|
|
As she replaced the phone in its cradle, a gentleman approached her displaying a badge and disclosing that he was a detective with local law enforcement. He could not help overhearing Karen's conversation and stated that he needed her cooperation. He has been investigating a series of rapes in the area, and the young man on the phone may very well be a suspect.
The detective insisted that Karen give him the caller's name and phone number.
The ethical dilemma
In this dilemma adapted from Rush Kidder's book, ''How Good People Make Tough Choices,'' Karen is confronted with a right-versus-right ethical dilemma.
The circumstances seem to fit the individual-versus-community paradigm.
Doesn't every individual have the right to expect confidentiality? The caller could well be a student doing research for an assignment, and his right of free access to information should be protected.
Yet the community's expectation of a society based on law and order is also to be upheld, and Karen would certainly not want to jeopardize the safety and security of the community.
The resolution
Applying the ''ends-based'' resolution principle to Karen's dilemma, the greater good for the greater number might call for handing over the caller's name, in order to preserve the right of the community to live in safety.
However, from the perspective of the ''universal principle,'' Karen might feel duty-bound to live up to the highest standards of her profession. You simply do not divulge the identify of anyone who calls for information. If you do, you are practicing a rule that attests that librarians should ignore an inquirer's right to privacy.
With the ''Golden Rule'' resolution principle, Karen has to clarify who the ''other'' is.
Certainly, the caller does not want to be turned in, particularly if he is a student doing some research for a paper. If the ''other'' is the detective, then surely he wants that name and number. If the ''other'' is the women in the community, they may well want the detective to know.
For Karen, this principle also involves what it means ''to care'' for others. Does caring mean that she would do whatever it takes to protect the security of the community, or is her definition of the highest sense of caring to protect the long-term interests of a free society?
In the end, it is not a process of counting how many principles support one decision and just going with the popular vote. No, what is necessary is to combine ethics and logic to consider our values and use reason to evaluate the right decision. These are tough choices.
Karen felt that she had a sacrosanct duty to protect the right to privacy. The coincidence of an overheard conversation did not, in her mind, constitute sufficient cause to place a potentially innocent person under suspicion, perhaps her variation of ''innocent until proven guilty.''
Richard Pilarski is a resident of Saratoga Springs and a certified facilitator for the Institute for global ethics who teaches global ethics at Empire State College. E-mail your dilemmas to news@saratogian.com.
