Scaffold Plank

The Scaffold Plank Incident case is about three principal people, or players, Stan, Bob, and John. Stan is a lumber buyer from Quality lumber, who buys lumber for construction jobs. John owns a company called White Lumber, who provides good deals for Stan and his company; giving them a strong relationship. Bob is an employee at White Lumber who has gotten a college degree and was given a job by John. An issue arises as Stan is placing lumber orders that often may need to qualify as being scaffold plank, in order to properly support workers high up in suspension. The issue is that the lumber John is selling is not up to the code required for this type of work, but he is not saying anything because it is paying the bills. However, Bob realizes the issue at hand and confronts John about it, in which he is told to let it go and keep quite basically. Bob has to decide if selling lumber to Quality is a necessary adjustment, or is this a “first fork” in the direction of a place he doesn’t want to end up? I will discuss the proper methods to handle this situation using the five views of ethics: utilitarian view, rights view, justice view, relativist view, and Christian view.

The utilitarian view of ethics is the action to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number while creating the least amount of harm. It is about producing the best balance between both sides. If Bob were to take the lumber issue into his hands using the utilitarian view, this would mean that he would have to go ahead and be let known that the lumber that is being sold is not up to the code of scaffold plank. This view of ethics is to prevent harm towards one another. Bob would not be able to “tattle” on John though, because this could cost him his job, which is considered harmful. For Bob to approach this in a balanced manner, he must take into consideration both sides; those who are buying the lumber, and all the employees at his job. Because of this dilemma, I do not think that the utilitarian approach is the best ethical way to solve this. In this case, Bob is put in a position where he must choose a side to be on. There is not a clear solution as to which neither party might be harmed, a risk must be taken.

The rights view of ethics is described as considering the fundamental civil and economic rights and pertains to the dignity of the human. This would be one of the proper choices of views to go with in dealing with the lumber issue, in my opinion. By beating around the bush about the quality of the lumber and suggesting ways around having to tell Quality and its buyers that the lumber is not scaffold plank, this goes against what is legally right to a degree, and certainly is a issue that deals with the dignity of an individual. Bob, under this view of ethics, would have to go with what is legally right, which would be turning in John for essentially fraud. Although this could hurt his business and jobs may be lost, including Bob’s, this is