The Reluctant Security Guard
The Reluctant Security Guard Companies in today’s society are often required to abide by an abundant amount of rules and regulations imposed upon them which stem from government and law enforcement authority. In analyzing the Case of “The Reluctant Security Guard” we will examine the decision making process which led to David Tuff effectively ‘whistle blowing’ for what he felt was the right thing to do. The policy that was in place for David Tuff was ultimately an oath he subscribed to when he became a security guard, as well as his integrity of being a former U. S.
He was required to abide by the Security Officer’s Manual, which included obeying the rules and regulations of the Superintendent of Police. There is no ambiguity in this. The dilemma of Tuff was whether or not to abide by his companies rules or the Security Officer’s Manual. When the two sources conflicted it caused a situation where whistle blowing was an option. In taking a look at Utilitarianism we can argue that allowing a patron to leave an establishment intoxicated with the intent of operating a vehicle will have a negative effect on society as a whole.
The Reluctant Security Guard Essay Example
The overall utility of allowing this can lead to disastrous tragedy. Tuff voiced this to his company, they would not listen. He did what he could internally with the exception of forming a group of security guards to rally together on this cause and see it through until a change occurred. Traditional utilitarians would deny, however, that any kinds of actions are always right or always wrong. 1 This forces us to take a close look at whether or not what Tuff did was in line with Utilitarian rational. An action whose net benefits are greatest by comparison to the net benefits of all the other possible alternatives.
With this in mind Utilitarianism would promote that the greater good would be to select the choice that would benefit society the most, which in this case would be to not allow an intoxicated person to operate a vehicle. If we delve into Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative, we can look at his concept of universalizability as it applies to this situation. Are the reasons for whistle blowing in line with reasons everyone can act upon in principle alone? Tuff met with two other security guards regarding the overall issues, they concurred with him that they too had grievances against the company policies.
This act promotes the concept of universalizability, and how it can be applied to the moral dilemma that Tuff faced. He now had people on his side, this allowed him to gain emotional momentum which led him to speaking to the press shortly after he met with his co-workers. As far as reversibility applies to this examination, we could deduce that Tuff felt that his actions would be just in that it would apply to him if the table was turned and he was an innocent bystander waiting to bit hit by a drunk driver.
Reversibility leads us to challenge the amount of moral worth in the sense of duty that Tuff had to his oath, and to society. There is no doubt Tuff felt that his duties as a U. S. Marine Corps veteran and a sworn in security guard outweighed the conduct and vision of the policy makers at the Blue Mountain Company. An argument can be made that whistle blowing should only be warranted when there is a group or a majority that feels something should be brought to the attention of an outside authority if deemed so.
As discussed in the study the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determined that since his actions were not a concerted effort among him and his colleagues, the company was within their legal rights to fire him. This policy is an ideal policy. There will always be employees that feel something should be talked about with authorities or outside agencies. This conduct cannot be tolerated in business. If a business is conducting policies that are unethical and flat out dangerous to society, it should elevate through the voices of employees.
A single employee trying to appeal to an outside agency needs to collectivity petition with his colleagues to be considered to change the policies of his company. David Tuff’s actions were just in utilitarian views. His whistle blowing cost him his job, while keeping drunk drivers off the streets of Minneapolis. Had he waited for his co-workers to petition with him he would have likely been able to be rehired as far as the NLRB is concerned. Whistleblowing is an important and effective tool that should be used by employees in a concerted effort to halt crooked policies and company misconduct when necessary.
In such a vast business oriented society with endless loopholes and corners that can be taken which lead to illegal and unethical actions; sometimes the only protection we have are the morally grounded employees within those firms who will stand up for what is right.