Decisions, Decisions, Decisions!

Ethical Dilemma:
you are part of an organization who is planning an event at a bar. You know that alcohol will be accessible to underage members, but there can be serious consequences to your organization if they are caught. Do you enforce a rule to stop underage drinking because it is dangerous and against the law, or do you let it go because it is being done in a controlled environment and things have always been done this way?


Response:
What I would do is have ID checking at the front door, and if your under 21 you will receive an X on your hand. This will show that my organization isn't liable for underage drinking because we've pinpointed the underage members already. Individual vs. Community would play a role in this because of reputation. If I allow underage people to drink I may see my reputation grow because I'm allowing them to do something most people wouldn't let them do. Then again I may see my reputation fall because if one of the underage people get hurt and has alcohol in their system I'm responsible for this incident taking place. I may get looked at by people as irresponsible for this happening. This is why I'd just do my part and mark all of the underage people and let the bar make the decision whether they want to serve these people alcohol or not. This also allows all of the people, including the underage people, to take responsibility for their own actions. Rule-based thinking is a Kidder's principle that takes place because I simply want to think of a safe rule I can enforce, and which the members can still come to this event and enjoy themselves. Another framework, which takes place in this situation is truth vs. loyal because the truth is I already know that the underage members are usually allowed to drink and most of the time I say nothing about it. In this case though I have to stay loyal to my organization and do the safe thing because I can't be held responsible for others actions when I have an event to run.