Names: Bryan Pintado- Leandro Leon

CASE 1:
A supervisor promises a technician that he will not be held responsible for installing un-licensed
software.
Author(s): Olga B. Rosas Vélez
One of the partners from an accounting firm, goes to one of the computer technicians, and
recommends him to go to one of their clients from the firm and installs a computer program with
one of the licenses from the firm. The technician tells the partner that he cannot install the
program, because it is illegal to install programs in other computers without the right licensing.
The technician also recommended that it would be better for the client to buy the license and that
he would install the program for his company. His boss answered that he is one of the most
important clients in the office and that the client wasn’t interested in buying the program.
Nevertheless, he promised that they would install the program, and that he shouldn’t worry
because he would make himself responsible. What should the technician do?

In this case, the principle of legality would apply because it would not be ethical for the technician to
install the software since the technician is asked to install the software on another person's computer,
not on the computer of the technician's company. If it were the computer of the technician's company,
the technician could say that he is only following orders for the responsibility of the partner. But
assuming that the software has the non-transferability clause, which means that the license can not be
extended to others, the partner is not only creating responsibility for the technician, but also for the
client. And the partner knows that the client was not interested in buying the program so the ethical
thing that the technician should do is refuse to carry out the instructions since ethics is not about always
doing the right thing, but about being able to know the difference between good and evil.

And the deontological principle that I would not use would be Integrity and diligence because in this
case it would not apply since it is a particular case that the technician must do according to what he
thinks is the best and not by obligation.

CASE 2:
A case in which one company has a surprisingly close relationship to a sub-contracting company,
and the boundaries between the two may be compromised.
Author(s): Simil L. Raghavan, Ph.D.
You are a lead engineer with the Lesak structural design firm and have been working with this
company for some time. Bill is the owner of Lesak and has successfully operated the business for
over twenty years. You respect Bill and hope to move up in the company as your relationship
grows. In order to improve access to government contracts Lesak often uses subcontractors from
minority-owned firms. Most large public works projects include monies set aside specifically for
employment of such companies, and applicants must satisfy the requirement to employ them in
order to compete effectively. Recently, Bill has strongly encouraged you and others in your
company to rely heavily upon the services of the MBE Design Group, a minority-owned firm
which has done only minor work for you in the past. Although a typical procedure would be to
offer up sub-contracting jobs for competing bids, if a company is willing to do the work for a
reasonable price, you can save considerable time and energy by just offering them the job directly.
Bill insists that MBE is more than willing to work within your budget constraints. Upon
contacting MBE you realize that your boss’ 22-year-old daughter Myrna is the firm’s vice
president. Myrna states that she purchased partial ownership in the company using a loan from
her father. Would you follow your boss instructions to sign with MBE, or would you support the
typical procedure where you choose a subcontractor after analysing different competing bids?

In this case it would apply the principle of Independence, objectivity and impartiality since there is a
conflict of interest between Lesak and the subcontracted company in this case, it is not ethical not to
open the work for a competitive offer and the main engineer of Lesak must admit his mistake and
recommend to the owner (your boss) that a bidding process must have been used to award this
subcontract.
Their actions can undermine the interests of their client (the federal government) to obtain the most
qualified engineering services at a fair and reasonable price and, ultimately, could also undermine the
long-term interests of Lesak, a company in which he serves as an official. Therefore, the lead engineer
should have a sincere discussion with Bill and explain his concerns (ethics, reputation, legal
responsibility, etc.) and the impact and potential consequences these problems could have on Bill, the
company, Myrna and MBE.
And the deontological principle that I would not use in this case would be Loyalty since the engineer
must be clear and concise with Bill explaining his point of view and the consequences that can be
caused.