What about the business owner that lost everything they had when the business had to shut it's doors? Are they the ones doing the hurting or are they hurt when everything they invested is gone and thier home & security is at stake. That's an awfully one sided arguement, seeing as how everyone involved loses when a local business close the doors.
The question was whether to warn the employees of the coming shutdown, did the employees cause the business failure and the owners losses?
A sudden unexpected job loss could cause other losses for some employees as well, do their losses matter less?
Because one is afraid the workers will do something unethical, (quit early/leave him hanging) it justifies him doing something ethically questionable, (not warning employees/leaving them hanging)?
Wouldn't either side doing something unethical be a one sided argument based on which "side of the coin" is in their best interest?