Tutorial Case for critical thinking

Tutorial Case for critical thinking: Phone hacking, corruption and the closure of the News of the World 1 . Which of the four views of ethical behavior can best be applied to this case? Justify your answer. The moral-rights view of ethical behavior would be best applied to this case as the decision for the company to Illegally partake In phone hacking.

By this decision, the company has Intruded hundreds of Individual’s personal privacy which Is seen as orally wrong, therefore the fundamental rights of human beings was not maintained. . What rationalizations for this unethical behavior would the editors, reporters, private investigators and police have given? Convincing everyone and also themselves that: They were not the ones who implemented the behavior thus they have not done anything illegal The result from the behavior is in everyone’s interests The behavior is not as unethical and illegal as it seems 3. What ‘social responsibility strategy did NOW try to implement when the scandal iris broke, and how did this change as the scandal unfolded?

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

They used a defensive strategy where the company did only the minimum legally required. By only admitting to hacking into the voiceless of aides to the royal family, they hoped to protect the organization by doing the minimum legally necessary to satisfy expectations. Though this didn’t last long when leads appeared and more evidence were found.

4. How do you think weightlessness at the newspaper and In the London Metropolitan Police might have been treated?

Fear of bad publicity, expensive allotting and loss of business can make a company hostile and defensive, usually at the expense of weightlessness’s personal or professional reputation 5. This case really demonstrates how leaders need to be ethical role models. In this regard, can you suggest how the police, politicians and newspaper leaders should nave Addenda They should have taken the responsibility in directly responding to the unethical and illegal action that was taking place.