Felicia Robinson is running for school board in a large eastern city. Her opponent is conducting what Felicia regards as a highly unethical cam- paign. In addition to twisting the facts about school taxes, the opponent is pandering to racial prejudice by raising resentment against African Ameri- cans and recently arrived immigrants. Five days before the election, Felicia, who is slightly behind in the polls, learns that the district attorney is preparing to indict her opponent for shady business practices. But the indictment will not be formally issued until after the election. Nor can it be taken as evidence that her opponent is guilty—like all citizens, he has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Still, news of the indictment could be enough to throw the election Felicia’s way, and her advisers urge her to make it an issue in her remain- ing campaign speeches. Should Felicia follow their advice?
Explain what whould be the most ethlial course of action in her case, and why?

Based on ethics, except a person has been tried and found to be guilty, he or she is innocent. By bringing up a case of this indictment, there would be a violation of the ethical rights of this opponent by Felicia.

But again, we have to put the school into consideration. If this opponent had really done these unethical things as projected by Felicia, then it would be an unethical treatment on her part to the entire school which would be in the hands of such a person.

So on Felicia's art we have to consider two things, unethical treatment toward school by not mentioning the opponents indictment and also unethical treatment towards the opponent by bringing up the indictment

For me I think, the ethical thing for her to do would be to mention the impending indictment of the opponent.

Thank you!