Ethics: I always find a way to mention Scalia

Hello friends,

For Monday we have been asked to respond to the following prompt:

"For at least a year, reporters on your paper have heard rumors that a retirement home is negligent in its care of the elderly. Your editor asks you to get a job there as a janitor and to report what you find. What would be your response, and why?" 

Okay. So this is quite the theoretical question and feels like taking a major turn from what is normally a political blog. Moderation is key, right?

Alright, so the way I look at this, it makes sense to take the janitorial job in order to try and uncover potential negligence. 

The alternative to uncovering negligence would be the preferable result, and would only result in an awkward exchange where I would have to discontinue my janitorial duties and quit. That doesn't sound like it would be too bad in the scheme of things. 

The ideal situation would be to not have a story to write at all. These ongoing rumors would either be validated, or would be discontinued, and that would benefit the entire community to end speculation. 

If negligence were occurring, the story would benefit those in the retirement community that are being mistreated. 

Taking action by accepting the assignment using the potter box is how that determination could (and should) be made. Combining values, principles, and loyalties to determine judgment result in the right decision for the individual in the situation. Because I am speaking from my position, I can only say that taking action is what I determine to be the right thing. 

I would like to utilize situation ethics to say that this story is very situational and can justify taking action. In this assignment by applying the ethics of final ends, which I feel is appropriate, taking action by accepting the assignment from the editor and posing as a janitor in the retirement home would be the best course of action. 

I reject the idea that an absolutist approach should be taken in this, or any situation. If I learned one thing from constitutional law, it is that there are no absolutes. Not even Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia can pull off trying to be an absolutist, although he will continue to claim that he is despite the facts against him that prove otherwise.