¶ … Miranda Shaw is a manager at a high-ranking consulting company, and needs a senior analyst to fill a job opening in that capacity. She has chosen two out of the many applicants, Deborah Jones and Rick Parsons, and is expected to make recommendation to the head of human resources department without delay. The two shortlisted candidates had attended the same prestigious business school. Both candidates shone like stars during the interviews and boasted of intimidating work experiences. However, Parson's leadership skills make him stand out as a favorite for the position. Other qualities favoring Parson's candidature for the job includes a track record of resilience at work and excellent communication skills. Shaw makes up her mind to find out more about both candidates on Google, before taking the final decision in the matter. She visited the social networking site, Facebook, to find out more about the candidates' past and their activities,, and found some pictures of Parsons smoking and drinking with some members of a college fraternity. It was on the Facebook page of one of Parson's friend's whose privacy settings were not enabled.

Shaw then sought out Jones on the internet (Google search pages), the other shortlisted candidate, and found several sites that talked about Jones as the efficient project manager to rely on. The online photos that showed Parsons as a binge drinker and chain smoker made Shaw have a rethink about her choice of candidate. She has chosen to walk the rather slippery and slim boundary between private and public life (Parmar, 1-3)[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Parmar, Bidhan. "Should you check Facebook before hiring?."The Washington Post. 2011. Print.]

Shaw decided to collect more information on the background of the candidates (than was proffered to her in person), as she needed to report to her seniors quickly. Obviously aware of the fact that Facebook could provide some insight about the competing candidates, she uncovered more than what the individuals in question wanted to divulge. That she had the best interests of the company behind the action is beyond doubt. However, she may have erred in crossing the boundary between personal and professional character (and thereby, capacity). The decision she took was based on what she saw posted on a friend's page that was accessible, whereas Parsons was not. The post gives a clear indication of Parsons social life and the extremes to which he may go. As a responsible and conscientious employee, Shaw decided that Parsons inappropriate indulgences make him unfit for her company.

The possible point of contention here is two-fold; Did Shaw take the right decision, given that the interview and information she had had shown that Parson as was fit for the job as the other candidate; Secondly, Parson had been careful to present the image he wanted to publicize while saving the social ones for personal use (he used discretion, that he must have thought, needs to be respected).

Shaw actions in light of Principle Moral Framework

Deontology (Halbet and Ingulli, 17)

With regards to virtues and principles of ethics, Parsons lacks the integrity and character to fit into the professional work environment of the company and Shaw's dedicated team because of the information in the album that Shaw found. The album with pictures of Parsons drinking and smoking with members of his college fraternity did not speak well of him. However, even as Shaw chooses to take the path that she did, would she, as a recipient, accept such transgression, is the question Deontology would pose. Morality, as explained by Kant emphasizes on the universality of the principle (and ensuing action thereby). The moral obligations demand consistency. The same principles should be applied in all cases, according to Kant. Further in the theory, and of specific relevance to this case, Deontology requires that all individuals be treated with respect due to their inherent, intrinsic endowments rather than utilizing them towards certain personal advancements. Shaw's actions can be viewed from these Moral angles to judge her particular action in deciding to reject the candidacy of Parsons. According to Kant, Morality theory requires that each person has the right to take his own decisions without being manipulated into doing so, by whatever exigencies. Parsons has exhibited the required discretion, towards which Shaw failed in showing respect. However, Shaw worked in the best interests of her company within the limitations of time she had. This is a conflict situation where both parties involved were right in their own ways, though the said moral

We need to examine another theory that would balance the matter
Virtue Theory (Halbet and Ingulli, 17)[footnoteRef:3]. [3: Halbert, Terry and Ingulli, Elaine."Making an Ethical Decision." Rpt. in Law and Ethics inBusiness Environment. South Western Publishing, 1991.3rd Ed. 15-18. Print.]

The virtue theory has been in use since the time of Aristotle and Plato. Having a set of rules is not the only thing required to execute judgment. It also involve having those virtues or dispositions that makes it easy to make the right choice about doing things right and holding on to things that do not make the actualization of goals easy.

Therefore, ethics that are based on virtue lays emphasis on some specific qualities that describe appropriate behavior and the exact action to take. Unlike the ethical theories we discussed earlier, the virtue theory fails to establish a given set of conditions to assess possible decisions. Rather, it lays emphasis on the inner characteristics of the individual we wish to establish relationships with on trust. The main goal is for the decision maker to do the right thing in the right way at the right place and at the right time, always. Therefore, she will not want to waste either time or money when it comes to hiring the right person for the job. After all, it was not Parsons intention to leak the improper, irrelevant and possibly offensive photos (having enabled his own Facebook privacy settings) (Halbet and Ingulli, 17)[footnoteRef:4]. [4: Halbert, Terry and Ingulli, Elaine."Making an Ethical Decision." Rpt. in Law and Ethics inBusiness Environment. South Western Publishing, 1991.3rd Ed. 15-18. Print.]

Shaw has shown responsibility to her role by finding out about the candidates over and above what she acquired officially. Parsons has been equal to the other candidate in professional values required by the company. Thus, he has an equal right to the job. However, that alone may not be enough for Shaw to take a decision, as she has to work in the best interests of her company. However, Shaw may not like to be 'snooped' upon in the way Parsons was, had she been on the other side. Thus, Shaw has not exhibited universality of Morality, as prescribed by Kant. By virtue of principles, though, Parsons indulgence make him undesirable by the company. The 'indulgences' of Parsons that robbed him of his future job may now be explored to establish the intensity of the 'vice' attached to it.

Shaw may have been hasty in arriving at the decision, because the Facebook page may not have offered the complete picture. There could be many reasons, of personal dimension why such pictures existed, none of which could possibly have a bearing on the professional acumen of the candidate. She could have asked for another one-on-one interview, even on phone (to save time) and then taken a decision. Alternatively she could have asked both to be on probation on successful completion of which, the HR team could observe them and then take a decision based on better, consistent performance. Such actions would be in accordance with "equal opportunity to all concerned" principle as prescribed by Kant's Morality principles.

Looking at both sides of the argument

Marijuana- Social implications

First and foremost, Parsons was drinking and smoking in one of the pictures found on his friend's Facebook page. Marijuana is a very bad substance (socially abhorred and unacceptable). Unfortunately, most young people today believe that marijuana is a simple drug that cannot cause anyone any harm. in reality, though, it is known to be harmful, detrimental especially to the younger ones. Physicians have constantly challenged the claim that marijuana is not addictive. According to Dr. Sharon Levy, marijuana's addictiveness is not in question (PewResearch Center,3)[footnoteRef:5]. Almost half of the entire American population smoked tobacco. This level of acceptance and adoption concealed the health hazards. The fundamental biochemistry it contains can have very dire pathologic consequences. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marijuana fastens to brain receptors that faintly alter systems that are ordinarily involved in some healthy behaviors such as learning, eating, and building relationships (PewResearchCenter, 4)[footnoteRef:6]. [5: Pew Research Center."Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana."Pew Research Center.2013. Web.] [6: Pew Research Center."Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana."Pew Research Center.2013. Web.]

This dangerous cognitive system is rewired by each hit of THC: Early results from studies conducted on mice have proved that continuous exposure to THC leads to the total disappearance of these receptors. This blunts the natural response to good behaviors and needs higher doses for the same effects to be achieved. Essential pathways are exploited by marijuana to recover a past memory, to…