Case Study:A convicted mobster decides to make a charitable contribution. He offers more than $1 million to a hospital to build a children’s wing. He will make the contribution if the new pavilion is named after him. The hospital board accepts the gift, with that stipulation. Do you think the hospital was right in accepting the gift?
The question seems to skip some details. If the money of the convicted person is black money or extracted from extortion etc. But assuming if the earning itself is from questionable sources.
There are broadly three stakeholders : criminal, health institution and children
1. The criminal : in quest to improve social standing and gain public confidence seeks to justify his acts as opposed to whatever wrongs he committed. Legal system follows rule of law he committed crime and no donation or good deed can over power it. Here he has committed a legal offence, but in society both ethical and social morality prevails. It could be very well true that he gains publicity for such an act.
There seems to be clear intent of criminal to improve his image and social standing by insisting on naming a hospital division after him.
2. Public health institution : will gain from the extra funding and will be able to develop its infrastructure. Over all it will help increase capacity and capability of the institution. Especially for children.
3. Children : The children and their parents will be benefitted from a separate division created for children. To cater and attend to. By focusing on children's health it improves lives of children and their families deriving benefit out of the separate institution created.
If it is right or wrong :
1. Consequentialism argues that an action is good or bad depends more on outcome. The action here seems to do good for the people (children). Using Bentham's argument it is justified if it creates greatest good for the greatest number. example : 1000 children benefitted >criminal acts of one
2. Deontologically it is wrong as action is wrong. It seems to derive money from a questionable source and put it in for good use. But the action itself is morally unjustified.
Concluding,
In long term it will compromise public institution credibility and set a bad precedent in the society. Also it compromises the integrity of a public institution (hospital). Maybe it will benefit the hospital and improve its capability. But the cost though intangible will compromise ethics of governance. Hence hospital is wrong in accepting donation from convicted person.
Inputs welcomed
Case Study:A convicted mobster decides to make a charitable contribution. He offers more than $1 million to a hospital to build a children’s wing. He will make the contribution if the new pavilion is named after him. The hospital board accepts the gift, with that stipulation. Do you think the hospital was right in accepting the gift?The question seems to skip some details. If the money of the convicted person is black money or extracted from extortion etc. But assuming if the earning itself is from questionable sources.
There are broadly three stakeholders : criminal, health institution and children
1. The criminal : in quest to improve social standing and gain public confidence seeks to justify his acts as opposed to whatever wrongs he committed. Legal system follows rule of law he committed crime and no donation or good deed can over power it. Here he has committed a legal offence, but in society both ethical and social morality prevails. It could be very well true that he gains publicity for such an act.
There seems to be clear intent of criminal to improve his image and social standing by insisting on naming a hospital division after him.
2. Public health institution : will gain from the extra funding and will be able to develop its infrastructure. Over all it will help increase capacity and capability of the institution. Especially for children.
3. Children : The children and their parents will be benefitted from a separate division created for children. To cater and attend to. By focusing on children's health it improves lives of children and their families deriving benefit out of the separate institution created.
If it is right or wrong :
1. Consequentialism argues that an action is good or bad depends more on outcome. The action here seems to do good for the people (children). Using Bentham's argument it is justified if it creates greatest good for the greatest number. example : 1000 children benefitted >criminal acts of one
2. Deontologically it is wrong as action is wrong. It seems to derive money from a questionable source and put it in for good use. But the action itself is morally unjustified.
Concluding,
In long term it will compromise public institution credibility and set a bad precedent in the society. Also it compromises the integrity of a public institution (hospital). Maybe it will benefit the hospital and improve its capability. But the cost though intangible will compromise ethics of governance. Hence hospital is wrong in accepting donation from convicted person.
Inputs welcomed
I have another line of thought in my mind.
The money that was obtained was obtained by a mobster. He is proven to have been unethical. while you rightly say, that the source of money is not mentioned, perhaps this can be added in the answer as a flipside - The hospital can get a background check done and check source of funds. If the money is legal, they can accept. After all, a moral society should give everyone a chance for redemption.
Kindly do answer if my approach is satisfactory with regards how answers are to be written in the exam.
Last attempt got only 59 marks in ethics.
Really need help (aap sab ki). Especially in case studies. Thanks.
