Consider a situation in which there are likely to be two or more contradictory ethics that have to be balanced: 

For this question we ask "Is the ability to justify your decision to others sufficient to make it ethical?" The answer depends on the ethical framework you are working within. Take as a case to discuss an example: you act in a way your boss demands and/or family demand, but they disagree with each other. You should pick what the disagreement between family and employment demands/duty is. You would be rewarded by the ones who agree with your decision, for fulfilling that demand, but, you find out that others would be unhappy with the result. They consider your actions unethical despite the reasons and demands of the people who approved. In trying to satisfy your boss how would it be different if they asked to break the professional code of ethics you agreed to? In trying to satisfy your Family what duty, or what systems of consequence would make a particular difference? How do you handle this situation without simply ignoring the person who claims your action was unethical? To answer this question you must include the following: 

(A) Explain the differences in the priority or importance of the different forms of demands and obligations in the example. They need to be ranked or ordered specifically with justification/warrant/explanation.

(B) Provide a justification for breaking the demands from whichever group you disappoint, and then give a reason why one is the right action according to a specific ethic you select.

(C) Use three or more course concepts/terms.