Companies are developing ethical policies and guidelines for legal reasons, but also to clarify what is acceptable and what is not
Do you think any of the issues raised in the case required clarification?
Would you take exception to any of them being classified as inappropriate behavior?
Why do you think these things happen anyway?
In the first example (Bryan's), it is apparent that he did not believe justice had been ultimately served by the decision his company made
Should he have taken the issue to the authorities?
Or, was it enough that he reported the problem through the proper channels and let the organization handle it, as recommended by Linn Hynds?
In the case, Gary chose not to stop his boss from installing unlicensed software, although he refused to do it himself
If installing unlicensed software is wrong, is there any difference between refusing to do it versus not stopping somebody else?
Do you buy his argument that it was not really going to hurt anybody? Why or why not?
Solution answers questions concisely for about approximately 560 words.