Risks and Loyalties

As Markham was summoned into the conference room to begin his presentation to the identity card of the state pension fund, he was wrestling with whether or not to support the liability issue. He knew thither were risks either way. There was the risk that his knob would choose to take their business elsewhere if he told them what he believed to be the funds financial reality. Furthermore, such a move would not only result in lost business, but would likely be interpreted as disloyalty towards his firm. But indeed he thought round what didnt happen during the 2008 financial crisis, and this reality gnawed at himWhen the subprime crisis played break through everybody was asking why, even though there were all in all these people that had a role in making it happen, no one spoke up? And so does somebody who is playing a bit part in creating a reprise of the last crisis have a responsibility to blab up on behalf of the pensioners themselves even though this is contrary to the wish es of their employer and the board of trustees who has chartered their employer to provide investment advice? We all commonly find ourselves in a position where we have to tell someone something they dont lack to try on.We face this kind of communication dilemmas all the time at home, with friends and at workplace. The range can fall between middling telling a friend about his look to the case with Harry Makham, who was facing the line of work of telling the board of directors about the wrong liability numbers. There are usually 2 ways of responding to this kind of dilemmas, either saying it just right and falling into the category of confident communicator, or failing to inform and falling into the category of unethical cheater.There are at to the lowest degree 5 different approaches for overcoming ethical issues concerning communication dilemma * The Utilitarian fire action that provides the most good or the least harm for all who are bear upon-customers, employees, shar eholders, the community and the environment. * The Rights Approach- action that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected * The Justice Approach- ethical actions that treat all human beings equally, or if unequally, then fairy based on some standard that is defensible. but there is a debate over CEO salaries that are hundreds of times large than the pay of others) * The Common Good Approach- actions that lead to the welfare of everyone in community. * The equity Approach actions that are tenacious with certain ideal virtues and are consistent with your own values. Regarding the issue of telling clients things they dont want to hear the Utilitarian Approach may be more useful, and certain factors should be taken into consideration * harm to the clients * harm to the firm * harm to the mankind * harm to environment * harm to yourself (your ethical views)