Pizza Delivery Position Paper “I’m damned if I do, and I’m damned if I don’t,” (Old Saying). Life is filled with hard choices. In fact, the line between right and wrong action can be so blurred at times, that the morally correct action can truly be a mystery. This is why ethics is so important; because it allows one to sharpen their intellect and be able to discern right action from wrong. However, one part which even gives ethical reasoning a run for its money, is a decision where both outcomes are, by all estimations, equally as bad. In summation, Domino’s pizza has started a practice with one of its branches which disallows drivers to deliver pizzas to certain neighborhoods in their zone. As a part of this practice, Domino’s has created a map of its deliver radius and marked areas where it will allow drivers to deliver to and where it won’t allow drivers to deliver to. This policy was first implemented, because many employees where being robbed and murdered in these particular neighborhoods. Eventually certain members of the community, who lived in these “bad” neighborhoods, protested and said that these practices were pronounced acts of racism. Eventually other political groups got involved, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, who criticized this practice because all the targeted neighborhoods were predominantly minority neighborhoods. When first examining this problem, we see that there is one single underlying issue at the heart of the problem; is this practice by Domino’s morally correct and ethical? In discerning this question, we must first ask ourselves the duties which are at stake. First and foremost, Domino’s has a duty to its employees, and with this duty they must at all times try, to the best of their ability, to keep their employees out of harm’s way. However, at the same time they also have an overwhelming duty to treat every customer fairly and justly, not only in a moral sense, but also in a very serious legal sense. And while the zoning policy may be still technically be legal, it conjures up images of pre 1960’s America where other (non-Caucasian) races were very openly and actively discriminated against on a daily basis. After this dark period of time, certain rights were then perfected to ensure that the maltreatment would stop, which leads us into the rights of the individual parties involved in the case. As we have established before, Domino’s has a very real duty to protect their employees from harm and to keep their working environment as safe as humanly possible. In with this, they also have the right to do this in the best manner they see fit. In the same vein, however the disenfranchised customers are entitled to fair and equal treatment morally and legally, as stipulated by the Statute of Blank. Again this causes an interesting dilemma, as both sides have certain rights, duties, and interests, which must be thoroughly understood. After taking all of this into account, the question now becomes is there any possible solution that will allow for both parties to be adequately satisfied? Looking towards the future, Domino’s is faced with a severe problem, which at the end of the day holds their identity at risk. In the search for a solution which would make attempt to solve this problem from both sides of the spectrum. Four different solutions have been seen as possibilities. The first being, Domino’s simply proceeds as usual and disregards the ethical implications a practice, such as the Zoning Map might have on its very large customer base. Option two, in an effort to bridge the gap between the two sides, would consist of creating “drop off points” near the vicinity of dangerous areas but outside the specific “bad” parts. This option would allow for some of the convenience of delivery, but also an adequate level of safety for employees, this making the only caveat whether or not this policy is entirely practical and implementable. The third option would destroy the mapping system and allow drivers to make delivers anywhere, which would please the customer said but could have ultimately devastating effects to the company if any more employees are killed. In the last option, this particular Domino’s branch could effectively stop its delivery service, and while this would obviously has negative ramifications on our financial bottom line, in the end both parties would be adequately satisfied. In conclusion, the four possible solutions really all have their cons, but in decided a solution with only are main interests in view our, the possibilities are narrowed down to option two and four. In two, we see compromise, which would probably in the end make everyone the happiest. This is because it would allow the delivery service to deliver to everyone, and at the same time allow for driver safety. However, with its potential success it also brings many questions about its practicality. For example, would this truly make the process more convenient for people or would it actually throw off timing even more? Furthermore, can a pioneer program like this even be successful implemented? Four, while being a more of a last resort, also seems like the most likely and, in reality, the only for sure shot to satisfy both sides. Like in any aspect of life, you can only take the precise amount of relevant information you have and make the best decision you can possible make. In this case, we have established our duties, interests, and rights, and have come to the conclusion that for many reasons every solution has issues. But for this particular case, we must pick a solution that at least adequately satisfies the rights to both: fair and equal treatment and worker safety. In the end, this problem really does highlights the old saying “Damned if I do, Damned if I don’t,” because there is no solution that will completely solve every problem.