Validating unethical behaviors
Research on trust in buyer–supplier relationships has tended to focus on the performance outcomes of a trusting relationship, as well as the processes that serve to build trust.Largely absent from the buyer–supplier literature is an in-depth examination of activities that break down trust, and the resulting effect on supplier trust in the buyer.
Survey data was collected from 110 tier one suppliers of major corporations in the state of Ohio.Snooping into the contents of your host's medicine cabinet is wrong, and the fact that you discovered a mislabeled pill bottle with rat poison in it doesn't make your violation of her privacy ethical, even though it allows you to tell her and save her life. Similarly, an ethical act doesn't become wrong because it happens to set in motion an unpredictable chain reaction resulting in a catastrophe. Barry declared that since there was no law against using the public payroll as his own private gift service, there was nothing unethical about it.In the classic old "Star Trek" episode, "The City on the Edge of Forever," Dr. That doesn't mean his courageous and selfless act was unethical. Once the law was passed (because of him), he then agreed that what he did would be wrong the next time he did it. Many other kinds of behavior as well, but that is just the factual error in this rationalization.Mc Coy rescuing a woman from being killed results in Nazi Germany winning W. Ethics is far broader than law, which is a system of behavior enforced by the state with penalties for violations. The greater problem with it is that it omits the concept of ethics at all.Of course, people who use this "reasoning" usually don't believe that what they are doing is right because "everybody does it." They usually are arguing that they shouldn't be singled out for condemnation if "everybody else" isn't.s both a rationalization and a distraction.As a rationalization, it posits the absurd argument that because there is other wrongdoing by others that is similar, as bad or worse than the unethical conduct under examination, the wrongdoer's conduct shouldn't be criticized or noticed.
As a distraction, the excuse is a pathetic attempt to focus a critic's attention elsewhere, by shouting, "Never mind me! The ethical nature of an act must be evaluated when it is done, and not based on its results.
Consequentialism is an open invitation to extreme "the ends justify the mean" conduct, where even cruel and illegal conduct becomes "ethical" because good consequences happen to arise out of it, even when the good was completely unintended or unpredictable. Mayor Marion Barry earned himself a place in the Ethics Distortion Hall of Fame with his defense of his giving his blatantly unqualified girlfriend a high-paying job with the DC government.
Our results show how a supplier's perception of a violation of the psychological contract either partially mediates or fully mediates the relationship between the buyers unethical activity and the suppliers trust in that buyer.
We discuss how suppliers may demonstrate bounded ethicality when they overlook perceived unethical behaviors by the buyer.
This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization.
It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if "everybody does it," then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch African-Americans.