Reader Submitted Ethical Dilemma...What Would You Do?

Growing up, my dad would invite guests at our home to offer up "ethical dilemmas" for discussion.

Yesterday, I received an ethical dilemma from a blog reader. S/he would like your input.

Posted in full with permission:

             I am an employee of US Fortune 100 company. the company has a corporate matching gift program wherein it will match every one dollar an employee donates to a charitable organization that meets the programs guidelines with two dollars from the corporation. (ie If I donate $100 to Habitat for Humanity, the company will donate $200, resulting in a total gift of $300). The list of eligible organizations is long, there are dozens of eligible organizations that cover different areas. The company will match up to $10,000 in employee contributions per year with matching funds.

            The programs rules state that only employees are elgible and employees should not collect funds from non-emlpoyees to take advantage of the corporate program.

            But let's say I can only donate $5,000 a year and my friend approaches me and says I can donate $1,000 on my own, but if you donate it for me through your program, then we can have $3,000 donated to this worthy organization that feeds hungry children, researches cancer cures, what have you.

           Obviously the program explicitly prohibits this. But if I cannot reach the 10K limit and my friend does not have access to a way to multiply his funds, is it so wrong or horrible to do this? are the means truly immoral even though the company has said it would make the mathcing funds available and we would ostensibly be increasing the resources of worthy organizations (which the company has already deemed worthy of their support otherwise they would not match) who would presumably be able to help better achieve their missions?

            some might think this is a variation on robin hood, but I think there could be a difference since the money is being offered for donation freely (albeit under certain rules), whereas robin hood clearly had no wish to part with their money acted against the will of his victims. so can't one say that it is not really thievery?

 

            and if its not and is merely dishonesty, is truth a more important value in this imperfect world we live in than alleviating human suffering. to put face on it, (in an admittedly self-serving way). If twenty children came to a food pantry and we had to turn away five that could be fed if we had used those matching funds, can you look them in the eye and say, "I don't have food for you because I could not lie to my corproate employer."

           And yes, i know that an answer is to find an ethical way to get the funds donated to feed those last five, either yourself or persuade others to donate (and yes, right here I will say, check if your company has a matching program, I am ashamed it has taken me over two years to discover this at my employer).

          But is that the only acceptable outcome? Especially when we know that it is not five or five hundred or even five million, but more than that? can we afford the goal of moral purity?

          or maybe it is the only answer since it is a slippery slope the other way to more immoral deeds in the service of ostensinly moral ends and a slide into anarchy.

           I look forward to hearing people's views on this blog.