Problem
Clyde, a businessperson, caught a plane to Seattle to meet an important client. When he arrived in Seattle, it was pouring rain. He didn't have his raincoat with him, and he couldn't go to the meeting soaking wet, so he bought a raincoat in the hotel men's shop and put it on his expense account ($300). A few weeks later, the company's accounting office called him and said he can't put a $300 raincoat on his expense account, and returned his claim. When he got the form back from the accounting department, he crossed out "raincoat," wrote in "dinner with client," and resubmitted the form. Clyde defended the change saying, "An expense account is a convenience for the company" in which he advances company money to perform his job. "Many times," he argued, "I am charged a month's interest on the credit card before I get reimbursed." He concluded, "I bought the raincoat in order to represent the company effectively. I didn't do it just for the hell of it! Also, there are minor expenses I never bother to claim. So I figure the company comes out ahead anyway." In addition, he argued that everybody in the company does it the same way, and their competitors also paid their expense accounts to gain an unfair advantage in attracting clients.
1) Evaluate the moral permissibility of Clyde's conduct.
2) Later, Clyde's expense account submission is noticed by the company comptroller who attempts to have Clyde fired for submitting a false expense account record. Clyde argues the same points noted previously, but he adds that because he never received the reimbursement for the raincoat expense submission, he should not be punished. What do you think?