute their strengths while building trust and mutual respect. Together, these areas drive achievement, enabling groups to reach goals that would be difficult for individuals alone. However, when a team member is excluded, the group risks losing valuable perspectives and creating division. This undermines collaboration and reduces the overall quality and effectiveness of the group’s work. Overall, I can understand the importance of linking personal values with a team’s values and how this can contribute to the success of organizations like Levi Strauss, AT&T, and Nordstrom.

Jaffe, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (1998). “How to Link Personal Values With Team Values”, Training & Development, 52(3), p. 24, https://moodle-courses2527.wolfware.ncsu.edu/pluginfile.php/476433/mod_resource/content/3/Jaffe_Link_Personal_Values_Team_Values.pdf

While reading the article “Why Ethical People Make Unethical Choices,” what came to mind were my own professional experiences where leadership often exhibited unethical behaviors that often went unchecked and without correction. In these experiences, I found it difficult to stay dedicated to my work and often found it necessary to leave my position in order to maintain my sense of morality. The article discusses how organizations can pressure ethical employees into making unethical choices, and I personally related to all the approaches it described.

The article expressed how organizations can drive ethical employees to behave unethically by fostering an environment that suppresses honest dialogue. I am all too familiar with this concept; it was often in my previous experiences that simply stating you believed something was wrong was met with inappropriate hostile conduct, if your concerns were acknowledged at all. As a relatively new employee, it was common for seasoned employees to state to me, “That’s just the way it is,” after efforts to collaborate and confront unethical actions. This unaddressed conduct by leadership contributed to negative examples being set for an organization because the same way that employee grievances were handled was the same fashion in which stressful situations and poor performances were approached. I found myself not trusting in my leadership to properly manage these circumstances, although it was expected for the employees to do so. Because I value authenticity and strive to not be hypocritical, the high levels of hypocrisy I witnessed eventually pushed me to pursue other opportunities with other organizations.

While I have encountered unethical leadership, I have also experienced ethical leaders whose influence has been significant, exemplifying what the article expresses an ethical leader should be. These leaders gained my trust by acting with integrity and treating others with fairness and respect. They showed me the importance of staying true to my values, even when faced with challenges. Being around this kind of leadership encourages me to speak up, work with my coworkers to address issues, and lead with authenticity. Their example, along with this article, continues to teach me how to lead ethically.

Carucci, R. (2016). Why Ethical People Make Unethical Choices. Harvard Business Review.