Connie is in a quandary, as she now the tie breaking vote in a three to three deadlock situation as the other committee member have already voted. What should she do? Should she be intimidated to make a quick decision because of the not so veiled threat Craft gives her? This paper will provide a point of view of the author of this essay in the discussion as to what actions Connie should take, and will include how our early modern thinkers, Hobbes, Hume’s and Kant’s might have responded in this situation, consistent with their views on ethics and human …show more content…
Connie could have been beneficent and over looked Craft’s misinformation on the résumé, and given him the benefit of the doubt, but it is his not so veiled threat, where he violates the principle of non-maleficence. With this threat, he is willing to damage a foundation and a job that deals with children. Connie should have no problem in explaining why she will not give the final and tie-breaking vote for Craft; this foundation deals with young people and most likely has their priorities in line when it pertains to ethics and morality. After she explains to the three people who voted for him that he threatened the organization when questioned about a mistake he initially made, they will see that Crafts character that ended up being questioned and the deciding factor of not getting the