Imagine you are a mid-level manager for an international corporation. Your corporation is in the midst of a major construction project within a old-growth forest. You've stumbled across an internal report that someone in your company wrote that shows that the forest you’re building in contains a new species of small, strange snail that no one knew existed before. And that report reveals that your company’s building project will completely wipe out that species. The report, though, also notes that if the public comes to know about the snail, the project will be shut down by environmental regulators and activists, perhaps forever. This will result in a loss of important profits for your company. Finally, you discovered that your corporation has no plans to tell anyone about the snail, and will do nothing to save the snail. It is planning to move ahead with the project. In this scenario, if you do nothing, it will never be discovered that the snail existed. You're trying to decide whether you should try to make that report public, and push to save the snail—shutting down your company’s project; or whether you should remain silent and allow your company's project to continue as planned. Which option is the most rational ethical decision to make, and why? Remember, your answer should draw on (a) the Vaughn reading as well as (b) one of the other two readings in a detailed and substantive way.