Ethics - the Student Council Dilema

Case summary:  the case tells about the unethical behaviour of two students of a management institute, and the consequences and actions of different elements of the institute. Two students Jeetender and Harshad, decide to sell some work published by the students of the institute for internal consumption, to companies for financing their stay in the institute and also help some friends. They are caught by the alumni of the institute and the matter is reported to the student council. The student council decides to let them off easy with a stern warning. Dharmesh, another student plans to uncover the truth, and in a student meeting, puts forward a motion to disband the student council. With a majority vote, the student council saves itself from disbanding, but passes on the issue to authorities, who debar the students from upcoming placement season.

Actors: the major actors of the plot are the two unethical students, student council, Dharmesh and the institute authorities.

Behavioural analysis: after reading the case, the most obvious thing is the actions taken by Jeetender and Harshad were immoral and unethical. Taking complete credit for the collective work of people is immoral and unethical in any universe. Theorists argue that selfishness is also a virtue. We cannot always sacrifice our own interests for the good of others. But according to me, the actions of these two students had more greed then selfishness. And no theorist suggests the use of immoral methods for satisfying your greed. Some might say that their intentions were not completely wrong as they wanted to help some friends and finance their studies. Deontology theories state that “ends do not always justify means”. A person has also to consider some principles in choosing the alternative. The most plausible explanation to their actions can be attributed to ignorance (in this case wilful and intentional). Maybe they thought that their actions won’t be discovered and anybody else might do the same thing if faced with this situation. They even might have considered only limited alternatives. But their actions are surely unethical and every college law says that these culprits should be punished.

The student council at the earlier stages tries to save the culprits, concerned about their future and also the future of this institute. Later when their own existence is in danger, they report the instance to the institute authorities. According to the utilitarian theory, an alternative with the best consequences is chosen. The student council tried to select an alternative, in which they thought everybody could benefit. Some students accuse them of cold-shouldering the incident or maybe even being a part of the whole plot. But when accused of being a part of the whole incident, their reactions changed from tension to anger. Most people would not see any wrongdoing on their part in the incident after their reactions and statements, but surely, many would consider their reactions on the incident too light and easy-going.  They would have surely considered all the alternatives before them, and came out with a plan, which they thought had the best consequences for all the parties concerned. The institute would maintain its reputation as no case would be reported to the press, the student body would still be able to use the invaluable work exclusively and the two culprits’ future would still be secure even after their wrongdoing. Students had a problem with the third consequence, where they felt that the culprits needed to be given a harsher punishment.