Using a prepared case study and Kantian ethics, this paper explores the morality of undercover employee surveillance and whether it is correct or not. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_MTwormor.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
variety of moral and ethical dilemmas both for employees and employers. Once it was determined that shoplifting or sales were not the cause of the disappearing jewelry in Fanuchis department,
and once "in sight" monitoring of employees was performed by plainclothesmen (with no result), Fanuchi, out of desperation, turned to hidden employee monitoring. Within ten days, the camera helped nab
the culprit. Unfortunately, it also unearthed unsavory things about the stores other employees. In other words, in attempting to right a particular wrong, Fanuchi, through her actions, ended up exposing
a whole set of other "wrongs" that she would not have known about had she not resorted to clandestine methods to catch the jewelry department thief.
Unfortunately, Fanuchis dilemma isnt uncommon - in this age of high technology (which allows undercover snooping and monitoring through a variety of methods), as well as
the need for higher corporate profits, some companies are turning more and more to private employee monitoring to determine if there is any wrongdoing going on, particularly wrongdoing that could
impact the rest of the company. The problem is, however, is such undercover employee monitoring ethical or moral? Do the ends in the Fanuchi case justify the means?
According to Kantian theory, private employee monitoring - at least, without informing the employee - is not moral, no matter how compelling the reasons might
be, or how desperate the manager might be to find a perpetrator of a crime. This can directly be tracked to Kants theory, which states that no one should be
used unknowingly - or be unfairly exploited - to reach a means to an end. Overall, Kants theory states that people should "act only according to that maxim by which