Discussion Week 11 8140

• Revisit your initial post from Week 1 and consider how your definition of social responsibility and ethics has changed.
• Read the required Learning Resources.
• Consider the themes of authority, power, force, and discretion in criminal justice ethics and social responsibility.

By Day 3

Write an initial post in which you:

• Define social responsibility and ethics based on your current understanding. Explain how your definition has changed from the beginning of this course.
• Explain how authority, power, force, and discretion are themes in criminal justice ethics and social responsibility.
• Present a method to resolve ethical dilemmas in your professional work.
• Ask a question of your peers about the themes of this course or their final thoughts on course content.

Read your colleagues posts.

By Day 5

Respond to at least two of your colleagues by either answering their questions or adding to their explanation of authority, power, force, and discretion.

Return to this forum to follow up on responses.

Week 1

Understanding Social Responsibility and Ethical Decision-Making

Rebecca Eubank

Doctor of Philosophy

CRJS 8140: Social Responsibility and Ethics

Dr. Hardin

November 26, 2025

Understanding Social Responsibility and Ethical Decision-Making

Social responsibility is the duty of individuals not to be harmful to the society and the surrounding environment. Ethics is described as moral principles that determine an individual behavior and decision-making processes in both personal and professional life on a day-to-day basis. Besides individual benefits, social responsibility goes further and involves more than just the personal and the communities and other stakeholders concerned on a particular occasion. Values influence the priorities of people in situations involving multiple outcomes when moral thinking and careful consideration should be paid. The knowledge of these ideas is relevant to guiding people in difficult circumstances in which several competing interests and obligations should be struck with a balance.

One of the ethical dilemmas that I had a hard time with was learning that a colleague whom I worked with openly was falsifying petty expense reports at work. I had alternatives in reporting the behavior to the management, in the meantime, speaking with my colleague personally about his/her actions. I might also decide to simply fend the issue off and deny that I was present when any form of wrongdoing was committed. The alternative was approaching the human resources privately to know what to do rather than mentioning how a particular person was involved. Both options had their own implications on relations, working morality, and my personal moral responsibility in general.

I decided to talk to my colleague individually before blowing out of proportion and reporting to the management or authorities. This choice was arrived at as it weighed my upholding of organization integrity and sympathy to the situation of my colleague. This discretion also enabled me to empathize with them at the same time as fulfilling my obligation of leadership by organizational integrity and honesty (Ballangrud & Aas, 2022). My colleague had financial difficulties with the medical bills hence the reason, but not the excuse to act unethically. The discussion gave them the chance to make amends on their own will and eliminate the formal corrective actions that appeared to be disproportionate. This was a decision that had a direct implication on my fellow coworker, the relationship of trust in our team and my integrity, realistically. Furthermore, it touched on the financial accuracy of the organization, as well as my supervisor, who believed that the employees could uphold ethical standards.

There was a clear prohibition of the falsification of expenses within the company policy and accounting regulations and the situation became strategically and ethically problematic in all aspects. My employment agreement depicted obligations of reporting financial irregularities, and this posed a conflict between personal loyalty and professional responsibility. Nonetheless, there was no particular legislation that required instant reporting without any room to resolve the issue internally by means of dialogue and correction. Ethics standards of the organization were focused on accountability as well as on different levels of proportional responses to misconducts determined by the involved degrees of misconduct (Bilderback, 2024). My question remains whether the need to focus on personal relationship rather than on immediate reporting was against my professional obligations, though the net good may be positive. Was my decision an act of supererogatory kindness that went beyond required duties, or did it compromise ethics? Could there have been a better way to balance my imperfect duties to both my colleague and organization?

References

Ballangrud, B. O. B., & Aas, M. (2022). Ethical thinking and decision-making in the leadership of professional learning communities. Educational Research, 64(2), 176-190.

Bilderback, S. (2024). Ethical boundaries in employee relationships: addressing workplace affairs in the health-care industry. International Journal of Ethics and Systems.