Ethical Theories on Crisis Management

By: Emily Gilbert, Olivia Karwoski, and Kasey Carpenter


REVISE: Blog Post 4

20th Century Fox got caught creating fake news in order to promote their own movie, “A Cure for Wellness”. They have created websites such as The Salt Lake City Guardian and The Houston Leader, among others. Articles on these websites have been made with collaborators from fake news creators and their articles have been shared thousands of times across Facebook, and people believing that they are true.

On of the big articles posted is called “Trump Orders CDC to Remove All Vaccination Related Information from Website” and another one called “LEAKED: Lady Gaga Halftime Performance to Feature Muslim Tribute”. The last article was shared 65,000k times on Facebook and the majority of them believe it to be true. The author stated in the the New York Times that, “the articles were puzzling as a marketing tool, containing promotional hashtags like #cureforwellness or #takethecure and plot references, but adding substantial portions of verified information so as to look like real news.”

Robert C. Solomon would agree that this is unethical because they are lying. He believes that there is never a right to lie. He states, “The one thing that a person cannot do is to think that telling a lie- any lie- is just as good or right as telling the truth, and so needs no special justification for doing so” (Martin, 163). He believes that overall lying is wrong and there is not excuse to ever do it, but the degree of lie that you tell is on a spectrum. Some lies are worse than others.

He states specifically that, “looking only at short-term and immediate benefits, that the harm done by some lies is considerably less than the harm that would be done by telling the ‘unvarnished truth,'” (Martin, 164). This is relatable to 20th Century Fox because their gain from their lies were to only intended for short-term awareness of the movie that had just released.

He ends his argument about short-term lies with, “the cost of a cover-up is often many times more than the damage done by the lie itself, even if the cover-up is successful” (Martin, 164). The reputation that was damaged by 20th Century Fox from these fake websites will last longer than the success of the “A Cure for Wellness”. Lying to the public and using the media to their advantage resulted in unethical business decisions and a loss of company reputation.




Martin, C. W., Vaught, W., & Solomon, R. C. (2017). Ethics across the professions: a reader for professional ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

REVISE: Blog Post 3

Due to lack of sales, Nordstrom pulled Ivanka Trump’s clothing line from their stores. President Trump tweeted from his personal account and his presidential account. He tweeted from his personal account stating, “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” This tweet has also been retweeted by his POTUS Twitter account. Nordstrom works with many executive branches, which are lead by the President’s appointees. The President can easily make life difficult for the store after this situation.

Department stores are now aware of the situation and are knowledgable enough not to make the same mistake. The free markets are now at risk with President Trump intimidating brands such as Nordstrom. Ironically for the president, Nordstrom stock shares went up almost 5% since he tweeted about the brand and their business decision.

McFall’s position on integrity is about the individual and our moral commitments. McFall states in, Standing for Something that “One cannot maintain one’s integrity if one has unconditional commitments that conflict, for example, justice and personal happiness or conditional commitments that cannot be ranked, for example, truth telling and kindness,” (Martin, 298-299).

With the position that President Trump has in this country compared to this situation has a big impact on the publics’ opinion, especially supporters of his own. Since he has been elected, the American people have been concerned with freedom of religion and press, and now the free market is at risk, especially with an American company. Using his power to help his daughter keep her line at Nordstrom is an ethical violation, intimidation, lack of integrity, and an abuse of power in his position. Nordstrom’s decision to cut Ivanka’s line was a business decision and the president interpreted it as a political decision by using his position and both of his Twitter accounts.

This also brings up an interesting point that our President is more concerned with a customer service issue and has time to tweet about it than anything else that’s going on in our country. The President’s Twitter account should not be used as a marketing tool to mcmake money.

McFall states that, “some of our principles or commitments are more important to us than others. Those that can be sacrificed without remorse may be called defeasible commitment… If we go against these commitments we destroy our moral identity” (Martin, 301).

In the case of President Trump he lacks integrity because of his unconditional commitment of personal happiness and the success of his daughter. McFall believes one type of coherence is that simple consistency within one’s set of principles or commitments. Using his power for personal gain and happiness for himself and his daughter.



Martin, C. W., Vaught, W., & Solomon, R. C. (2017). Ethics across the professions: a reader for professional ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Twitter sues the U.S. Government

Source Article

Twitter sues the United States Government on Thursday April 6 f Twitter account @.ALT_USCIS is allegedly an account run by a federal employee, which criticizes the Trump administration. Twitter says in its filing that they are not compelled to release the identity of the account holder. Past presidential administrations have tried to access digital information from social media platform claiming they need the data for national security reasons.

A similar situation occurred in 2015 when the government asked Apple to unlock an iPhone by a gunman who shot 14 people. Apple refused because it was against the “customers’ privacy concerns and the potential legal precedent.” The FBI ended up getting into the iPhone without Apple’s help.

This is a lack of integrity from the government’s point of view in requesting that Twitter release the identity of this user. Twitter refused because it is under the protection of free speech, which “is critical to the social media company’s platform,” which shows they do have integrity in upholding their terms and conditions.

U.S. Code 1509 is a federal law that allows the government to “obtain documents only for investigations and inquires relating to the importation of merchandise.” However this was not relevant to the request from the Customs and Border Protection that was sent to Twitter to hand over information from this Twitter account and “violated the Stored Communications Act, which protects individual’s privacy and proprietary interests.”

For the U.S. Government to insist on receiving private information shows they are willing to break the law to get what they want.

BP 8

Source Article

Companies like AT&T and Johnson & Johnson are threatening to remove their ads from Google because Google is not doing enough to prevent brands from appearing next to offensive material. Google has said they are putting together a plan and are trying to resolve the problem, but that is not good enough.

The New York Times reported that, “The company has defended itself by noting that it prevents ads, which are placed on websites automatically, from running near inappropriate material “in the vast majority of cases.” It also said it added thousands of sites to its ad network every day, as well as 400 hours of video to YouTube every minute.”

AT&T is concerned that their ads may have appeared alongside YouTube content promoting terrorism and hate. They are removing their advertisements until Google ensures it does not happen again. Similarly, Johnson & Johnson are removing their ads to “ensure our product advertising does not appear on channels that promote offensive content.”

Google has begun a review of their advertising policies and have made a public commitment to put in place changes that give brands more control over where their ads appear. It seems that are not putting this at a high enough priority.

This can be related to consequentialism because Google is doing wrong and lacking integrity because they are not taking enough serious action about this matter. They seem to only start taking action now, because large advertising companies are threatening to remove their advertisements from any related Google website.

This is a bigger deal for smaller companies, such as Lyft, because their target audience is a younger generation. YouTube is a big platform for them to advertise on. They are losing a lot of potential customers by removing their ads because they do not want be associated with the types of advertisements that Google is sharing on their websites.

BP 7

Source Article

The article, 2 Federal Judges Rule Against Trump’s Latest Travel Ban, discusses judges from Hawaii and Maryland who rules against the travel ban. This newer and revised plan affects six countries.

Judge Derrick K Watson’s of Federal District Court in Honolulu stated that a “reasonable, objective observer would view even the new order as issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously neutral purpose”.

Trump accused him of ruling in that favor for political reasons. President Trump said he might “reissue the initial version of the order, rather than the one blocked on Wednesday, which he described as ‘a watered-down version of the first one.’” 

Judge Watson believes that this is religious discrimination and that “Donald Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He also added the, “…Muslim ban will not separate families and loved ones just because they happen to be from the six countries.” In addition, Judge Chuang from Maryland stated that he believed the national security purpose is not the primary purpose for the travel ban.

This this case, I think the judges are right and Mr. Trump lacks integrity his proposal for the travel ban. He is stereotyping a group of people, especially from the 6 countries involved, and grouping them into one category. Making assumptions about a group of people based on religion or where they live, and restricting them access to our country is ridiculous. We have come so far in moving away from racism and generalizations that implementing this ban will take us 50 steps backward.

Mr. Trump is lacking the integrity and not understanding the implications that this travel ban will have on the people who already live here. It won’t allow certain people in the country to see their families and separates them. He is not thinking about the consequences this will have on these countries and the families involved.

BP #6 Uber Executive Resigns

Source Article

Amit Singhal was immediately asked to resign after failing to disclose a claim of sexual harassment from his prior job at Google, which was the reason for him leaving the organization. Google was going to let him go due to the issue, but Singhal resigned on his own and mentioned no claim in his notice. He was a strong executive at Google for over 15 years and no such claims have come about, until now. Just over a week ago, it came to light that Uber “had ignored female employees’ complaints of sexual harassment.”

Uber’s Human Resources department has recently been ignoring sexual harassment claims from numerous employees and just brushing it under the rug. The dismissal of Singhal leads the community to believe that Uber will change the way they deal with sexual harassment claims in the future.

This is relatable to the lack of integrity. It seems as though Uber is only taken the corrective action because of the publicity that came about with the female employees. Uber lacked integrity in the sense that they only thought it was unethical once it became in the public eye. Ignoring the claims for so long is very unsettling and I think that Uber needs to take serious action and reevaluate their Human Resources department. Hopefully, Uber will start taking these sexual harassment claims more seriously now the community is aware of the on going issues.