|
This question is designed to
evaluate your ability to reason through complexities
rather than to assess your ethical standards. In other
words, the admissions committee is not looking to
confirm that you are a good person. Moreover, the
dilemma you choose should not have a clear "right"
answer. For example, if your essay involves you
struggling against temptation to make the ethical
choice, then that is not a dilemma. A dilemma must
involve two choices for which equally compelling
arguments exist.
The most common approach to
this essay is to set yourself up for a third option that
offers a compromise between the two original choices. Be
careful that this third option isn't a copout or
immediately obvious from the beginning. The best essays
will conclude with a genuinely creative solution that
effectively addresses both sides of the equation.
You can, of course, simply
decide to go with one option over the other, but you
should have a clear reason for your decision. Don't
simply describe the reasons for both sides and
arbitrarily choose one in the end. Justify your choice,
and show how you dealt with the negative consequences
that resulted from it.
The hardest part about this
essay is often finding the right topic, so the following
is a list of possible scenarios to spark your thinking.
Keep in mind that you'll have to do more than substitute
your own details, however, because these generic
examples don't reach the level of complexity that your
answer should reach.
Scenario 1:
You discover that your immediate supervisor is taking
kickbacks. You are uncertain whether to report it. The
conflict is between your loyalty to your boss and your
commitment to the greater good of the company.
Possible solution:
You decide to turn your boss in, appealing to absolute
moral standards. The fact that he has committed a wrong
outweighs your personal feelings of friendship.
Better solution: You
decide to confront your boss directly, demanding an end
to the unethical behavior. This is a compromise in the
sense that you're not betraying him outright, but you're
seeking the best interests of your company. This
solution is stronger because it shows more nuanced
thinking and problem solving.
Note that one problem with
this dilemma is that it's hard to justify doing nothing
about the situation. If you offer the second solution,
then you're at least showing a creative analysis,
whereas if you go with the first solution, you're merely
appealing to the "what's right is right" principle,
which may be too simplistic.
Scenario 2:
You work for a nonprofit organization that helps AIDS
victims. You discover a government error that results in
significantly higher funding for your organization. Do
you keep the money, which you know will go to a good
cause, or do you report the error?
Possible solution:
You decide to keep the money, arguing that it could not
go to a better cause if sent back through the
bureaucracy.
Possible solution:
You decide to report the error, because it's not your
position to determine the best use for that money.
Third option: You
write up a proposal for how that extra money would be
used. You then contact donors who have been generous in
the past explaining your situation and asking that they
help you to generate the funds so that you can return
the misrouted government money.
Perhaps you could have come
up with an even better third option. This scenario does
at least have two more equally matched alternatives. If
you chose one side over the other, you should have more
fully fleshed out your reasoning to justify your
decision. |
