Deontology Case

Introduction

The globalization of organizations has created a complex business world in which business ethics must consider the relationship between ethical behavior and financial performance.

As part of several ethical frameworks, Deontology introduces the theory of duty, moral obligation, and moral commitment. The most prominent form of deontology is the moral theory published by Immanuel Kant in 1788, which suggests that people are obliged to perform duties without consideration of their outcome.

Parsons & Preece, 2010, p.23 suggests that employees of an organization are supposed to follow the rules stipulated irrespective of the consequences of their actions. Most of these duties are governed by universally independent principles and therefore following these principles to the letter in one's line of duty will be ethical, hence the consequences will be ethical according to deontological theories.

Problem Statement

Stationed at a highly classified listening post called Menwith Hill, close to Harrogate, England, contracting activities to support the mission of this military installation were under the umbrella of the Logistics division, and therefore part of my responsibilities. Menwith Hill operates under two Contracting Departments, one to support the classified military mission under total American purview, and one to support the soldiers, their families, and the civilian workforce in an unclassified environment. The latter operates within the Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) organization.

The Joint Ethics Regulation (JER), DOD Dir. 5500.7-R governs "Contracting", and prohibits federal employees from, directly or indirectly, soliciting or accepting a gift from a prohibited source, or a gift that is given because of the employee's official position.

Gordon E. a British national had been the Contracting Officer for MWR for 14 years, held a Warrant of $100,000.00 to purchase and procure goods and services for seven organizations within MWR such as the Officer's and Enlisted Club, Bowling Alley,

Library, Snack Bar, Family Services, Movie Theater, Temporary Lodging.

Gordon E. had been found to accept gifts from vendors and suppliers well over the legal threshold of $ 200.00 on a weekly basis.

During renovations of the Officers Club, the vendor gifted Gordon E. with carpeting his home; the MWR butcher send huge meat packages to Gordon Es' wife Jennifer.

The local equipment store presented Gordon E. a new refrigerator/freezer; the travel agent for MWR Family Services frequently delivered travel packages to Gordon E. and his family to -for example- visit Disneyland in Paris.

The list of vendors and sources soliciting gifts to Gordon E. is long, and Gordon E. always accepted gracefully.

Resolution

The office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Administrative Law Division heard the case of Gordon E. and decided to reduce his Warrant of $ 100,000.00 by half to minimize risk. Gordon Es' lawyer convinced the court that MWR "commercial sponsorship personnel" at the Directorate of Community Activities (DCA) are authorized to solicit gifts from commercial sources according to JER and AR 1-100.

Opinion

In this case, the Staff Judge Advocate did not take under consideration the fact that an MWR employee accepting gifts under the JER and AR 1-100 provision must accept the gifts on behalf of the United States, and upon acceptance the gift becomes the property of the United States. The regulation clearly states that all personnel must report and deposit such gifts with the Personnel Command.

Therefore, I do not agree