Reading Time: 12 minutes
WGU C206 Task 1 Guide and Example: Ethical Theories and Ethical Lens Inventory
WGU C206 Task 1 requires you to complete the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI), apply your results alongside ethical theory frameworks to analyze a fixed ethical dilemma scenario, and articulate your personal ethical decision-making process — in a structured analytical paper of approximately 5–8 pages with APA citations. This guide walks through the ELI, all major ethical theories, and the dilemma analysis structure with an annotated sample you can study before writing your own.
The Task 1 scenario is fixed: you are a sales representative for a medical device company whose artificial knee joint is known to cause serious, potentially lethal, infections in a small percentage of patients. The company refuses to disclose this risk. You signed a nondisclosure agreement. This guide shows how to navigate the dilemma analytically using the rubric’s required framework.
See the WGU C206 Task 2 guide and WGU C206 Task 3 guide for the organizational ethics and code of ethics tasks.
What Is WGU C206 Task 1?
WGU C206 Task 1 is an ethical theories and personal ethics analysis, requiring you to complete the ELI assessment, reflect on your ethical lens results, apply two or more ethical theories to a medical device dilemma scenario, evaluate your decision options, and articulate what you would do and why.
C206 (Ethical Leadership) is a core MBA course covering ethical decision-making, leadership responsibility, and corporate ethics. Task 1 is the most personal of the three tasks — it connects your individual ethical framework (revealed through the ELI) to real-world ethical dilemmas. Tasks 2 and 3 shift to organizational and institutional ethics.
Important: C206 has two versions; EH1/KTP2 and EHM2. The scenario described in this guide reflects the current EHM2 version (medical device). Confirm your version with your program mentor before submitting.
Step 1: Complete the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI)
The ELI is a required prerequisite for Task 1; complete it before writing your paper and save the PDF.
Access the ELI through your C206 course materials. It takes 15–30 minutes and identifies your preferred ethical lens; the framework through which you naturally evaluate ethical situations. Save the results PDF immediately; you must attach it to your submission.
The four ELI lenses:
| Lens | Core Value | Decision Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Rights/Responsibilities Lens | Autonomy | Protecting individual rights and fulfilling duties regardless of outcome |
| Results Lens | Sensibility | Producing the greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarian) |
| Relationship Lens | Equality | Fairness and what a reasonable, wise person would do |
| Reputation Lens | Character | Acting with virtue and integrity; what a person of good character would do |
Most students have a preferred lens (their dominant ethical instinct) and a secondary lens. The ELI also identifies potential blind spots — areas where your preferred lens may lead to systematic ethical errors.
The Major Ethical Theories for C206 Task 1
You must apply at least two ethical theories to analyze the dilemma. Know each theory well enough to apply it to a specific scenario — not just define it.
Utilitarianism
The right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Consequences are all that matter; intentions and rules are secondary.
Applied to the medical device scenario: A utilitarian analysis must weigh the benefit to the majority of patients (effective, affordable knee replacement) against the harm to the minority (serious infection risk). If the benefit to 95% outweighs the harm to 5%, a utilitarian might argue non-disclosure is justified — but a utilitarian must also consider the long-term consequences: loss of public trust, legal liability, and the harm to future patients if the pattern continues.
Kantian Ethics (Deontology)
The right action is determined by duty and universal moral rules — not consequences. Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that you should act only according to rules you would want universalized for everyone.
Applied: A Kantian analysis holds that concealing known health risks from patients violates the duty to treat patients as ends in themselves, not merely as means to the company’s profit. If the rule “conceal product defects from users” were universalized, the entire medical device market would collapse — so the Categorical Imperative clearly condemns the non-disclosure.
Virtue Ethics
The right action is what a person of good character — possessing virtues like honesty, courage, integrity, and compassion — would do.
Applied: A virtue ethics analysis asks: what would a person of integrity do in this situation? Honesty requires disclosure; courage is required to act against the company’s directive; compassion demands prioritizing patient safety over personal job security. The virtuous action is to find a way to ensure patients are informed.
Stakeholder Theory
The right action considers the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Leaders have ethical obligations to employees, customers, communities, and society as well as investors.
Applied: A stakeholder analysis identifies patients as primary stakeholders whose interest in informed medical decision-making is being violated. The company’s financial interest in concealment conflicts directly with patients’ right to safety information and with society’s interest in trustworthy medical markets.
Rights-Based Ethics
Every person has fundamental rights that cannot be violated even for good outcomes. Patient autonomy, the right to make informed decisions about one’s own medical care, is a foundational right in healthcare ethics.
Applied: Non-disclosure violates the patient’s right to informed consent, which is a cornerstone of medical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). A rights-based analysis holds that this right cannot be overridden by the company’s commercial interests.
How to Analyze the Dilemma
Structure your Task 1 analysis as follows:
Section A — ELI Reflection:
- Identify your preferred lens and secondary lens
- Explain what each lens means in your own words
- Reflect on how your preferred lens shapes how you instinctively approach the medical device dilemma
- Identify your ELI blind spot and acknowledge where your preferred lens might lead you astray
Section B — Ethical Theory Application:
- Select two or more theories from the list above
- Apply each theory to the specific facts of the scenario (not in the abstract)
- For each theory: state the key principle, apply it to the scenario, and state what action the theory recommends
- Identify where the theories agree and where they conflict
Section C — Decision and Justification:
- State clearly what you would do in this scenario
- Explain which ethical theory or combination of theories supports your decision
- Acknowledge the real consequences of your decision (NDA violation, job risk, potential legal exposure) and explain why the ethical obligation outweighs those risks
- Connect your decision back to your ELI lens
Section D — Personal Ethics Statement:
- Two to three paragraphs articulating your personal ethical framework as a leader
- Connect to your ELI results
- Reference at least one ethical theory that resonates most with your approach
Common C206 Task 1 Revision Triggers
- ELI reflection that defines the lenses rather than reflecting on what your specific results reveal about your ethical decision-making.
- Theory application that describes theories in the abstract without applying them to the specific facts of the medical device scenario.
- Decision section that avoids the real ethical tension — saying “I would follow company policy” without engaging with the patient safety obligation.
- Personal ethics statement that is generic — “I believe in doing the right thing” is not a personal ethics statement. Name your framework, cite a theory, and connect to your ELI results.
- Missing APA citations — all ethical theory claims need citations.
Annotated Sample: WGU C206 Task 1
This sample is provided for educational reference only. Do not submit this document as your own work. Need a custom Task 1 written for your ELI results? Message us on WhatsApp: +1 564-544-6924
Sample ELI Reflection
My Ethical Lens Inventory results identify the Rights/Responsibilities Lens as my preferred ethical lens, with the Reputation (Virtue) Lens as my secondary lens. My blind spot, as identified by the ELI, is self-righteousness; the tendency to be so confident in the correctness of my ethical principles that I fail to adequately consider the legitimate perspectives of others or the practical consequences of acting on those principles.
The Rights/Responsibilities Lens prioritizes protecting individual autonomy and fulfilling duties to others. When I encounter an ethical dilemma, my instinctive first question is: Whose rights are being violated, and what is my duty in this situation? In the medical device scenario, this lens immediately frames the patient as the central stakeholder whose right to informed medical decision-making is being violated by the company’s concealment policy.
My secondary Reputation Lens adds a virtue ethics dimension: I also ask, What would a person of integrity do here? This reinforces the Rights/Responsibilities analysis; a person of honesty and courage would find a way to ensure patients are protected, even at personal cost.
My identified blind spot, self-righteousness, is directly relevant to this scenario. A leader with a strong Rights/Responsibilities Lens may become so focused on principle that they fail to consider how best to achieve the ethical outcome. I must be careful not to act in a way that satisfies my ethical principles while inadvertently causing more harm (for example, publicly disclosing in a way that creates panic rather than informed decision-making).
Sample Ethical Theory Application
Theory 1: Kantian Ethics (Deontology)
Kant’s Categorical Imperative holds that the morally correct action is one that could be universalized without contradiction; you should act only according to rules that you would will to become universal laws (Kant, 1785/2012). Applied to this scenario: the company’s rule is “conceal known product defects from users when disclosure would harm company revenue.” If this rule were universalized across the medical device industry, patients could never trust product safety disclosures, informed consent would become impossible, and the entire patient-provider relationship would be undermined. The Categorical Imperative clearly condemns this rule.
A Kantian analysis also invokes the humanity formulation: treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means. Patients receiving the artificial knee joint are being treated as means to the company’s financial ends — their autonomy and safety are subordinated to revenue preservation. This is a direct violation of Kantian ethics regardless of the consequences.
Recommended action per Kantian ethics: Disclose the infection risk to patients, even if this violates the NDA. The duty to treat patients as autonomous beings with a right to informed consent cannot be overridden by a contractual obligation to conceal safety-relevant information.
Theory 2: Utilitarianism
Utilitarian ethics evaluates actions by their consequences; the right action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Mill, 1863/2001). An initial utilitarian analysis might seem to support non-disclosure: if only a small percentage of patients develop the serious infection, the majority benefit from an affordable, effective knee replacement, and disclosure might reduce adoption of a beneficial product.
However, a complete utilitarian analysis must account for long-term consequences. Concealment, once discovered, creates catastrophic consequences: massive legal liability, loss of public trust in the medical device industry, regulatory crackdowns, and potential harm to future patients who would have chosen differently with complete information. It also creates a precedent of concealment that enables future violations. When all consequences are properly weighted, including those that occur after discovery, the utilitarian calculus supports disclosure.
Recommended action per utilitarianism: Disclose; the total harm from concealment (when all downstream consequences are considered) exceeds the total harm from disclosure.
Both theories recommend the same action: disclose the infection risk. The Kantian analysis reaches this conclusion through duty; the utilitarian analysis reaches it through consequences. The convergence of two independent frameworks on the same recommendation strengthens the ethical case for disclosure significantly.
Sample Decision and Justification
Given the analysis above, I would disclose the infection risk; but strategically, not impulsively.
My first step would be to exhaust internal escalation options before taking any external action. I would formally document my concerns in writing to my direct supervisor and to the company’s legal and compliance department, creating a record that I raised the patient safety concern through proper channels. This approach is recommended by both the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE, 2021) and is the appropriate first step before any whistleblower action.
If internal escalation fails — if the company confirms its decision to conceal — I would consult a healthcare attorney about the NDA’s enforceability in the context of patient safety. In most U.S. jurisdictions, NDAs that require concealing imminent harm to third parties are unenforceable as contrary to public policy (Dees & Starr, 2012). I would then report the infection risk to the FDA’s MedWatch program, which allows anonymous reporting of medical device safety concerns.
The personal cost of this decision is real, potential job loss, potential legal action from the company, and professional disruption. However, the Kantian analysis makes clear that my duty to patients as autonomous individuals with the right to informed consent cannot be overridden by a contractual obligation. My Rights/Responsibilities lens reinforces this: the patient’s right to safety information is a non-negotiable claim that this situation requires me to honor.
Sample Personal Ethics Statement
My personal ethical framework is anchored in a rights-based and duty-based approach, informed by Kant’s principle that every person has an intrinsic dignity that must be respected regardless of consequences. In leadership roles, I believe that protecting the autonomy and safety of those whose lives my decisions affect is the highest ethical obligation; more fundamental than loyalty to the organization, adherence to policy, or protection of personal career security.
This framework was formed through my professional experience in healthcare, where informed consent is not merely a legal requirement but a moral foundation. The patient’s right to understand the risks of their medical treatment is the ethical principle I have seen most directly violated when organizations prioritize financial interests; and it is the principle I feel most strongly committed to defending.
My ELI blind spot, self-righteousness, reminds me that ethical certainty can itself become a problem. I commit to acting on my principles while remaining genuinely open to perspectives I have not yet considered, and to pursuing ethical outcomes through the least disruptive means available before escalating to more confrontational approaches.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dees, R. H., & Starr, A. (2012). Whistleblowing and the ethical employee. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 511–522.
Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor & J. Timmermann, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1863)
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. (2021). SCCE’s complete compliance and ethics manual. SCCE.
Frequently Asked Questions About WGU C206 Task 1
Do I need to complete the ELI before writing Task 1?
Yes. The ELI results are a required component of your Task 1 submission — you must attach the PDF and reflect on your specific lens results. You cannot write a credible ELI reflection without completing the assessment first.
How many ethical theories do I need to apply in C206 Task 1?
The rubric requires application of at least two ethical theories. Most passing submissions apply two to three theories. The medical device scenario is rich enough to support contrasting perspectives — choosing two theories that reach the same conclusion from different directions (as shown in the sample above) demonstrates stronger analytical thinking than choosing theories that trivially agree.
What should I decide in the Task 1 dilemma?
The rubric does not require a specific decision — it evaluates whether your decision is justified by your ethical analysis. That said, assessors expect you to engage seriously with the patient safety obligation. A decision to follow company policy without ethical analysis is unlikely to satisfy the rubric’s analytical depth requirements.
How long should C206 Task 1 be?
Most passing submissions are 5–8 pages. The ELI reflection, theory application, and decision sections each need substantive development. Thin sections that meet the topic without analytical depth are the primary revision trigger regardless of total page count.
Do I need citations for every ethical theory I mention?
Yes; cite the primary source or a scholarly secondary source for each theory you apply. Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and other foundational theorists have widely available scholarly editions. Healthcare ethics applications can cite Beauchamp and Childress (Principles of Biomedical Ethics) as a comprehensive source.
Author Bio
This guide was developed by the Gradevia academic content team; specialists in WGU MBA curriculum, applied ethics, and performance assessment standards for working adult learners.
Article Update Log
| Date | Update |
|---|---|
| June 22, 2026 | Initial publication — WGU C206 Task 1 guide covering ELI four lenses, five major ethical theories with scenario applications, dilemma analysis structure, and annotated sample with Kantian and utilitarian analysis of medical device disclosure dilemma, decision justification, and personal ethics statement with five APA citations. |
The post WGU C206 Task 1 Guide and Example: Ethical Theories and Ethical Lens Inventory appeared first on Your Online Resourses Guide.