Resolved: Telling Stewart about Waksal is unethical.
1. The key parties of this situation would be Stewart and myself. Even though I think telling Stewart about Waksal is unethical, following Baconivic’s orders and telling her would put her at an advantage because she would be able to sell her ImClone stocks before the rest of the shareholders could. Even though she could use the Waksal information for her advantage, she would be putting herself in jeopardy with the law. Following Baconivic’s orders would also make me look better in front of him and he could possibly help me get a higher positioned job in the future. For myself, if I know telling Stewart is unethical and I still do it, I am going against my own moral values. By doing…show more content… 4. The argument that I am making should be addressed to Baconivic and the people that agree with his business ethics. Instead of having a Carr mindset, I have more of a Drucker mindset. With my Drucker mindset, I would address Baconivic and these people about how spreading insider information to only a select few is against the law and how it could ruin their image as people in the working field. No matter whether you are a senior broker or assistant, ruining your image in the working field does no good to anyone. All their hard work up to that point will diminish and trying to gain back a good reputation will be difficult. As many parents tell their children, Baconivic and his supporters should put themselves in the shoes of other shareholders that will fairly lose money from their investments in the ImClone company. By doing so, they will be able to mentally see and feel the loss that happens through stocks. Instead of trying to give certain people unfair advantages, higher authoritative positions in companies should be more ethical and try to give reassurance that the stocks will raise