• Uncategorized

Ethical Reasoning and Action

EthicalReasoning and Action

EthicalReasoning and Action

Everyprofession requires that there are ethics and the behaviors thereinthat attract good governance. In the issue of the organizationshosting government officials from foreign countries with an agendawould amount to a lack of ethics depending on the manner in whichthey conduct the hosting. If the government officials are hosted andare given cash tokens, that would amount to corruption, which is anunethical practice. In the case where the government officials werehosted, and all the expenditure that was incurred by the hosting firmwere said to be within the framework of the limits set (Fredericksonand Rohr, 2015). As such the action was ethical and amounted to nocorruption issues.


First,it was submitted that the requestor shall not pay any penny to theofficials but will pay all the expenses directly to the serviceproviders. ForeignCorrupt Practice Act provides mechanisms to examine and audit foreigndealings (Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspand Agusti,&nbsp2014). Theyalso report on corruption. Thesubmission was vital to the department of justice in demonstratingthat it was only ethical and professional not to give tokens to theofficials. It was also to show that the requestor was not seeking anyfavor from the government officials since whatever the engagement wasit was legal, professional and legitimate engagement. It was also ademonstration that their being hosted in the country was purely foran official purpose and any business that shall be transacted will besubstantive and will show that there was no influence in the decisionmaking by the government officials of the foreign country. Corruptionin this regard is giving bribes in monetary terms in a bid toinfluence the decision made by the staff of the foreign country(Weaver and Clarke, 2015). It was also clear that they had nothing tohide from the government officials who were to be interviewed andalso to ask the requestor the pressing questions regarding thewelfare of the children being adopted in the country.

Secondly,it was also submitted by ForeignCorrupt Practice Act reportthat the amount that was paid for meals and accommodation did notexceed the GSA rate, which is the maximum per Diem allowance amountreceived by federal government officials as reimbursement forexpenses incurred during the continental trip in the US(Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspandAgusti,&nbsp2014).That submission was instrumental for the court to decide that therewas no case to answer and it did not amount to corruption as it didnot exceed the standard allowance received by the officials in theUS. It was enough to show that the expenditure was not meant tomotivate the foreign officials for a favor they received during thetrip that culminated in the decision of having the children adopted.Further, it was a demonstration that the requestor was not in any wayinterested to be favored by the government officials for the decisionthey reached (Weaver and Clarke, 2015). It was also to show thetransparency the requestor had so that in case the adopting agency isput to task to prove that the amount that was spent on the foreigngovernment officials, and to explain the reasonability of theexpenditure, he would just produce the documentation.


Theopinion would not have been sufficient enough to safeguard theidentities of the parties involved in the proposed visit. That isbecause those who were to visit had names and were supposed to bevetted by the department of justice (Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspandAgusti,&nbsp2014).Such that if there are questions that arise from the proposed visitswhich concern ethics and professional engagement, they would be readyto defend their hosts so as to mend the credibility and the dentsthey would have received from the scrutiny. It should be made clearthat the country was seized of the matter that there would bevisitors jetting in from a foreign country, their names were knownand the positions they hold in the foreign government. The federalofficials had the knowledge of the reason of the proposed visit andhow long the trip was going to take place(Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspand Agusti,&nbsp2014).As such, if the matter was known why the agency and the federalgovernment should find it hard to disclose the information to thedepartment of justice? (Rose-Ackerman and Palifka, 2016) So that asthe judgment is being delivered their names could be mentioned as thereasons why the agency is suffering prejudice and their integrity isin question.

Someofficials make payments to foreign leaders to receive favors(Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspandAgusti,&nbsp2014). He cites an example of the aircraft manufacturesthat made payments to Japanese prime minister to get favor during theawarding of tenders. Such behavior is seen to be undemocratic. When acountry fights this form of corruption, it stands alone since othercountries will continue to give and receive bribes. The provisions ofForeign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) that requires parties to reportcorrupt dealings may not apply where corruption has beeninstitutionalized. Countries are in a moral dilemma as to whether toenforce the FCPA for economic deals or remain in the cold. This moralposition has been facilitated by the lack of goodwill on the part ofthe international players to deal with vices of bribery.


Therole of DOJ`s prior opinion releases play is public relations in thebid to hide the truth so mildly and trying to show that there isnothing wrong with hosting government official of a foreign countryfrom where the adopted kids come (Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspandAgusti,&nbsp2014).However, the law shows the acts that could lead to a courtdetermining if truly there was any ethical behavior that could leadto corruption. The thin line that divides the two is the reason forissuing of prior press releases so as to enlighten the public theextent to which a government agency can act but intra vires andwithin the periphery of corruption (Graeff, 2016). In this case, theaction by the adoption agency shows that there could be corruption asthe officials had all the expenses covered by the requestor. Thatrevealed that there was an act that would have been mistaken ascorruption and thus the public outrage.

Finally,the ethical issue exists due to the generous and the promiscuity ofthe requestor that he was too generous to give everything to host thedelegation of eighteen officials covering each cost of them beingthere (Schaffer,&nbspEarle,&nbspandAgusti,&nbsp2014).The coincidence being that the requestor was a donor-funded program.Was the extended generosity ethical? Moral laws principles applyingon this issue were the extent to which the requestor acted whether itwas within the framework or not. The number of the governmentofficials being too exorbitant to maintain for a weekend and as suchthe principle of cleanliness of in ethics was faulted. It isimportant that the agencies do not stretch to the line that separatesthe good from bad or that which could dent the integrity of the body.

Thealternative which should be applied should be to wait for the suit tobe filed in a court of law where the judge would hear the case,listen to facts and arguments being raised by those affected by thecase. Then the court would decide accordingly based on the evidenceby the complainants and counter evidence from the respondent andfriends of the court (Weaver and Clark, 2015). The second way theissue should have been handled would have been the requestor comingout blazing with a statement absolving itself from the allegationsand explaining to the public, the media and the government what thetruths are and clear the air of corruption.


Ethicsis a trait that builds the sanctity of every profession. In thisregard, values applied could lead to corruption while it honestly didnot happen. That was tricky as the mass demand of clear explanationwas driving the requestor on murky waters with all wild allegations.It was clear that there was cost sharing among the agencies involvedin adoption. It is opined and recommended that the solution to theethical issue was the department of justice to take the backseat onthe issue and wait for their time to resolve the matter which wouldhave cleaned the requestor so effectively.


Frederickson,H. G., &amp Rohr, J. A. (2015). Ethicsand public administration.Routledge.

Graeff,P. (2016). Ethics and Corruption: An Introduction to the SpecialIssue. GermanLJ,17,1.

Rose-Ackerman,S., &amp Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruptionand government: Causes, consequences,

andreform.Cambridge university press.

Schaffer,&nbspR.,Earle,&nbspB., &amp Agusti,&nbspF. (2014).&nbspInternationalbusiness law and its environment. Cincinnati, OH: West Educational Pub. Co.

Weaver,G. R., &amp ClarkC. E. (2015). Behavioral Ethics, BehavioralGovernance, and

Corruptionin and by Organizations. In Debatesof Corruption and Integrity(pp. 135

158).Palgrave Macmillan UK.