Final answer:
A CPA subordinating their judgment to another individual's may lead to ethical issues, paralleling behaviors such as The Condemnation of the Condemners or an Appeal to a Higher Authority. These actions highlight potential testimonial injustice and the challenges of maintaining professional integrity when influenced by power dynamics or bias.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a CPA subordinates their judgment to that of another individual within the organization due to that individual's reputation with the company, this could potentially lead to ethical conflicts and undermine the professional integrity of the CPA. For example, if an associate professor concerned about tenure starts spreading rumors to improve their own standing, this behavior could be akin to 'The Condemnation of the Condemners' defense mechanism, where wrongdoing is deflected onto others.
An Appeal to a Higher Authority might also be used to justify unethical actions, suggesting that the unethical behavior served a higher purpose, thus obscuring the misconduct. This is similar to testimonial injustice, where someone's opinions are unfairly discounted. Bias, such as allegiance to a political party, may also hinder objective judgment, hindering a CPA's independence and objectivity. Additionally, a power dynamic, such as harassment from a person in a position of authority, could compel a CPA to act against their professional judgment. All these scenarios illustrate the delicate balance CPAs must maintain between respecting authority and upholding the ethical standards of their profession.