solved Select a WSJ article that reports on an ethical dilemma

Select a WSJ article that reports on an ethical dilemma related to the week’s textbook chapter reading. Read the article and post your personal reaction to the article. You are being asked to form a moral or ethical judgment of the ramifications and implications of the ethical dilemma that you have identified in the WSJ article.

Review the Netiquette policies (Links to an external site.) before posting.
The approximate length of a discussion forum response should be about 200 words, 20 lines;
Succinctly summarize the article that you have selected;
Present the ethical dilemma that you have identified in the article as a question;
Select and apply any one of the many ethical theories which are covered in the course (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc.) to carry out your ethical analysis;
Form an objective moral or ethical judgment of the ramifications and implications of the ethical dilemma that you have identified in the WSJ article

By Exer
Hertz’s Mom-and-Pop Investors Face a Bankruptcy Process Not Designed for Them
This article it is discussing the implications that Hertz is going through in the bankruptcy process. This means the overall process whether it is the stockholders or whether it is what is going on in their business. In the article, Hertz is faced with a dilemma on their own, which is to tell their stockholders about the situations that are at hand along with helping them with the process of letting them do it on their own. They mention that people who are not known to this are the bigger investors compared to the smaller ones which they are considering the mom and pop investors. While I think they are faced with a dilemma I think that it should be obvious from my perspective which is to help them through the process and tell them the different options that they have. Since they are smaller investors putting in what they can afford into a dying business I think that is the right thing to do morally which is to help the small investors. In the article, they mention that most big companies that invest in other companies have the capital to go out and seek other professional opinions on what to do with the situation that they are put in. They also mention that bigger companies know how to handle the rights offering while this was mentioned in the article, “the rights offering isn’t open too many individual investors, who must meet certain criteria under federal securities law to participate” I feel as if this is targeting smaller companies not giving them a chance to get those certain things that they might want and this is stopping them, many mom and pop investors are not going to be able to reach that and is directed to bigger companies. If they were given a chance and shown the proper way to do things this will less likely happen to be an article I would be discussing.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hertzs-mom-and-pop-in… (Links to an external site.)
By Alicia
Can a code of conduct and set protocols help to avoid dishonest and deceptive behavior in the workplace?
Last month, Nancy Mozzachio, who was the former COO of the company Cedar Realty Trust, was fired from her position. She claims that she was fired after injuring about legal options regarding sexual harassment and discrimination she was facing at work. Upon further investigation from the company it was apparent that her inquiry occurred after an investigation started against Mozzachio for submitting a fraudulent reimbursement request.
This week’s textbook chapter discusses the fact that “employees may cynically believe that people who violate the organization’s codes of ethics and conduct are neither caught nor punished”. It is clear based upon this article, that when ethics are made a priority in an organization, this statement does not hold true. Cedar Realty Trust had a pre-established code of ethics and board for the purpose of objectively evaluating situations that could potentially violate the company’s ethical values. When evaluating the actions taken by Mozzachio from a utilitarianism lens, her actions were not ethical. There was only one person that was benefitted by her actions: herself. The owner(s) of the company and everyone affected by the company’s financial standing would be affected negatively should the money just be handed over for her to use towards her house’s security deposit. The action is detrimental to the greatest number of people.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/allegations-against-c…