The tweaked scenario is essentially reminiscent of ethical relativism. Sher said that a common and standardized code of conduct does not exist in ethical relativism. (Sher.G, Moral philosophy, p147). In other words, the moral truth is relatively evaluated based on different cultures, scenarios or perspectives. Despite the forcible actions on sales and customers in this case, that might be considered as unethical by absolutist. An ethical relativist may argue that Xerox’s actions are considered as relatively ethical if we view the case from a charitable perspective. i.e. the marginal revenue from selling those unnecessary but affordable machines actually is for charitable purpose. In contrast, absolutists only have one strict guiding rule and may come out with two opposite conclusions depending on how they view the case, i.e. from customer necessity perspective or charitable perspective.

Ethical relativism and absolutism are too extreme to be the guideline in ethical decision making. Hence, a three-principle guideline has been used in shaping ethical behavior. (Donaldson.T. Values in Tension. pg.7) Most significantly, one should respect others’ core human values. For example, “individuals must not treat others simply as tools…” Furthermore, “Confucius counsels …or not to do to others what they do not want done to themselves.” The forceful actions by Xerox’s sales essentially treat their customers as an ATM machine as the purchased products are beyond the capabilities of what actually need. In other words, those sales people would not purchase excessive machines for themselves at a same price. In short, despite the cover of charity, Xerox did not respect the core human values for their customers. Hence, their actions are considered as