The Hairy Potter Box

Harvard philosopher Ralph Potter devised a system to help analyze and determine situations with ethical reasoning. In a utopian world, the Potter Box would be used daily and religiously to make sure each and every decision a person makes is legally and ethically sound. Yet, as the world we live in is not utopian nor just, it is simply not feasible to employ the Potter Box for each decision.

The four steps of the Potter Box are simple enough. One, define the situation. Two, identify your values. Three, identify your guiding principal or philosophy. Four, choose your loyalties. Finally five, you make your decision. Five simple and easy steps, yet they do not take into account the consequences of each of your choices. For example, in ethics class we studied the case of a young college female, Ginny, currently employed as a sales intern at a radio station. The stations core value was to “do what is right for us, not the client.” Obviously, that is shady business practices at its finest but also it borders on the ethical line as well. Ginny, needing this internship has a few tough choices to make: she can either continue with this company and risk her reputation or she can defy her bosses and try and change the system. Ginny chose option one and remained with the company.

The consequences for her quitting her job would have been enormous. The pressure to graduate, financial obligations, and the needed business experience to add to her resume would be just a few reasons Ginny would be willing to stay at the company. The Potter Box simply asks questions without the foresight of consequences. Yes, all five questions are extremely easy to answer and if one has a problem with the results they are receiving I definitely believe that person should really examine and utilize the Potter Box for its natural insight it provides into the human mind. I find my dissention with the Potter Box on the post-evaluation.

I believe that Ginny made the right decision for herself. The negatives would have outweighed the positives. I do not agree with simply keeping quiet about the situation. She should have performed a case study and to help change the company’s business practices. Obviously, the bosses only care about financial gains. She should have devised a new system that still reaps financial rewards while still maintaining ethical and legal practices. If she can show that she still produces the same or even greater financial gain while building and maintaining client relationships, she would have proved her value as enormous and experience and insight indispensible. 

The Norm of Half-Truths in the Fast Food World

I am a fast food connoisseur. I love the notion of someone preparing my food for me and it being ready whenever I feel the time is right. I’m also not an elitist. I love McDonalds, Wendy’s, Pizza Hut, Pei Wei, Chick Fil A, and also the extremely controversial Taco Bell. I admit, when I bite into these deliciously prepared foods, I never question what exactly I am biting into; I just notice how scrumptious it is. Yet, with the great Taco Bell crisis of 2011, it has made me pause and actually question what until now has purely been unknown.

This week the entire population of fast food consumers was shocked when Taco Bell was hit with a lawsuit claiming that their ever delicious meat was not in fact meat. The lawsuit claimed that Taco Bell meat is only 35% meat; which is less than the 40% minimum the USDA legal limit. Please keep in mind that those percentages are out of 100.

While I have never questioned the food I was consuming, I have wondered about the ethics of the situation. Although fast food companies do not have to legally divulge what ingredients are in their products, if it is not 100% pure, do they have an ethical obligation to inform the consumers?

I honestly believe that the majority of Taco Bell consumers do not care that it is not 100% pure beef, I think where the breakdown of trust happened is that the deception went so far. Thirty-five is quite a ways away from 100. Consumers feel taken advantage of and lied too. Yet, Taco Bell can counter-claim that if they told the truth, their business would suffer.

It is my opinion that every business decision a company makes must be ethically sound. This helps instill customer loyalty and appreciation, and in return financially improve your business. Companies must make decisions that debate the legality of certain matters.  These decisions will be played out in the court of law. Ethical decisions debate what is inherently right and wrong and will played out in the court of public opinion; which is arguably the more influential of the two.

Ethically, Taco Bell should have been more forthcoming about their business practices. The backlash of this new information is more of shock and a feeling of being taken advantage of. I believe that because of the Taco Bell fallout we will begin to see more fast food establishments, and restaurants in general, begin to tout their ingredients as pure and fresh. The new ad campaign will claim to be running because their respective companies are “ethically sound,” but really they are trying to capitalize on a market opening.