Sample Theology Essay Paper on an Ethical Situation involving an Air Force Employee

Introduction

Indeed, there is a serious ethical paradox between various potential moral imperatives that majorly arise from situational conflicts (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016). During decision-making processes, ascertaining the most adequate or preferable choice between two or more options in an ethically acceptable fashion and based on set societal ethical rules may be challenging. Naturally, when making certain choices, the common assumption is that individuals should avoid ethical paradoxes and instead stick to the applicable set of laws.  Therefore, this essay will provide an explicit overview of an ethical situation involving an Air Force employee and a subcontractor at Langley Air Base and the associated impacts of subsequent decisions.

Case background

In this particular case, the employee from the Langley Air Base received reimbursement of approximately $16,500 from a subcontractor whose company had been subcontracted to provide base engineering and construction services. Undoubtedly, the staff was faced with a difficult choice with no clearly defined answer leading to a serious ethical dilemma. However, the action of the civilian employee at the Langley Air Base to receive reparation for services rendered as a government employee was largely considered to be a violation of 18 U.S.C.209 rule by the U.S Army. Consequently, the employee was sentenced to a three-year probation period and subjected to a punitive fine of $2,500. Markedly, clearly understanding the background of this case lays a unique foundation for the possible impact of the management’s decision to penalize the employee for the misdemeanor.

Impact of the employee’s decision

The 18 U.S.C.209 act assert that any U.S Government worker who will receive salary or any contribution as a reimbursement for services offered is a serious violation of employment codes (Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office, 2016). Moreover, the act further states that any employee of the United States Government is free to act otherwise if the reimbursement is a profit being shared, stock bonus and any other welfare plan from any other credible source. The employee was found to have discredited certain military core values and ethos as outlined in the 18 U.S.C.209 act. The worker was facing a serious ethical conflict on whether to accept the reimbursement from the subcontractor or to stick to the service core principles and regulations.

The decision by the individual to receive a supplement to his salary as compensation may ultimately have major impacts on sailorization, good order and discipline, unit morale and mission readiness. For instance, under sailorization, the army may introduce mentorship programs to all employees at the base to introduce them to the 18 U.S.C.209 act among other prescribed codes of conduct. Such programs will result in well-formed staff and consequently ensure order and discipline in the base (Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office, 2016). Specifically, any viable army division requires relevant training on important ethos and values to increase individual morale and accomplish assigned missions (Cook, 2015).

Conclusion

In summary, this paper has evidently scrutinized the origin of an ethical situation involving an employee of Langley Air Base and a subcontractor and has clearly explained the probable impact of the staff’s decision. Remarkably, developing a rational approach to ethics will ultimately prompt the inherent will to do what any reasonable thinking man will consider right. Lastly, every person should be governed by a set of moral principles that are capable of controlling behaviors and imperative procedures (Hartman, DesJardins & MacDonald, 2014).

 

 

References

Cook, M. L. (2015). Military ethics and character development. In Routledge handbook of military ethics (pp. 123-132). Routledge.

Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office. (2016). Encyclopedia of ethical failure. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J. R., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge.