Given that every one individual possesses a different viewpoint of what is right and what is wrong, it is imperative for a person to realize with which perspective he/she is dealing. The Ethics Awareness Inventory program completes the mentioned goal in that it can evaluate one’s ethical style via asking a series of questions, evaluating the answers, and eventually revealing the type of ethical person one is. Despite the fact that results vary from one to the other, the majority of people base their ethical views on four perspectives: character, obligation, results, and equity; and, it is possible for some to have blended styles which places them into two categories at the same time. According to Vladimir Collak, the author of the paper on EAI, the results of the test revealed that his ethical perspective is based on character. People with a viewpoint centered on character strive to achieve “moral excellence” by highlighting virtues such as integrity, honesty, justice, and wisdom. Their stance on ethics emphasizes the fact that a person must not only be a good character, but also be morally good at all times. In Collak’s case, he often perceives some of the people he comes into contact with as unethical due to his focus on character, when in fact it is probable that they merely have a different stand on ethics. Thus, it is only natural for conflicts to arise between two people with different perspectives. Collak gives the example of his boss, whom he considers to be a results-oriented person, and his wife, who is an obligation person according to the test, so as to shed light on the different-perspectives-equates-conflict situation mentioned earlier. The differences between the two comes down to the following: the former takes into account benefits versus costs, which may produce unethical decisions sometimes; and the latter perceives the idea of righteousness as what is expected or supposed to be done by one. This obviously creates clashes between how Collak and his boss view ethics, as well as how he and his wife do. The author concludes by saying that the notion of various perspectives was an enlightening one for him because he now understands some “theory” behind ethical decisions, and therefore can be more understanding and accepting of others’ viewpoint instead of looking at the issue from a character-based angle. In addition, he asserts that this new-found knowledge has not only helped him examine other people’s decisions objectively, but also it has armed him with the ability to recognize and cope accordingly with the conflicts that may surface when facing different standpoints.