Kaeyla Noble
Senior Capstone
4 November 2021
It goes without saying that ethics are present in our lives every single day. They are what guide us towards taking one job over the other, breaking up with this person for the other, and in some cases guide us away from conversations that could’ve ended up being brutal arguments. In this case, three different people brought their ethics to the table, and we all created an ethical dilemma that will now be assessed through the Potter’s Box.
YoungLife Club was a huge part of my life in high school. It was an organization I found a lot of community in and was something I wanted in my college experience. During my freshman year of college, I consistently would show up at the club meetings every Monday night, and due to my want to be creative I volunteered to manage their social media. The director of YoungLife would come to me occasionally, with video projects she wanted to produce for specific events. YoungLife was starting a new series called Conversations where students could come and dive deeper into their faith by answering uncomfortable questions about Christianity such as, “what does Jesus say about gay marriage?”. The director wanted me to capture the first one we did to advertise on Instagram. Her main requirements where to not over edit, capture true emotion, and have it ready before the next Conversations in two weeks. All the gear I have is mine and wasn’t given to me by my parents. The morals my parents taught me were if you want something you buy it, and if you break it, you replace it. To film this project, I needed to use my gear given the lack of resources YoungLife had to produce content in the first place. I arrived early to set up my gear in the back of the room where I assumed would be the least likely place anyone could touch it or damage it. However, my assumption turned into one of the most uncomfortable ethical issues I’ve been a part of.
YoungLife likes to start off clubs with games, and that night the game involved people playing tag. While I was filming another student ran into my gear, my microphone broke off the top of my camera, and was officially not usable. Within seconds, she picked it up off the ground and told me she would pay whatever she needed to get it replaced. I gave her my phone number, told her the microphone was two-hundred dollars, and she proceeded to insist that she would pay for it. The night continued as planned, and I got the footage I needed. However, the next day I woke up to a text from the student who broke my mic saying she didn’t feel responsible for the damage because I am a freelance videographer who choose to be there. My gear is my responsibility to her. I disagreed with her statement given the fact I had made a verbal contract with the director about the video, but she continued to argue with me even after given that information. After a while she got the director involved to which the direct then texted me. She proceeded to tell me she also believed the student wasn’t responsible for replacing the gear because as a Christian we are called to give grace first. However, regardless of my faith I stood by my initial argument. After a lot of arguing the director agreed to pay for the microphone in full, I finished editing the video, and never worked with the organization again.
Both the director’s and my involvement in the situation can be better understood through the Potter’s Box discussed in Ethical Foundations and Perspectives. The situation has been defined and therefore we move on to values that were practiced during the time. Due to the production agreement between me and the director I operated with a sense of immediacy and efficiency. If I were to continue the conversation further, the footage for the video wouldn’t have been captured and the job would not have gotten done. I had a job that needed to get done by a certain time, and there was no equipment offered to me to produce the project. Therefore, I had to use my own equipment. Given the value of the gear I made a conscious decision to set up everything in the back of the room as well. Even though I was Christian, I did not find it necessary for that to be present while dealing with such a sudden situation. However, the director’s values included her own Christian beliefs, her job to run the club smoothly, and her duty as the director.
As the director her job is assumed to make sure the needs of the students are met, that it’s fun, and the agenda happens accordingly. Given her participation in the game she was not there when the student broke my mic and therefore couldn’t apply the experience to her values and changed the overall definition of the situation. Furthermore, her Christian values stress that grace must be given to those around us first before anything else. Lastly, the student didn’t believe she was responsible because I was volunteering my time to be there. To her knowledge, I was making something for myself. After communicating to her I had made an agreement with the director for the project she still believe she wasn’t responsible because there was no written agreement between me and the director. Each value brings each person’s morals into question, and there are a couple ethical principles present to filter through as well.
Ethical principles such as accountability, reputation and morale, and respect were contested in this situation due to the various ways the director, the student, and I practiced each of them. In my case, during the situation accountability was demonstrated through the immediate response to the student breaking my mic. She physically broke the mic, I saw her break it, and therefore held her responsible for her actions. Respect was demonstrated with a calm tone, and no slander words used on my behalf. The student initially took responsibility for what happened by saying she would pay for a replacement. However, after a couple hours did not believe she was responsible for the mic under the grounds of her thinking I was a freelance videographer. She did not know about the agreement the director and I had made and therefore thought I was responsible for the mic replacement. Lastly, the director’s approach towards showcasing accountability and respect was by filtered through her own religious beliefs. According to her, the Christian faith requires you to show people grace. In this case, the director wanted me to show the student grace by telling her it was no problem which created conflict for me given how I practice accountability and respect. While taking the directors perspective, her loyalties can be seen in addition to the ethical principles that were practiced.
Due to YoungLife being a Christian organization and the director agreeing with those beliefs she has loyalties towards YoungLife, its purpose, and the students that show up. Furthermore, she also has loyalties towards God as a Christian. As a member of YoungLife, the student has loyalties towards her own well-being and financial freedom. She must pay her own bills and therefore has loyalties towards her landlords and other monthly expenses that would have been possibly compromised if she had paid me the full amount. I had loyalties towards the organization because I had made a verbal agreement to create a piece of content for them. Of course, our loyalties were put to question has the Potter’s Box demonstrates. The Ethical Foundations and Perspectives writes, “The Potter’s Box is a model for social ethics and consequently forces us to articulate precisely where our loyalties lie as we make a final judgment or adopt a particular policy,” (3). As shown in the student’s decision-making process her ethics were challenged and her loyalties shifted.
After assessment I’d argue I handled this ethical dilemma well. When presented this conflict my values and principles did not change throughout the process even when the director got involved. However, there is always room for human error in any situation and there are a few things I could’ve handled differently. When the student had reached out and admitted she didn’t believe she was responsible I could’ve called or waited until meeting her in person to handle the situation rather than handling most of the conflict over text. Fast forward two years into the future, and after a careful assessment through the Potter’s Box I would argue I handled this ethical dilemma well.
Leave a Reply