CASE 1: Company Woman

Has Ravi acted unethically? Why or why not?
Ravi has been treated unfairly by the company, as indicated in the case. To remedy this, Ravi is taking actions to seek alternative options for employment and education. To determine whether Ravi has acted unethically, consider the following seem the relevant options for potentially unethical action:  

(i) Ravi attempts to withhold information from the company to acquire a raise
(ii) Ravi asks friend Amaia to withhold information from Ed

With respect to (i), it seems reasonable that Ravi has not acted unethically. First, it seems clear from the case that Ravi deserves to have received a raise already. Whether he leaves the company afterwards should not undermine this fact. Put another way, it seems plausible that the company owes Ravi pay, given the work he does without proper remuneration. Second, as an employee Ravi experiences a power differential, and so is unable to negotiate benefits and remuneration on an equal footing with his manager Ed. Given Ravi's already diminished negotiating power qua employee, withholding information from Ed is a plausible way to balance the clear power difference between them. For these reasons, we think Ravi has not acted unethically with respect to (i).

With respect to (ii), it also seems Ravi has not acted unethically. According to the case, Ravi and A are friends, and it seems permissible in general permissible to ask a friend to withhold information on your behalf. Extreme examples include asking a friend not to tell a murderer where you're hiding if your life is in danger. But such extreme cases don't exhaust what's permissible to ask a friend to withhold. Suppose Ravi has a crush on a co-worker, Sally, and confides in his friend A asking she not tell Sally. Suppose A and Sally are mere acquaintances. Then it seems in this case it is permissible for Ravi to ask A not to tell Sally. Indeed, it seems just the sort of thing a friend might confide in another friend. Similarly, it seems permissible for Ravi to ask A to withhold information from Ed, given Ravi and A are friends, and Ed and A are simply co-workers.

Was A right to tell E about R's decision to go back to school? Why or why not?

We do not think A should have told Ed about Ravi's plans. Both Ravi and A agree that Ravi has been overworked and underpaid by the company. It is reasonable for A to believe in the circumstances that telling Ed what she knows will lead to Ravi not being appropriately compensated - albeit only for a short time. Telling Ed thereby maintains Ravi's inappropriate treatment. We think this is illustrated by considering the following variation of the case:

(INV) Ed tells A that he intends to make Ravi work the night shift at the same pay - which Ravi strongly dislikes - for the next two months, after which he intends to fire Ravi. Ed needs someone to work the shift, and intended to fire Ravi anyway, so he won't mind if he's upset. Ed asks A not to tell Ravi. A says she won't lie if asked. Suppose Ravi asks A, and she tells Ravi Ed's intentions. Ravi then makes plans to have another job within two months.

We think A has not done anything wrong in (INV). This is because we think it is clear that Ed intends to do something impermissible to Ravi. In fact, we think A's action is permissible not simply because A is Ravi's friend, but because A is a witness to the fact that Ed is going to mistreat Ravi, and so she has a responsibility to do what she can to mitigate the harm. This, we think, is a standing responsibility individuals have to help other individuals in need. That is, we think the following is true:

(STD) Agents have a standing responsibility to provide aid to others when feasible to do so

And this standing responsibility is relevant to the harm of continued mistreatment of Ravi by Ed and the company in the original case. A has witnessed mistreatment of Ravi by the company and is in a position to provide aid to Ravi in the form of withholding information from Ed. Since she does not, she violates (STD), and to that extent she acts impermissibly.

Moreover, given the power differential between Ravi and Ed during negotiation, A revealing information that diminishes Ravi's ability to negotiate for a higher salary undercuts any semblance of power balance Ravi had by keeping his intentions from Ed. Put another way, A gave Ed cause for denying a raise for Ravi, when Ed was clearly looking for a reason to deny the request.

This relates to A's actions undermining the friendship she had with Ravi, which we also think makes her action impermissible. Friendships are built on trust and confidence. Ravi confided in A, and A chose loyalty to Ed and the company over her friendship with Ravi. Since it seems plausible that friendships are a good worth having, and since A's actions undermine her friendship with Ravi, it seems her actions cause harm to both Ravi and herself. This is, moreover, in light of the fact that - as we argued above - it is permissible for Ravi to have asked A to withhold information from Ed, and so we do not think Ravi's request itself undermined or jeopardized the friendship in any way other than causally.

Altogether then, A's decision to tell Ed was impermissible because doing so undermined Ravi's receipt of deserved compensation and (STD), any negotiating power Ravi had for an increased salary, and her friendship with Ravi.

Generally, what does it mean to be loyal to someone or something? To what extent is loyalty morally valuable?

Loyalty to a person means maintaining a high level of agreement on a common goal. This may take the form of a relationship, or employment in a company, or any other number of relationships. To be loyal is to be someone others can depend on when needed. In friendship, for example loyalty is often expressed in listening to one another, airing grievances, and not telling things revealed in confidence. Friendship also often expresses loyalty in that friends can depend on each other for honesty between them. With respect to employment at a company, as exhibited by Ravi and A in this case, loyalty is expressed in adherence to the best interests of the organization. In that respect, A seems to have expressed loyalty to the company and Ed over loyalty to her friend Ravi.

Loyalty is morally valuable insofar as trust and intimacy are morally valuable. Since trust and intimacy are morally valuable, as they seem needed for humans to flourish, it seems loyalty is also morally valuable. We might add a world without loyalty would likely devolve into a world where there is a great deal of immorality. If no one was loyal to anyone else, then there would be few compacts, and much fighting. It'd surely be difficult to build a society on such a group of individuals. In that respect, loyalty seems to provide the backbone for society, and so contributes to morality in that respect as well. Put another way, loyalty provides the environment in which we can be moral, and so plays a rather extensive role.