Ethical Dilemma

Ethical Dilemma.
Although ethics comes off as the study of a community’s foundational values, it is related to critical thinking because they both apply evaluation approaches. In fact, critical thinking (defined as the disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, analyzing and evaluating information collected from observation and reasoning to guide action and belief) plays an important role in the understanding of ethics. Before deciding what ethics entails, an individual must first understand what good behavior is, a process that uses critical thinking to collect information and analyzing it before reaching a conclusion. The same can be seen in the case of Lance Armstrong and his cycling teammates who actively engaged in doping that violated the principles of competitive cycling (Robbins & Judge, 2015). Therefore, ethics is all about critical thinking and evaluation.
Part A.
Section I.
The decision on whether or not to come clean after an unethical conduct is based on a range of factors. The same is true for Lance Armstrong’s teammates who blew the whistle on systematic doping within professional cycling (Parboteeah & Cullen, 2013).
Firstly, the sense of right and wrong may have played a part whereby having engaged in an unethical practice, the riders felt that they had compromised their ethical and moral principles, opting to come clean so as to clear their conscious.
Secondly, they may have felt that the investigation was almost over, in which case they would have been found guilty of doping and opted to preempt the public humiliation by confessing and averting some of the blame.

In essence, confessing allowed them to hijack the investigative narrative and direct it towards a position that lessened their guilt and increased the perception of their remorsefulness within the public domain since they would be viewed as having aided the investigation.
Finally, they may have been jealous of Lance’s continued prestige and success as a former rider and decided to be spiteful by exposing him to negative publicity without regard for how it would affect them.
These three discussed explanations offer possible justification for why Lance’s teammates blew the whistle on the doping practice.
Section II.
Lance and his teammates were exceptional riders even before they began doping. Despite being exceptional riders, they still went on to dope with that decision being influenced by four principal factors (Robbins & Judge, 2015).
Firstly, they had a need to remain at the top and continue winning more races without feeling the fatigue associated with professional racing over time.
Secondly, they were motivated by financial aspects since winning races attracted sponsors and endorsements that increased their earnings.
Thirdly, they were motivated by the need for prestige and fame since being a winning team ensured that their faces were easily recognizable among cycling enthusiasts across the world.
Finally, they were convinced that they would not be caught doping since they used doping strategies for which anti-doping agencies had not developed test strategies.
The identified four factors influenced them to dope during their professional cycling careers.
Part B.
It is unclear whether or not anyone would have refused to agree to dope as a professional cyclist. That is because every decision is influenced by a range of factors of which ethics and morals form a single dimension. In this case, it must be conceded that doping is wrong and every professional sports athlete should strive to compete with others minus unfair performance enhancers. For that matter, one would have rejected the doping in an ideal environment as an unethical behavior. Still, it must be noted that the world is not an ideal environment. For one, financial benefits of doping and winning would have been enough to suppress any guilt associated with having engaged in an unethical act. Another thing, the pressure from peers, partners, employers, and family members to perform well would have acted as an influence in making the decision about whether or not to dope. Besides that, the decision can also be influenced by culture whereby teams that have traditionally resorted to dope will continue to do so even when new cyclists are recruited. Also, the possibility of getting caught would have influenced the decision since professional athletes are apt to dope if they feel that the chances or risk of getting caught are minimal (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). As such, it is unclear whether or not anyone would have refused to engage in doping if their teammates were engaged in doping since there are a range of factors that would influence their decision.
Part C.
The results would have remained the same even if a consensus was not required. That is because such a document would not be enforceable or even act as evidence within any forum. On the other hand, a willingness to engaged in doping by using performance enhancers was what influenced the team to engage in the practice. With such a willingness, the team only needed an opportunity to turn that willingness into reality. Lance, as a leader within the team, vocalized the cheating opportunity thereby making it possible for every team member act in an unethical manner. They were safe in the knowledge that since every team member took part in the doping, none of them had the moral high ground to chastise the others or even report them for cheating. Simply put, signing the documented that supported the cheating, but refusing to engaging in the doping would have derailed the whole cheating plan since the person who did not dope would have had the moral high ground to report the others for cheating or chastise them for such conduct (Bagley, 2015). In this respect, what was required for the cheating to proceed was not signing a response that supported the idea, but a demonstrated willingness for every team member to participate in the doping thereby making them all culpable and subjected to punishment if found out.
Conclusion
One must accept ethics makes use of critical thinking to create the set of rules that the community will observe. Granting that every individual will primarily act in a selfish manner to protect his or her interests, the secondary concern will be to observe the universal rules of right and wrong, thinking of the outcomes of their actions and how they will benefit them and the rest of the community. As a result, ethical thinking will require taking a step back and thinking of the good of the community that the individual is a member as a secondary concern after personal interests. In this respect, it becomes clear that making ethical decisions in life entails looking at personal interests first before assessing what may or may not be tolerable behavior within the community.
References
Bagley, C. E. (2015). Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Parboteeah, K. P. & Cullen, J. B. (2013). Business Ethics. London: Routledge.Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2015). Organizational Behavior (16th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Trevino, L. K. & Nelson, K. A. (2011). Managing Business Ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.