Rest’s four-component model of moral development would be the best to look at in the
situation of the Eating Time case. Rest and Narvaez identified 4 integrated abilities that
determine moral behaviour by health professionals. The first condition is ethical sensitivity,
or the ability to see things from the perspective of others. The second component is a moral
judgment, this requires knowledge of concepts, codes of conduct, and ethical principles, and
help identify the guidelines that support a decision. The third is moral motivation, and that is
the difference between knowing the right thing to do and making it a priority. The fourth
component is moral character, and this requires APRNs to persist and have courage in
implementing their skills.
I chose this method over the other 2 because I think that Rest’s model seems more to the point
about moral development than the rest. The major component could be considered moral
judgment. You must have the moral judgment to make the correct decision when someone
approaches with “what needs to be done” to make sure that your work gets done. Then you
need to use your moral motivation to know what the right thing to do is. Making it a priority
and following through with it.
Kohlberg's view of moral development is that it is an internal process of the individual.
Kohlberg argues that as part of the development of moral reasoning, a person goes through a
series of steps in an ordered process. Kohlberg's theory focuses on the thought process that
occurs when a person decides whether an action is right or wrong. Thus, the theoretical
emphasis is on how a person decides to respond to a moral dilemma rather than on what to
decide or what to do (Sanders 2022). It considered how the responses were different and
what problem-solving strategies underlie the three responses. d Response A is preconventional,
choices are made based on the wants of the individual decision maker. In our case, Kevin's
personal desire to bring his work home was the more obvious response. Response B is
conventional, in this level, individuals strive to support the rules set by others (e.g., parents,
peers, and government) to win their approval or maintain social order. Under the pressure
from Bo and Moe, Kevin wants to get the job done faster to achieve the purpose. He may
engage in ghost-ticking. d This may put his work in trouble and hurt the interests of his clients.
Response C is postconventional, a society wide perspective is used in decision making. In
our case, Kevin should have chosen not to take his work home to finish it，and he should not
have participated in the ghost-ticking. Because other practitioners in the same situation
would have made the same ethical decision.
One approach to making ethical decisions is to use the four-component model, which was
devised by Rest. The model involves the following four processes, which include Moral
Sensitivity, Moral Judgment, Moral Motivation, and Moral Character (Accounting Tool
2022). d This model is based on the presumption that an individual’s behavior is related to her
level of moral development. The model discusses the cognitive processes that individuals use
in ethical decision making. It depicts how an individual first identifies an ethical dilemma
and then continues through to his moral motivation and finally finds courage to behave
ethically. In terms of ethical sensitivity, Kevin should recognize how his actions will affect
his job, his life, clients' interests, and the company's interests. For moral judgment, Kevin
must be able to judge which of the possible actions is the right one to decide about what to do.
In moral motivation, Kevin must be able to develop actions to be taken to achieve desired
results. Follow through, rather than letting any pressure get in the way. For the moral
character, Kevin should have enough courage to carry out his intentions and use his strong
moral character to confront any stress.
For the Ethical Decision-Making Model, we need to make sure we have all the facts about
the dilemma. d What benefits and harms will be produced by each action, and which one is the
best choice. What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best
respects the rights. Which course of action treats everyone equally unless there is a morally
justifiable reason not to do so. Which course of action will advance the common good and
develop moral virtue. This model is designed to help identify most of the important ethical
considerations and to help us make better ethical choices. It is also very appropriate for the
analysis of our case. By using this model, Kevin can evaluate his current situation from a
different perspective. Consider the advantages and disadvantages before deciding on the
most appropriate approach. Although Kevin is a recent employee, he has certain ethics and
values. This is evident from the questioning attitude he holds. Kevin's moral reasoning will
help him realize that engaging in ghost-ticking is a bad choice. Therefore, I think the most
appropriate model to use for our case is the ethical decision-making model.
We studied about the four components of Rest's model, the phases of moral growth described
by Kohlberg, and the model for making ethical decisions. I believe the Integrated Ethical
Decision-Making process is the best model for Kevin based on the three ethical theories. The
integrated ethical decision-making process, as per Mintz and Morris, is founded on:
Identify the ethical and professional issues (ethical sensitivity).
Identify and evaluate alternative courses of action (ethical judgment).
Reflect on the moral intensity of the situation and virtues that enable Ethical action to occur
(ethical intent).
Take action (ethical behavior) (Mintz & Miller, 2023).
According to Kidder, ethical problems might occasionally be disorganized and even
completely confusing. Kidder proposes the use of checks or phases that might help start
organizing otherwise complex ethical problems. I think that using a systematic approach to
understanding ethical problems would encourage and provide some degree of order to any
confusion that could result from the current ethical problem.
Kevin would have been able to make an ethical choice had he applied Kidder's ethical
checkpoint technique in last week’s case study. He should’ve initially acknowledge that it
was unethical to take work home without charging the customer and that his coworker had
admitted to ghost ticking assignments. His next decision is if he was a part of the ethical
problem or whether it was his duty to bring attention to his coworker's ethical offenses. Kevin
would then compile essential information on the specific ethical dilemma. Then, using the
ethical decision-making process and checkpoints appropriate to his position as an auditor, he
could decide if the ethical problem blatantly disregarded his code of conduct. Because he
would have to choose something in the end, Kevin should look for a better option than the
ethical problem. Kidder's ethical checkpoint offers a logical way to choosing amongst most
ethical alternatives available. The Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Model as it enables a
person to prepare a strategy for making difficult decisions by balancing logic and feelings.
Kohlberg’s Theory
According to Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, it “involves creating increasingly
complex cognitive rationale for making moral decisions” (Mathes, 2021). This approach
focuses on a person’s moral judgment to determine what is morally right and wrong in
situational dilemmas. There are three levels of Kohlberg’s Theory, preconventional,
conventional, and postconventional. The preconventional level is characterized by acting in
one’s self-interest. The conventional level is described as one’s concern for others and duty to
societal order. The postconventional level is representative of societal rules and ethical
principles. Each level consists of two stages that more deeply define the moral reasoning
behind human decision-making. Stage 1 obedience to rules and authority, stage 2 satisfying
one’s own needs, stage 3 fairness to others, stage 4 law and order, stage 5 social contract, and
stage 6 universal ethical principles (Mintz & Morris, 2020).
In the case study “Eating Time,” Kevin must determine if underreporting his time and
utilizing ghost-ticking are moral and ethical decisions. Examining this case study through
Kohlberg's theory creates three unique decision-making perspectives.
Utilizing level 1’s approach, Kevin may engage in eating time if he perceives that the partners
are okay with it because they did not discourage him from doing so. He may also believe that
utilizing eating time and ghost-ticking will give him the much-needed efficiency to garner a
positive performance evaluation. Plus, other colleagues employ this method, so it must be
okay.
Under level 2, Kevin might decide that eating time and ghost-ticking are used by many
colleagues and are more beneficial to the firm and clients to keep within the time budget. In
contrast, he may conclude that eating time and ghost-ticking are harmful practices that he will
not participate in and must expose his colleague Joyce’s use of this method because of his
duty to the public.
Using level 3, Kevin would explore the consequences of eating time and ghost-ticking and
whom it would affect. This would lead him to the conclusion that eating time is against
company policy, and he will not use it. Its long-term adverse effects would lead to low-quality
audits and create more significant time burdens for the firm, colleagues, and clients.
Similarly, Kevin would determine that ghost-ticking is against the AICPA’s Code of
Professional Conduct because it violates the integrity and public interest principles, and he
will not participate. It could also lead to fines, sanctions, and prosecution for the auditors,
firm, and clients due to significant misstatements or failure to uncover embezzlement.
Rest’s Four-Component Model of Ethical Decision Making
According to Rest’s Four-Component Model of Ethical Decision Making, ethical behavior
results from a multiphase decision approach. Rest’s model details four distinct cognitive
processes, moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral focus, and moral character. Moral
sensitivity is a person’s ability to empathize and recognize how actions may affect others.
Moral judgment is the acknowledgment of relevant rules, principles, and codes of conduct
and the evaluation of the choices and outcomes of an ethical decision. Moral focus is one’s
ability to know the action necessary for an ethical decision and be able to follow through.
Moral character is a person’s will to overcome external pressures and the courage to act on
their ethical intentions to solve the situation (Mintz & Morris, 2020).
Using Rest’s model as a guide to examine the case study, we can see the thought processes
necessary for Kevin to make ethical decisions.
Starting with moral sensitivity, Kevin recognizes that his inexperience in working on an audit
takes him longer to complete than his predecessor. He perceives this circumstance as
negatively affecting the firm and the client and suggests that he would underreport his time
for the audit. After he meets with the partners, Kevin consults his friend and colleague Joyce
and is told that she increases her productivity by ghost-ticking. After asking what ghost-
ticking is, he immediately knows there is an ethical conflict and wonders, “what kind of firm
am I working for?” (Mintz & Morris, 2020, p.52).
Moving to moral judgment, Kevin must consider his potential choices and the possible
outcomes. His options are to underreport his time or not and to use ghost-ticking or not. With
each choice comes an impending consequence. If Kevin underreports his time, the firm may
allocate less time to the audit area the following year, resulting in further time cuts in
successive years. If Kevin does not underreport his time, the client will be charged more for
future audits, the firm may lose money or the client, and Kevin may lose his job. Like eating
time, if Kevin utilizes ghost-ticking, the firm may allocate less time to the audit in the future.
However, this deceitful practice can have far more costly ramifications as it can result in
missing a material variance that leads to an erroneous conclusion on the financial statements
and, subsequently, SEC sanctions on Kevin and the firm, assuming the client is a public
company. Additionally, about the ghost-ticking, Kevin must decide whether or not to inform
on his friend and colleague Joyce for engaging in ghost-ticking. If he does blow the whistle
on Joyce, he will lose a friend and alienate himself from the auditing staff. If he does not tell
on Joyce, she will likely continue until she gets caught, and she could face being fired,
sanctioned, and fired from her job.
Using the moral focus process, Kevin will have concluded that he should not eat time or
ghost-tick. Furthermore, he would also determine that Joyce should not be using ghost-ticking
on her audits.
The final process, moral character, maybe the hardest step to take. This will involve Kevin
holding on to his convictions that both practices are dishonest and his intentions not to apply
these methods in his work. Kevin must not fold under the pressure of other individuals within
the firm and risk possibly getting fired, losing a friend, or being seen as a snitch within the
firm.
Integrated Ethical Decision-Making Model
The integrated ethical decision-making process is inspired by “Rest’s Model and Kidder’s
Checkpoints to provide a basis for ethical decision making when accounting issues create
ethical dilemmas” (Mintz & Morris, 2020, p. 84). It involves the following four steps,
identifying the ethical situation, identifying what must be done, considering the consequences
and pressures, and acting.
If these are applied to the same scenario as the previous models, the results end up being
generally the same as with Rest’s Model.
Step 1, Identify the ethical and professional issues. The issues involved in the case study are
the suggestion and tacit approval from the management for underreporting time and the
knowledge that Kevin’s colleague Joyce is utilizing the deceptive ghost-ticking method.
These concerns violate several of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct principles and
auditing standards.
Step 2, identify and evaluate alternative courses of action. Kevin must establish the
consequences of taking action against the issues identified in step 1 and determine whether
legal issues would be involved.
Step 3, reflect on the moral intensity of the situation and virtues that enable ethical action to
occur. Kevin must consider how his decision could affect the parties involved. If he reports
his colleague and friend Joyce, she could get fired, and Kevin will likely lose a friend. If he
stays quiet on this matter, he is violating the professional code, not protecting the public
interest, and eventually, it could hurt Joyce’s clients and the firm. If he takes work home and
eats the time, this will affect future time budgeting for the audits and cause low-quality audits.
Step 4, act. Kevin must be steadfast and conclude that what Joyce is doing is unethical and
against an accountant’s professional obligations. Therefore, he must turn her in for her
misconduct.
Best Method
The integrated ethical decision-making model is the best model to use in analyzing the case of
“Eating Time” and other ethical situations. I chose this method over the other two because it
provides a comprehensive guide in determining how to make ethical decisions. While
Kohlberg’s theory helps one understand the cognitive processes that lead to moral
development and Rest’s Model enhances a person’s awareness of moral reasoning to perform
ethical actions, they both leave some ambiguity. The integrated ethical decision-making
model goes a step further to aid an individual who may find themselves in an ethical dilemma
by detailing pivotal questions that one will want to ask when seeking to identify the correct
course of action. This may be more helpful to some individuals because we all have strengths
and weaknesses. It may be difficult for some people to establish what questions are relevant
to be asked. Thus, viewing a list of questions for each process would be beneficial.
Mathes, E. W. (2021) An evolutionary perspective on Kohlberg’s theory of moral
development. Current
Psychology 40(8), 3908. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s12144-019-00348-0
Mintz, S. M., & Morris, R. E. (2020). Ethical obligations and decision making in accounting
(5th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
Mintz, S. M., & Miller, W. F. (2023). Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in
Accounting Text and Cases (5th Ed.). McGraw Hill LLC.
Mintz, Steven M. & Morris Roselyn E. Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in
Accounting.
McGraw Hill Education (5th edition)
Sanders, Cheryl E. d August 21, 2022. d Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
https://www.britannica.com/science/Lawrence-Kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-development
Accounting Tool. d May 24, 2022. d Four-Component Model Definition
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/four-component-model
REST’S FOUR-COMPONENT MODEL. (n.d.). Ebrary. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from
https://ebrary.net/8251/education/rests_four-
component_model#:~:text=The%20fourth%20component%20of%20Rest%27s%20model%2
0is%20moral
