Ethics in action – part 1/3

Can anyone tell me what these situations have in common? Situation 1: A student has the words “No recourse to public funds” stamped on his visa to enter the United Kingdom. He was later told that he is allowed to take up a part-time job for up to 20 hours per week under the student visa. So he does. He then applied for a type of benefit and his application was approved. He knows that the benefitshe applied for falls under the category of “public funds” but, obviously, he did not mention anything about this when making the benefit application. He then looks for justifications for his actions and surely he manages to do so – from those people who are doing the very thing that he does. Situation 2: Another student wants to buy a car. She finds travelling by public transportation tedious and time consuming. If she owns a car, she can travel to where she wants, when she wants. It is also more cost effective. She bought her car insurance through a call-centre. When asked how long she has had a full UK driving license, she answered 6 years. The reality is, she does not have any UK driving license. Her driving license was issued in a different country six years ago. But had she said this when purchasing the insurance, the premium would almost certainly double, or she might even be refused the insurance. So, not wanting to go into the hassle of calling tens of other numbers, she decided to just say that her license is a full, valid UK driving license. Situation 3: An organization wants to organize a very important training event for its members. The location has been chosen. The venue can take up to 200 people. But the organization needs to put 300 people in that training course. To opt for a different venue that can take all 300 would treble the cost. In order to save money, a decision was made to proceed with that venue despite the overcrowding. After all, this has been done before and there was never any problem. Just a couple months back, another event was held at a place that was supposed to take only up to 60 people, but they managed to fit in 75. In that instance, the organization saves money and everyone was happy. What could go wrong this time? What is the difference between over-crowding by fifteen (as was previously the case) and overcrowding by 100 (as will be this time)? The organization chose not to mention about the presence of an extra 100 people when making the booking. When asked, they stated that there were only 200 participants. On the day, they played hide-and seek with the venue manager in order not to get caught. Situation 4: A family wants to go on a trip and they need accommodation. They usually stay at one of the Travelodge when on holiday. And indeed Travelodge is their choice this time. Rooms in a Travelodge can only take up to two adults and two children. But this is a family with three young children. Since Travelodge is the cheapest option, what they did was to book online and say that there are two adults and only two children. Do not mention about the third child. This will save them money and no harm is really done to the hotel itself.