You are on page 1of 3

To what ethical extent did Durai deserve what he got?

This is highly debatable because there are many stakeholders whose perspectives to being „ethical‟ may conflict. This issue can be assessed from the viewpoint of various stakeholders and to Durai himself. We question whether Durai was treated sufficiently, insufficiently, or too harshly. Most opinionated would be the faithful donors of NKF. While $5-$10 may not be a large sum, it means to some, like the man who sold tin cans for a living, forgoing a meal. These donors deserve, the least, having the money used for their chosen purpose in saving lives. Using the money for personal indulgence is wrongful reciprocation of their contributions, so in terms of the equity theory, Durai has committed an injustice against the donors of NKF. Justice is served when Durai is punished. Innocents were dragged in, such as NKF employees who had to face the sudden public ostracizing and verbal abuse regardless of their part (or none) played in this scandal. For NKF patients, there is already an opportunity cost in the current usage of funds that could have been put to better use such as in giving further subsidies, given that NKF‟s reserves could last above eight years. Thus, his lies in overstating patient numbers “to give the impression…that more funds would be required to run its operations” are especially serious. Ignoring the (Health) Minister of State‟s urge for greater transparency, Durai also failed to uphold his duty to the government and general public in portraying a clean image of NKF as a charity organisation. With so many stakeholders affected, concentration of effect and thus moral intensity is significant, thus it is only ethical that Durai takes responsibility for lying and failing his duty – the sins of deontology, and the most sufficient way to deal with a leader who no longer deserved his seat would be his resignation. However, it may also be argued that the scale of moral intensity does not warrant just a step-down. Much damage has been done, especially for the donors and the sued whose allegations of fund misuse were genuine. Even if Durai compensated in full these people, it still would not mitigate the public distrust and irreversible damage to NKF‟s reputation. Therefore, it would be insufficient – and unethical – for Durai to get away with the magnitude of his crime just by “escaping” from his post. However, Durai may be as much a victim as a villain. For all his thirty years of commitment and working an average of 18 hours a day (or so he claimed) in building the

in this utilitarian way. Yet.e. might still be his resignation simply as a clear symbol of his repentance and to maintain social order through appeasing the public. Unfortunately. the media may have rights to publish his misdeeds. but it would become unethical were they to have exaggerated the story for the sake of press publicity as a means to profit. talented Durai was a “wrong” character in the “wrong” place – the fact that NKF was not a business but a charity . even if it meant misleading others into donating more than NKF truly needed. Durai may have deserved the loss of his job. For misuse of funds. or maintenance for his Benz. thus. Besides. but the added humiliation by the press was unnecessary. the best way. does he deserve the merciless press coverage by of the media and the public ingrate? The media could argue that the deontological search for the truth which leads to corrective action is an uncompromisable principle. The greater good that emerged from pooling of individual donations balances each donor‟s expense when spread over the large donor base. It could be unfair to Durai to forgo his reward for his contributions. it might have been unethical in utilitarianism for society to fire a talented CEO when he could actually continue raising funds for patients. Durai did his duty as CEO. then he truly deserved what he got and more. or it might have been unethical for him to escape full responsibility by just resigning instead of going door to door begging for forgiveness. did Durai not deserve his fair share of reward for his achievements just like the CEO of any other business organisation would in terms of perks? Who is more unethical? It is uncertain because we know not their true intentions. thus it was ethical even if it means violating Durai‟s right to privacy. the ethical perspectives conflict among stakeholders. justifies his actions. flying first class. i. thus he is vindicated by the same deontological principle that judged his duty in upholding NKF‟s image. regardless of what Durai deserved. In virtue ethics. as twisted as it all may inherently sound. It seems that in significant moral intensity issues. the moral principle dictated by the masses. but the line is blurred if his greed was compensated with benevolence towards the patients. without his controversial fund-raising activities. if Durai‟s actions were at the expense of the public for the sole purpose of his luxury toilet. and instead look for what is the best way. in exceeding fundraising targets. Thus we see the grey in the issue. In conclusion. overrides individual rights of the lone agent. Alternatively. However.NKF brand and reach. In terms of individual rights and distributive justice. patients would not have been able to enjoy the benefits. We could even question the relevance of ethics. utilitarianism.

who was willing to be paid a dollar for his services.organisation would never change. leaders venturing into such fields should do so only if they are willing to sacrifice their monetary compensation for intangible ones like a sense of accomplishment. Thus. Mayor of New York City. Utilitarianism sacrificed his interests for the public moral preferences that CEO‟s of NPOs should be underpaid for their worth due to the job nature. Those seeking equity in terms of outcome to contribution ratio would be ethically safe in corporate settings where actions are assessed based on dollar signs! . taking for example. Michael Bloomberg.