Pizza Delivery Position Paper “I’m damned if I do, and I’m damned if I don’t,” (proverb). 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 piece 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 bad neighborhoods in their area. 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 were 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, which asks if this practice by Domino’s is morally correct and ethical. In this scenario, there are effectively three stakeholders: Domino’s, Domino’s employees and Domino’s customers, however the main stakeholders are the two latter stakeholders. 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 history, 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. Domino’s employees have the right to work and thrive in a safe environment. In the same vein, however the disenfranchised customers are entitled to fair and equal treatment morally and legally, as stipulated by Title VII ( The Non-Discrimination Act). Again this causes an interesting dilemma, as both primary 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 puts their very identity at risk. As alluded to before, there may be no perfect solution but rather varying degrees of potentially acceptable solutions. In keeping with this thought, there are four different solutions which could be considered 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 and diverse 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, thus making the only caveat whether or not this policy is entirely practical and implementable. The third option would be to destroy the mapping system and allow drivers to make delivers anywhere, which would please the customer but could have ultimately devastating effects to Domino’s and their employees if any more employees were harmed. In the last option, this particular Domino’s branch could effectively stop its delivery service, and while this would obviously have negative ramifications on the financial bottom line, in the end both the employees and the customers' rights would be satisfied. In conclusion, the four possible solutions really all have their cons, but in deciding a solution with only our main interests in view; the possibilities are narrowed down to options which compromise. This is because in destroying the mapping system, Domino’s is absolutely failing their duty to their employees, which makes it entirely unacceptable option. On the other side of the coin however, there is a case for Domino’s to be sued in civil court for violating Title VII with disparate-impact discrimination. Whether or not the suit will bear fruit is also besides the point in this case, because this type of discrimination has already been judged to be “morally wrong” regardless if it is actually legally wrong. Not to mention the suit will also have further reaching implications, such as destruction of brand image. In option two however, we see a compromise which would probably, in the end, make everyone happier. This is because it would allow the delivery service to deliver to everyone again, 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 successfully implemented? Option four, while being more practical would also 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 possible. 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 highlight the old saying “Damned if I do, Damned if I don’t,” because there is no solution that will completely solve every problem, however a compromise would at least help to bridge the two sides. This is why I believe this particular Domino’s branch must do away with its delivery service and opt for option four. While we have concluded that a move like this will hurt the bottom line, other pizza places have been able to find financial success without a delivery service. Furthermore both primary duties would be satisfied, and Domino’s would have taken a bad situation and done the best to rectify it, given the possibilities.