Ethics is the study of determining moral conductivity through critical reflection and analysis. Ethics is a process – it is about getting to a solution by questioning the norms; it is because we have different moral norms (from different moral authorities like societal, familial, cultural, religious, etc.) that we have so many different ethical theories1. Having varied ethics for us to follow allows us to exercise our rationality and put ethics into practice by questioning what we see around us1.

This case exemplifies the moral dilemma of how democratic government corruption and monopoly is capable of endangering the public food supply. The ethical dilemma here is whether or not Dr. Chopra did the right thing by violating superior norms and coming out with the ugly truth – more colloquially known as whistle blowing. My convictions are that Dr. Chopra and his team acted ethically in coming out with the truth to help safeguard and protect the health of fellow Canadians. This will be demonstrated through the lens of four moral theories namely, Aristotle’s virtue ethics, deontology and Kantian ethics, utilitarian ethics. The advantages and disadvantages of each school of thought will be presented, followed by a discussion of Dr. Chopra’s whistle blowing according to each philosophy. Aristotle’s virtue ethics stems from the work that Socrates and Plato did; however, it differs in that it focuses on the moral character of each individual as opposed to the rules and principles around human behavior1,2. He emphasized mankind’s ability to think and reason logically and therefore created a way of thinking that allows us to gauge the middle path between two extremes; it is for this reason that many theorists have paralleled Aristotle’s work with Buddhist philosophy1,2. According to Aristotle, every action is directed towards happiness and the actions of ‘good