You must write two different kinds of responses: Respond to someone else's original post with an objection, in which you argue against the solution...

You must write two different kinds of responses:

1. Respond to someone else's original post with an objection, in which you argue against the solution they offer. Your objection must also use virtue ethics as a framework for justification.
2. Defend an original post against an objection — you may either respond in defense of your own argument or try to support someone else's. Again, your argument should be framed in terms of virtue ethics.

Responses:

1. The dilemma I have selected is can an accountant share client information with family members. What should an accountant do if they have two clients from the same family and they have a concern about one of the clients? Can they share information with the other family member? What if an elderly lady is a client and is making some bad decisions about her money or spending too much money? Can the accountant tell her son who is also a client? An accountant needs to do what they feel is in the "best interest" of their client but can they break confidentiality to do this? One solution is to get the elderly client to sign a "release" document that allows the accountant to share information with other family members. I think an accountant would be able to tell the son that they should ask their mother if she will sign a document so that the accountant can share information ("best interest" of the mother). The accountant would not be sharing information yet but would be suggesting to the son that it would be good to get a release signed. The accountant can not share specific information until a release is signed.
2. When talking about the virtue of ethics, I think consequentialism pertains to my particular dilemma best. I worked at a bank for a couple of years. We had a customer come in that did NOT have a bank account with us. He wanted to cash a check. It's against our policy to cash any type of check, no matter the amount, for a person who has no ties with our bank. This rule is in place for the fact that if the check would have come back no good, we would have no way to get ahold of the person cashing it, or get our money back from him. My coworker decided to tell a random person who wanted to cash a check that she would do it for him. I spoke up immediately and told her that she shouldn't be cashing it. I just knew that it wasn't right and it certainly wasn't a good decision to make on her behalf. She told me that she thought it was fine and wasn't a big deal. She went ahead and did it. As guilty as I felt going to my boss about it, I did it because it was the right thing to do. It's policy and the rule should have been followed. She was talked to the next day and was told that it wasn't to happen again. Sure enough, the check came back no good. Luckily it was only $50, but it's the fact she knew it was wrong. The solution was that I talked to my boss to make him aware of the situation and so that it wouldn't happen again.

Running head: RESPONSES 1 ResponsesStudent NameCourse NameJuly 15, 2017 RESPONSES 2RESPONSES 1.No, I do not agree with the decision taken by an accountant. Because it’s not a right thingto...