Comprehension

Ethical– a person is called unethical, when he deviates from principles. The principles and their use is often guided by two definitions:
Moral: society’s code for individual survival.
Ethics: an individual’s code for society survival. 
Naresh was a small-time civil contractor in a small city. His major clients were the residents who wanted ad-hoc work like painting, building extensions to be done. His just prices had made him a preferred contractor for most of the clients who preferred him over other civil contractors. Always he followed the principle that client had to be kept happy– only by doing so it would be a win-win situation for both. However due to the unpredictability of such orders from residents, Naresh used to be idle for substantial part of the year. As a consequence, he could not expand his business. His two children were growing up and his existing business could not support their expenses. The medical expense of his elderly parents was another drain on his resources. The constant rise of prices in medical care and medicines was another issue.
For Naresh, family’s concern was predominant. Naresh was, therefore, under pressure to expand his business. He was the sole earning member of his family, and he had to ensure their well-being. He thought that by expanding his business, not only would he be able to care for his family in a better way, as well as offer employment to more number of masons and labourers. That would benefit their families as well. Naresh drew the boundary of his society to include himself, his family members, his employees and their family members.
For expansion, the only option in the city was to enlist as a contractor for government work. Before deciding, he sought advice from another contractor, Srikumar, who had been working on government projects for a long period of time. Srikumar followed the principle of always helping others, because he believed that he would be helped back in return some day. Srikumar had just one advice: “The work is given to those who will win the bidding process and at the same time will give the maximum bribe. Prices quoted for work have to include bribes, else the bills will not get cleared and the supervisors will find multiple faults with the execution of work. This ensures survival and prosperity for contractors.”
When asked about other contractors, Srikumar said: “The government contractors are like a micro-society in themselves, almost like a brotherhood. Within that, they are highly compet itive; however towards any external threat they are united to ensure no harm happens to any of their members.”

Question: 1

Naresh decided to work as a government contractor. Following Srikumar’s advice, he inflated the prices so that he could pay the bribes out the bills received.

Show Hint

Always check whether the situation aligns with “ethics” (society’s survival) or “morality” (individual survival), as definitions differ.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • Naresh is now totally unethical.
  • Naresh cannot be called totally ethical.
  • Naresh can be called ethical when it suits him.
  • Naresh is ethical to some extent.
  • Naresh is being totally ethical.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is

Solution and Explanation

Naresh inflated the prices in order to include bribes. Though superficially this seems unethical, the principle he followed was that of societal survival: to ensure his family, his employees, and their families prosper, he had to adapt to the existing system. According to the passage, ethics is defined as an individual’s code for society’s survival. Since Naresh prioritized the survival and well-being of his extended “society,” he is considered ethical within this framework. Thus, the answer is that Naresh is being totally ethical. \[ \boxed{\text{Naresh is being totally ethical.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

A new supervisor had joined a government department where both Naresh and Srikumar were bidding for work. During the bidding process for a particular project, in an open meeting with all contractors and officers from the department, he produced a document which had the rates at which Naresh had worked for private clients for similar building-related work. He accused Naresh and Srikumar of over-pricing for government work and threatened to disqualify them from the bidding process if the rates were not brought down. Faced with that situation, Naresh gave a written reply that “I use materials of inferior quality for private work, and that is the reason for price difference.” Srikumar supported Naresh in the meeting by saying that he had seen Naresh’s work and he agreed. In this situation, it can be concluded that:

Show Hint

When analyzing ethics, separate each individual’s action and intention carefully—solidarity or support does not always indicate personal ethics.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • both Naresh and Srikumar are unethical.
  • Naresh is unethical while Srikumar is not.
  • both Naresh and Srikumar are ethical.
  • Naresh is ethical to a large extent, but no conclusion can be made about Srikumar.
  • Srikumar is unethical, but no conclusion can be made about Naresh.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Naresh justified the price difference by claiming that he uses inferior materials for private work. This indicates that he charges higher prices for government work to maintain quality, which aligns with the principle of societal survival—showing he is largely ethical. However, about Srikumar, nothing concrete can be concluded from the information, as his support for Naresh may be based on solidarity rather than truth. \[ \boxed{\text{Naresh is ethical to a large extent, but no conclusion about Srikumar.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

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 implied he would not be able to participate in any government projects. Later, the supervisor’s dead body was found on railway tracks. Investigations followed, but none of the contractors recounted the happenings of the meeting to the police. Getting involved in a murder case could lead to unpredictable outcomes. Naresh wanted to speak out, but was pressurized by Srikumar and other contractors not to. As a result, he did not. Due to this, the case was closed unresolved. In this situation, it can be concluded that:

Show Hint

In dilemmas, always distinguish between \textbf{moral} obligations (towards society’s code) and \textbf{ethical} actions (towards survival of the group).
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • Srikumar is immoral, but ethical, while Naresh is not unethical.
  • Naresh is ethical and moral, while other contractors are immoral and unethical.
  • Naresh, Srikumar and other contractors are both immoral and unethical.
  • Other contractors are moral, and they prevented Naresh from being immoral.
  • Other contractors are unethical, but no conclusion can be made about Naresh.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Srikumar discouraged Naresh from revealing the truth about the supervisor’s murder, thereby prioritizing the contractors’ business survival over justice. This makes him ethical (helping his contractor society survive), but immoral (as society’s code against crime was violated). Naresh, meanwhile, wanted to speak out but gave in to pressure; therefore, he cannot be labeled unethical—he was trapped by circumstances. \[ \boxed{\text{Srikumar is immoral but ethical, Naresh is not unethical.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Caselets

View More Questions

Questions Asked in XAT exam

View More Questions