This scenario takes place in an alternate universe. Take the…

Questions

This scenаriо tаkes plаce in an alternate universe. Take the wоrld exactly as it is presented. Yоu love animals and hold a degree in veterinary assistance. For the past seven years, you have worked at a government-run animal rescue shelter. You genuinely enjoy your job and believe your work has brought meaningful value to the animals in your care. Although your shelter operates on the smallest budget in the state (measured dollar per dollar), it proportionately serves the highest number of animals and achieves better outcomes than any other shelter. Over the past decade, however, the state government has mismanaged funds and experienced severe budget shortfalls. Each year, funding for your shelter has been reduced. Despite these cuts, your shelter has maintained the same level of service and effectiveness. State law requires anyone who sells animals to obtain a breeding/selling license from a government-run animal shelter. In the past, your manager has handled all site visits and paperwork for these licenses. You are aware that approximately one-quarter of your shelter’s funding comes from issuing breeding/selling licenses. Your manager approaches you with a promotion opportunity. The new role includes all of your current responsibilities plus conducting site visits and approving breeding/selling licenses. The promotion comes with a $5,000 annual raise. Because you hold a degree in veterinary assistance and have professional training in animal health and care, your manager explains that your involvement would add credibility and legitimacy to the licensing process. Breeders and members of the public would likely trust the licenses more if they knew that someone with formal education in animal care had personally inspected and approved the sites. In other words, your professional credentials would strengthen the perceived ethical authority of the shelter’s approvals. On your first site visit in this new role, you are given a standardized form to complete. The form asks whether the breeder/seller provides basic items such as water bowls, food, and toys. However, there are no questions addressing the overall welfare of the animals. The form functions as a flow chart: if the breeder/seller meets the listed minimum requirements, you must approve the license. When you arrive at the site, you are horrified. Several animals are sick and clearly being neglected. There are too many animals crowded into limited space. Waste is not being cleaned up. The food provided is of poor quality. In your judgment, the operation resembles an unethical puppy mill. You review the form and realize that, technically, the breeder/seller has met the minimum requirements. According to the policy, you are required to approve the license. Yet you are deeply troubled by what you witnessed and believe the animals are suffering. You go to your manager and explain your concerns. Your manager responds that it is not your role to judge animal welfare beyond the minimum checklist. Your responsibility, the manager insists, is to approve licenses so the shelter can receive the associated funding. The manager explains that all government shelters in the state compete for funding. If your shelter refuses to issue the license, another shelter in a different city will approve it. At least, your manager argues, your shelter requires basic standards (water, food, toys) and conducts site visits, while other shelters issue licenses without any site inspection at all. If you make too much of an issue, the breeder/seller will simply go elsewhere, and your shelter will lose that funding—funding that supports many other animals. Your manager attempts to reassure you: by approving the license, you at least have an opportunity to offer advice to breeders and encourage incremental improvements. It is better, the manager suggests, to have someone who cares involved than someone who does not. The manager concludes with a warning: if you refuse to sign off on licenses that meet the minimum requirements, you will be demoted and replaced by someone who causes fewer problems. You now recognize that your signature would not only authorize the license but also lend professional legitimacy to a system you believe is ethically compromised. You must now decide (pick 1): A) Sign off on the licenses—even at facilities you believe are ethically unacceptable—in order to maintain your promotion, secure funding for your shelter, and potentially serve as a small positive influence. or B) Refuse to approve licenses for facilities you believe are harmful, even if doing so costs you your promotion, reduces your shelter’s funding, and does not ultimately prevent the breeder from obtaining a license elsewhere. To help answer this question, you devise a thought experiment of creating a council of 3 philosophers (that we have covered in your CEI Ethics class). Which three philosophers would you choose to sit on your council and what important perspective do they each offer? What advice do you think each philosopher would give? Make sure to cite evidence from the reading to justify your reasoning. How would each philosopher answer the other’s points? Finally, I want you to make a decision on the issue and explain your reasoning. Excellent responses will include correct term usage, definitions, examples, and cited quotations with page numbers to support the points you are making.  

The cоmplexity оf these fаctоrs mаkes the аssessment of new ventures extremely ___________