Introduction Ethics is among the primary driving forces behind decision-making. Aside from the obvious personal ethical perspective, each individual usually restrained by the codes and principles of the environment. One example is the place of employment, which usually has a distinct set of ethical principles. Moreover, even in the situation when the personal and workplace ethics are based on the same philosophy, the conflict between two sets will most likely exist. The following paper aims at applying the decision-making framework to Kant’s version of deontology, to locate and rule out conflicting decisions, and choose the course of actions based on the obtained information. Dilly, Dally, Dawdle, and Delay Case Marjorie, my co-worker at the Dilly, Dally, Dawdle, and Delay firm, is having difficulties with completing Form 990 by the deadline. The history suggests that her failure will most likely result in losing her job. I have an experience with the form in question, but if I choose to help I will probably not be able to complete my work on tax return. There is no one else in the office to help her and no other possibility to avoid the task. The ethical dilemma is thus whether I should risk my position to help a co-worker or proceed with my work and put her at risk. Ethical Decision Kant’s deontological ethics, more commonly known as duty-based ethics in the context of the workplace environment, are among the most recognizable and appealing approaches to decision-making (Miller, 2012). According to deontology, the central motive for all decisions is good faith. However, it is determined by the set of obligations which, in turn, are defined by rules or laws. This leads to the particular conclusion that the actions are dictated by the fact of their necessity rather than the possible outcome (Frey & Wellman, 2008). In other words, an employee will do what he/she thinks or is told is best for the company, not what yields the best final result. In any workplace, at least two sides with their respective duties – the employee and the employer. In this case, where I am dealing with the inexperienced but probably well-meaning co-worker, Marjorie. Strictly speaking, I owe a professional obligation to the Dilly, Dally, Dawdle, and Delay, a personal duty to themselves. For instance, based on the legend that Mr. Dawdle fires anyone who shows professional incompetence during the first two weeks of July, I can assume that strictly compliance with the company’s standards is one of the primary principles that must be considered in decision making. In this case, the proper course of actions for me would be to proceed with the tax return and leave Marjorie to her trouble. In this way, not only the work I am responsible for will be completed timely, but the incompetent employee will be fired, resulting in the healthier workplace environment. On the other hand, personal duties most likely require me to help a co-worker who faced with the dilemma. As the conditions clearly suggest the impossibility to complete both tasks in time, this needs to be done with maximum effort and possibly at my expense. This latter option, however, may conflict with my obligations to myself, such as the duty to stay on the job to sustain the family. Finally, helping a less experienced co-worker may also count as a professional obligation, even though this is not within the range of my responsibilit