It's hard enough to negotiate the ethical shallows when they involve active decisions, but it's even harder when the problem can be pushed aside and labeled a bug that will be fixed eventually.

How hard should we work to fix the problems that somehow slipped into running code? Do we drop everything? How do we decide whether a bug is serious enough to be fixed? Can a company prioritize the list fairly? Are some customers more important than others? Can a programmer play favorites by choosing one bug over another? This is even more difficult to contemplate when you realize that it's hard to anticipate how much harm will come from any given bug.

Consider you are working for company CIT Navarro as a lead programmer. You have discovered a bug. What do you do? Do you expose it and take down the system for a specific amount of time? Do you keep going and not notify the company as to not cause alarm?