CASE STUDY COMMENTARY
CASE STUDY COMMENTARY
individual written task in Harvard style format, cover page, Table of Contents, text alignment and Reference list.
The student must build a coherent discussion or argument in essay format, analyzing theories and models. Ethical theories, legal cases and case studies
may be referred to when providing examples. Cite all sources.
Students must write in complete sentences and develop paragraphs. No bullet points are allowed. Provide spacing between the sentences.
Prepare and Introduction, Body, and Conclusion paragraphs.
Sources must be used, identified, and properly cited.
Format: PDF submitted through Turnitin
The answers should analyse the following based on the case study provided with this task below the Rubrics:
1. Identify and explain the relevant parties in this case study? 2. Identify and explain in order the ethical issues related to each party involved in this case study? Cite your sources. 3. What ethical theories can each party use to support their behavior or decisions? Cite your sources. 4. Identify an ethical theory that would be a counter argument to each position in Question 3? Cite your sources. 5. Identify and explain an additional case that supports or differentiates this case.
Submission: Week 10 – Via Moodle by Sunday, 18 April 2021 before 23:59.
• Wordcount: 800 to 1000
• Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are excluded of the total word count.
• Font: Arial 11 pts.
• Text alignment: Justified.
• The in-text References and the Bibliography must be in Harvard’s citation style.
Weight: This task is worth 15% of your overall grade for this subject.
Outcomes: This task assesses the following learning outcomes:
– LO1: understand the role of ethics in a business. – LO2: identify ethical issues in the decision-making process. – LO3: identify and analyze the available ethical theories to support a business decision.
Marginal fail 60-69
Identification of main Issues/Problems 25%
Identifies and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the main issues / problems in the case study
Identifies and demonstrates an accomplished understanding of most of the issues/problems.
Identifies and demonstrates acceptable understanding of some of the issues/problems in the case study
Does not identify or demonstrate an acceptable understanding of the issues/problems in the case study
Analysis and Evaluation of Issues / Problems 25%
Presents an insightful and thorough analysis of all identified issues/problems
Presents a thorough analysis of most of the issues identified.
Presents a superficial analysis of some of the identified issues.
Presents an incomplete analysis of the identified issues.
Development of Ideas
Supports diagnosis and opinions with strong arguments and well- documented evidence; presents a balanced and critical view; interpretation is both reasonable and objective.
Supports diagnosis and opinions with limited reasoning and evidence; presents a somewhat one-sided argument; demonstrates little engagement with ideas presented
Little action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study.
No action suggested and/or inappropriate solutions proposed to the issues in the case study
Link to Legal Theories and Additional Research
Makes appropriate and powerful connections between identified issues/problems and strategic concepts studied in the course readings and lectures; supplements case study with relevant and thoughtful research and documents all sources of information, including ethical theories and virtues
Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between identified issues/problems and concepts studied in readings and lectures; demonstrates limited command of the analytical tools studied; supplements case study with limited research, ethical theories and virtues
Makes inappropriate or little connection between issues identified and the concepts studied in the readings; supplements case study, if at all, with incomplete research and documentation.
Makes no connection between issues identified and the concepts studied in the readings; supplements case study, if at all, with incomplete research and documentation.
In 2013, computer expert and former CIA systems administrator, Edward Snowden released confidential government documents to the press about the existence of government surveillance programs. According to many legal experts, and the U.S. government, his actions violated the Espionage Act of 1917, which identified the leak of state secrets as an act of treason. Yet despite the fact that he broke the law, Snowden argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his “whistleblowing” by stating that he had a duty “to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.” According to Snowden, the government’s violation of privacy had to be exposed regardless of legality.
Many agreed with Snowden. Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project defended his actions as ethical, arguing that he acted from a sense of public good. Radack said, “Snowden may have violated a secrecy agreement, which is not a loyalty oath but a contract, and a less important one than the social contract a democracy has with its citizenry.” Others argued that even if he was legally culpable, he was not ethically culpable because the law itself was unjust and unconstitutional.
The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, did not find Snowden’s rationale convincing. Holder stated, “He broke the law. He caused harm to our national security and I think that he has to be held accountable for his actions.”
Journalists were conflicted about the ethical implications of Snowden’s actions. The editorial board of The New York Times stated, “He may have committed a crime…but he has done his country a great service.” In an Op-ed in the same newspaper, Ed Morrissey argued that Snowden was not a hero, but a criminal: “by leaking information about the behavior rather than reporting it through legal channels, Snowden chose to break the law.” According to Morrissey, Snowden should be prosecuted for his actions, arguing that his actions broke a law “intended to keep legitimate national-security data and assets safe from our enemies; it is intended to keep Americans safe.”