Question: Lankawala, another contractor, when faced with the new supervisor’s demand to reduce prices for government work, asked him to guarantee that no bribes would be taken, and only then prices would be reduced. This was said in front of everyone. At this the supervisor forced Lankawala out of the meeting and threatened to black-list him. Lankawala did not say anything and walked away. Blacklisting of a contractor by one government department implied that Lankawala would not be able to participate in any government departments’ works.
In late evening, the city was abuzz with the news that the supervisor’s dead body was seen on the railway tracks. In the investigations that followed, no one who attended the meeting recounted the happenings in the meeting to the police. Getting involved in murder cases could lead to unpredictable outcomes such as becoming the potential suspect, or an accessory to the crime. Furthermore, cases could drag on for years, and one would have to appear in court as witnesses in response to court’s summons. This, for a contractor, was a serious threat to his business due to the disruptions created. However, Naresh wanted to speak out but was pressurized by Srikumar and other contractors not to, and as a result he did not. Due to this, the case was closed unresolved with no one found guilty.
In this situation, it can be concluded that:
Srikumar is immoral as he not only kept mum but also stopped Naresh from doing the right thing. At the same time he is ethical, as it is stated in paragraph 2 that Srikumar’s principle is to help others with an expectation that s/he will return the favour.
Naresh is not unethical as his intention was to stand up for the truth. Nothing can be said about the contractors as their ‘ethics/code for survival’ is not specified and there is no option saying that the contractors are immoral alone.
Hence, the correct answer is option 1.