Betty, as an employee of a marketing agency, is assigned on the project of revitalizing an old campaign and bring it back up to competitors’ standards. After working vigorously on it she came up with a “not good enough” slang to the brand’s (cereal) owner, Arnold Hogan. Mr. Hogan, apparently prepared for this, suggested a catchier promising line but somewhat deceptive to the consumer. Betty feels this is simply unethical and goes to her boss looking for advice. He then explains to her how the business works and how they do have some field to play within their line of work. Betty is faced with her own individual moral codes of ethics which even though important to her are not related ethically to the organization or any law abiding issue, therefore not a big deal. She can either “go with the flow” and adapt Mr. Hogan’s theme line or stick to her moral values. Each decision implies a rather serious consequence. If she keeps true to herself, although no threats has been made work wise, it is almost positive the fact that she will be left out of future projects, eventually lower her efficiency percentage towards the company and so forth, but she will not corrupt her own person. On the other hand if the suggestion is utilized she will be making both the client and agency happy, yet might not be able to sleep at night. I think Betty should take and implement the suggested theme line. Although somewhat trouble making for her as an individual that is why there are also developed and stated superior ethical codes such as corporate, industry and professional codes, where you also have a duty to your client. In this specific case no law is being broken. The one theory it does not go serenely with is the humanist but we cannot win all battles and is an “acceptable loss”. Then again, it is placidly in accordance with the other two theories: looking at the