Being the single shareholder of BQT, Troy has the legal right to increase his salary since by law the salary of the CEO may be increased by the shareholders. On the other hand, Troy is increasing his salary based on what he has learnt about the salary of another CEO. The motive for this action may thus be suspect, since even as it lowers the tax burden for the company, the person that benefits from all the action and the consequences of tax reduction is Troy. This is because he is the sole shareholder and as such will receive increased profits, and he will also receive a better salary (Nelson, 2006). On the second test, it is not quite true to assert that we do not have enough information to determine the reasonableness of the pay rise, since this is a function of the shareholders. Since Troy is a shareholder and the CEO, the IRS would definitely deem him to be conflicted in making a decision as to his salary. While the context of unreasonableness is also not clear, the fact that he raised his salary due to coming to knowledge of another CEO makes the pay rise lack merit (Nelson, 2006).
A classification of Troy’s actions as covetousness in light of ethical and moral principles of religion is, however, too harsh on Troy. This is because we do not have the contextual knowledge to enable us to compare the situations between the two people in order to determine if he really deserved the raise. The issue of covetousness is also the matter of the mind, which we cannot determine without more information. On the other hand, I believe that a comparison of salaries ought not to be performed by people in different organizations since circumstances are usually different (Nelson, 2006). However, it is human nature to desire to be at par with contemporaries, and hence Troy’s action should be analyzed from this perspective even as he is expected to adhere to both ethical, moral religious principle and legal ethical principles.