Approaches to ethical standards

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Approaches to Ethical Standards; Consequences and Outcomes
In this case study, it will involve two senior business classmates, Greg and Natalie. Both have known each other since lower division course though not as close friends but as classmates. In their senior year, Greg together with his close friends decided to enjoin Natalie into their study group for their end-term project. After a while, Grey realized that Natalie wasn’t putting in any effort into the project. In most cases, she would often turn up late for the group meetings, and most of the tasks assigned to her had to be redone by the members. As much as this irritated the members, they agreed to leave Natalie to do her own thing and carry on with the project. After completion and handing over the group’s final presentation, Greg and his group were required to evaluate their team members, and this was to be used to determine individual grades. For Greg, he comfortably awarded his teammates A’s and B’s for their contributions to the success of their project. For Natalie, however, Greg was faced with a dilemma. Should he give her an honest assessment and let her get the grade she deserves or turn a blind eye and give her good evaluation since the group received an A irrespective of her input? This paper will critically discuss why this dilemma is an ethical issue that requires an ethical assessment providing the possible significance and consequences of Greg’s actions.
In ethics, there are five ethical approaches that Greg’s dilemma would have been solved.

First and foremost, through application of the utilitarian approach. This approach explains that ethical actions should do more good or less harm to the recipients (Kahane et al., 193-194). Therefore, as an ethical action, Greg would be obliged to give good evaluation for Natalie so that she gets awarded best individual grades. This will do her great good and less harm. Secondly, the rights approach can also be used to address this dilemma. The approach suggests that ethical actions should respect and safeguard the moral rights of the affected person. Regarding this approach, Greg’s action would have been to give Natalie good assessment which will lead to her getting positive grades. Through this decision, Natalie’s moral rights will be protected and respected (Wilson, 7).
The fairness approach is the third method which can be applied to solve the dilemma. It states that all equivalents should be treated equally, if in any case they are treated unequally, then, it should be on some unassailable ethical basis. In Greg’s case, he should have evaluated Natalie according to the input she made into the project however poor it was the same way he did to the rest of the team members (Velasquez et al., 2).
The common good approach is yet another way of identifying the ethical decision making in this case study. It entails that compassion and respect are key actions that bring in good relationships in a society. in this case, Greg’s compassion and respect for Natalie would have led him to evaluate Natalie well so that she gets good grades as the rest of the team members. Lastly, there is the virtue approach to ethical issues which states that moral actions and behaviors should be consistent with human virtues. Therefore, virtues such as honesty, integrity, and fairness would have made Greg evaluate Natalie and give her what she deserved no matter the consequences (National Communication Association, n.pag).
In a similar situation as Greg, the utilitarian approach would be the most suitable way towards solving the ethical dilemma. Firstly, no one in the team questioned Natalie on his lack of commitment to the project and instead decided to let it go. Probably if she were confronted early enough, she would have changed her behavior and made a positive contribution to the project. Secondly, this was a team project, and the output should reflect the joint effort of the members. As such, it would be unfair and ethically wrong for the team to score fine grades and at the same time some individual members to score low grades on the same project. Therefore, it would be ethically wrong to evaluate her with poor grades based on these issues since it will do her more harm than good. For that reason, Natalie evaluation should be based on the entire team overall performance.
The ethical standard used, that is, the utilitarian approach is different to my core beliefs and values. As an individual, I believe in honesty, trust and doing the right thing always. Therefore, I would adopt the fairness approach whereby every person is treated equally without biases or favor unless on a logical basis.
From the above discussion, it is clear that Greg’s dilemma required an ethical decision to be taken. Additionally, the different ethical approaches that would have solved his dilemma and provided for appropriate ethical action. In this case, it is clear that every moral action should be addressed and applied using the approaches discussed as they provide the baseline for ethical decision making and preservation of ethical standards.
Work cited
“NCA Credo for Ethical Communication.” National Communication Association.  National Communication Association, Nov. 1999. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.
Kahane, Guy, et al. “‘Utilitarian ‘judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good.” Cognition 134 (2015): 193-209.
Velasquez, M. et al. “A Framework for Thinking Ethically.” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. May 2009. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
Wilson, C. “Picking Up the Slack (Big Q).” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.