Ethics, Relativism, Whistleblowing &
Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics & Professional Duty

Ethics is the study of morality through a rational examination of moral beliefs and behavior — it is a field of inquiry, not the legal system (a), not a purely religious directive (c), and not just a private, consequence-free code (d).

Subjective Relativism holds that each individual decides right and wrong for themselves — an act is right if that person approves of it. Cultural Relativism instead ties morality to one's culture, not the individual alone.

Reporting a bad practice strictly within the organization, with no public exposure, is internal reporting. External whistleblowing specifically refers to exposing the practice outside the organization (e.g., to the media, regulators, or the public).

Act Utilitarianism looks only at the consequences of the specific act in question. Rule Utilitarianism instead asks whether the act follows a general rule that, if universally adopted, would maximize happiness overall. Neither uses the categorical imperative (that's Kant) or perfect duties (also Kantian language).

Subjective Relativism is "non-workable" because letting each person decide right and wrong for themselves gives it no real persuasive force in resolving moral disagreements — there's no shared standard to appeal to. It has nothing to do with perfect duties (a Kantian concept) or group-level reasoning.

Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean places courage between two vices: cowardice (an excess of fear) and rashness (a deficiency of fear, i.e. recklessness). Option (c) describes the mean for a different virtue (friendliness), and option (d) mixes in Kantian duty language that doesn't belong to Virtue Ethics.

When internal reporting is punished or discouraged, bad practices tend to escalate rather than resolve — until someone feels forced to go outside the organization and blow the whistle externally. Nothing about punishing internal reporting builds trust (b) or triggers automatic legal resolution (c).

Social Contract Theory is criticized because it can unjustly treat, or leave without clear guidance, people who cannot fully uphold their side of the contract (e.g. drug addicts, criminals, or the mentally ill) — since the theory's protections are framed around mutual, reciprocal obligation. Option (b) is actually a Kantian idea (treating people as ends, not means), not this specific critique.

In exchange for the legal licensing granted by society, a professional society takes on obligations to serve the public interest, avoid harming society, maintain professional standards, and exercise due care grounded in its specialized knowledge. It is not simply an agent for client commands (a), nor does it prioritize profit over stakeholders (c).

Non-disclosure and non-compete agreements structurally manage an employee's obligation of loyalty — protecting an employer's trade secrets and specialized field knowledge both during and after the employment relationship ends. This is unrelated to Kantian "perfect duties" (a) or professional licensing (b).