The Reluctant Security Guard
The Reluctant Security Guard
Companies in today’s society are often required to abide by an abundant amount of rules and regulations imposed upon them which stem from government and law enforcement authority. In analyzing the Case of “The Reluctant Security Guard” we will examine the decision making process which led to David Tuff effectively ‘whistle blowing’ for what he felt was the right thing to do.
The policy that was in place for David Tuff was ultimately an oath he subscribed to when he became a security guard, as well as his integrity of being a former U.S. Marine. He was required to abide by the Security Officer’s Manual, which included obeying the rules and regulations of the Superintendent of Police. There is no ambiguity in this. The dilemma of Tuff was whether or not to abide by his companies rules or the Security Officer’s Manual. When the two sources conflicted it caused a situation where whistle blowing was an option.
In taking a look at Utilitarianism we can argue that allowing a patron to leave an establishment intoxicated with the intent of operating a vehicle will have a negative effect on society as a whole. The overall utility of allowing this can lead to disastrous tragedy. Tuff voiced this to his company, they would not listen. He did what he could internally with the exception of forming a group of security guards to rally together on this cause and see it through until a change occurred. Traditional utilitarians would deny, however, that any kinds of actions are always right or always wrong.1 This forces us to take a close look at whether or not what Tuff did was in line with Utilitarian rational. An action whose net benefits are greatest by comparison to the net benefits of all the other possible alternatives.2 With this in mind Utilitarianism would promote that the greater good would be to select the choice that would benefit society the most, which in this case would be to not allow an intoxicated person to operate a vehicle.
If
Companies in today’s society are often required to abide by an abundant amount of rules and regulations imposed upon them which stem from government and law enforcement authority. In analyzing the Case of “The Reluctant Security Guard” we will examine the decision making process which led to David Tuff effectively ‘whistle blowing’ for what he felt was the right thing to do.
The policy that was in place for David Tuff was ultimately an oath he subscribed to when he became a security guard, as well as his integrity of being a former U.S. Marine. He was required to abide by the Security Officer’s Manual, which included obeying the rules and regulations of the Superintendent of Police. There is no ambiguity in this. The dilemma of Tuff was whether or not to abide by his companies rules or the Security Officer’s Manual. When the two sources conflicted it caused a situation where whistle blowing was an option.
In taking a look at Utilitarianism we can argue that allowing a patron to leave an establishment intoxicated with the intent of operating a vehicle will have a negative effect on society as a whole. The overall utility of allowing this can lead to disastrous tragedy. Tuff voiced this to his company, they would not listen. He did what he could internally with the exception of forming a group of security guards to rally together on this cause and see it through until a change occurred. Traditional utilitarians would deny, however, that any kinds of actions are always right or always wrong.1 This forces us to take a close look at whether or not what Tuff did was in line with Utilitarian rational. An action whose net benefits are greatest by comparison to the net benefits of all the other possible alternatives.2 With this in mind Utilitarianism would promote that the greater good would be to select the choice that would benefit society the most, which in this case would be to not allow an intoxicated person to operate a vehicle.
If