I need a situation in which a memeber of a group disagreed w/the actions of the group based on ethical grounds

Question

I would also like to know the outcome and impact of this situation

Answer 1

I can think of a few examples to research:
(1) The big tobacco lawsuit was based on testimony leaked out by someone on the inside, regarding deliberate decisions to lace cigarettes with more addictive substances. So this could be seen as an example where a "whistleblower" within the industry took steps to expose actions opposed on ethical grounds. Because there was documented, tangible proof, the lawsuit was successful (though in the end, it made more money for the lawyers than for the class-action plaintiffs).
(2) A property owner in Freeport, Texas, has stood up against pressure from the majority of the city, refusing to sell out his property and family business to benefit a wealthy corporate figure. The city and supporters of the plan claim that building a yacht marina will bring in more revenue and attract outside interests to invest there. Citizens in the minority have been ostracized and threatened for opposing the deceptive abuse of "eminent domain" on ethical grounds, that government authority has been corrupted by corporate influence, and the plans are fraudulent, since the tax writeoffs gained would only benefit the private owner with no revenue going to the city.
(3) The most quoted case of jury nullification involved charges against William Penn for illegal preaching his faith. His actions were clearly in violation of written laws. However, the jury decided to enforce higher laws in the First Amendment guaranteeing religious freedom. They refused to convict him, despite the judge's attempts to sequester and even to torture them into changing their verdict. So this could be seen as a case where participants in a judicial proceeding stood up against court actions they deemed contrary to law, in defending their right to vote by conscience. http://www.fija.org
(4) Bishop Carlton Pierson had developed a well-established evangelical ministry and outreach, including tapes and books. But when his fellow church members in his organization parted ways on the concept of condemnation to hell (versus Jesus bringing salvation to all people), Pierson chose to walk away and start over. Since then, he has published a new book on the "Gospel of Inclusion" and "God is Not a Christian." So while he lost what he had, he has gained a new receptive audience. He reports that people from gay, Jewish and a wide variety of backgrounds, both Christian and nonchristian, have contacted him and invited him to speak to their groups about the real meaning he sees in Christianity that has not been taught correctly. At the same time, there are Christians who disagree with him who continue to reject him and his message.
Because he believed in his greater responsibility to the truth and to correct misguided teachings, this man gave up everything he had built and walked away from his church to start again.