Ethical Dilemma Paper
Introduction
In these two preliminary pages, I will describe my personal experience that is related in the workplace. I have experienced and witnessed indirectly decisions and actions that were taken by various stakeholders. I will not divulge the identity of the individuals and company given the confidentiality of the information. Although there could be hints as to the nature of the problem because of the omnipresence of information in the World Wide Web, I would still leave to my readers to find out for themselves who these stakeholders were. Hence, in case some of the personalities were similar to those that my readers of my essay may come to know, it is never my intention.
For this specific task, I present, discuss, and analyze an ethical dilemma by answering questions not limited to the following: who are the stakeholders affected by the dilemma? What should have been the right outcome of the decisions or actions? What was considered wrong and why? What ethical perspectives did the persons involve in the dilemma adhering to? What are some biases that might have prevented the persons concerned from making the best decision or taking the most appropriate action? What might the individuals’ respective organizations have done to remedy the situation? Based on my core knowledge and beliefs of ethical frameworks, theories, and models (such as, consequentialism, utilitarianism, subjectivism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc.), as I read the news about a renowned motor company, my attention was caught up daily until my interest grew much and much intense because I love personally witnessing news or touching stories with dilemmas with moral lessons.
The Dilemma and How it Was Handled by Concerned Individuals or Entities
Facts say it that a particular person, named Angel (only a pseudonym), works at the marketing department of this company (let me call it ABC Motors Company). Another employee, named Engr. Benny, works in the design department of the same company for nearly one year. Angel and Benny were co-workers. During break time at the company cafeteria, they eat together. However, for the past several weeks, Angel noticed that Benny was distracted and bothered by something. Angel, thus, pressed Benny to confide; consequently, the two agreed to make the matter a secret between them. Benny informed Angel that he reviewed several decade-long designs of fuel tanks because he has to come up with a new design. For those past decades, ABC Company linked with and shared long-term gains with XYZ Fuel Enhancement Division (FED), an outstanding design sub-contractor to sustain the former’s proven track record of truck manufacturing reputation.
Further, during the past decades, more than five million of the 12 million ABC-FED trucks were bought and still on roads. At present, ABC-FED’s fail-safety system was still proven unreliable. Nonetheless, the company has not yet violated laws by complying with federal and state standards, regulations, and criteria. Additionally, ABC’s truck safety records surpassed any other brands. Chief of Safety Engineering, named Charles, proposed to recall vulnerable truck models. However, Charles’ idea was rejected. The company said that recall was too expensive and its trucks, so far, has overall outstanding safety records. ABC’s Vice Executive for public relations and safety, named Daniel, criticized the recall as greatly negatively impacting on the company’s established reputation, profitability, and future earnings. In addition, Daniel quoted the Transportation Department that statistics has it that recall would most probably save ten (10) lives only, such that there would be no subsequent assumed deathly damage over the course of trucks’ life on roads. As such, ABC has no further justification for recall just to make the trucks much safer.
Engr. Benny will lose his job should the confidential matter went viral as bad publicity would be a disaster for the company. Benny still shared the confidential matter to Angel even though it should not have been the case in the first place. Angel asked himself whether his co-worker Benny was right for keeping the matter undisclosed to proper authorities just to keep his job, car, house, salary, inter alia. Angel was dilemmatic over his own understanding of the disclosed company issue and to the many truck drivers who might die as a result of ABC-FED’s used trucks’ fuel tank position or system. Further, Angel was irate in himself why the ABC officials, despite problems with the previous trucks, still did not take drastic actions to patch up things for good more than half a decade ago, which already resulted to the demise of a few truck drivers and consequently leaving behind their families fatherless.
Promise keeping not to broach up the matter to other authorities mean having a job; otherwise, could lead to distrust to the company as bad publicity arise. Further, unwarranted consequences resulting from not raising fail-safe standard beyond what the law requires is also an ethical issue. Despite evidence pointing to state and federal regulation compliance, it is not justifiable for the company not to have done something better for the past years to produce succeeding trucks of highest quality. ABC-FED ought to have set higher standards for their specific truck fail-safe design to prevent subsequent lost of even a single life. The right outcome ought to have been remedying the problem: the wrong outcome was for having done otherwise. Benny ought to have tendered his resignation and then left his report/finding to the ABC officials to resolve the trucks’ dangerously mounted tank fuel system to avoid lost of lives of other people; hence, clearing himself of guilt and possible lawsuit, too, should the secret be known later on.
Angel and Benny may be relying on subjectivist ethics. They believe in themselves that they have a family of their own to care for while working at ABC. Should they do against the orders of company officials to make the matter confidential, they would lose not only their job but also their salary and other benefits. Keeping their mouth shut would mean having to continue with their work and provide sustenance to their families (that is, as compared to a few truck drivers who would die and leave their family members behind). In other words, they are simply following orders to protect their company’s long-time reputation. The company officials were really to be blamed because, even when they comply with the laws, not recalling cars in view of significant research findings about unrealiable fail-safe system was, indeed, an ethical issue.
Cost effectiveness and superior old safety records ought not to be the sole bases not to recall the trucks. ABC-FED may have already earned that much on trucks sold, but lives of people are never tantamount to mere monetary profits. To patch up a problem and not to really solve it is simply wrong. Angel, Benny, and company officials are adhering to utilitarianism wherein the greatest advantages should be for them to maximize as compared to the lost of only a few truck drivers’ lives. Despite anything to that, the right outcome ought to be lives above company profit. ABC can better their fail-safe design only if they recall the trucks. It is more understandable from the humane side of the dilemma to consider what is best among the least stakeholders (such as drivers and their families, as well as, other individuals when affected by truck accidents).
In terms of biases, all of the company people and officials who know about the truck tank issue are all fault; hence, prevented them from making the best solution. Angel may as well stick with promise keeping. Benny would rather have his job for his own family’s safe. Company officials (e.g., Charles) may have the same reason coupled with protecting the image of the company they love. All of them might have done something to remedy the situation, but never did. They ought to have stood up for what is right even when it would mean company closure, bankruptcy, bad publicity, and so on. It would never been too late to take the necessary and sufficient action of recalling the trucks to better their safety mechanism. It is not wrong to use one’s foresight (consequentialist stance) if it would mean losing one’s job and saving lives.
Should the matter become a public knowledge in case the company’s secret leaks, ABC would still pay greater amount for damages caused by unreliable truck fail-safe design. ABC’s millions of consumers and potential customers might rally and the government to take drastic action against it. In a nutshell, ABC Company has no right to mislead its consumers, prospective buyers, and other stakeholders. It is ABC’s duty (under deontological ethics) to inform the public about issues that would affect them; hence, no withholding of information should have occurred for the welfare of all. In other words, ABC Company has no right to produce trucks that are not really fit for use at all times given their unreliability and vulnerability in case of side-impact collisions. Should the matter be known public, people who are owners or not of the ABC’s truck brands would surely go irate. They would clamor for their government to safeguard their interest against companies like ABC.
Concluding Remarks
With regard to the various ethical frameworks mentioned above (utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, rights, justice, care-based ethics), each stakeholder ought to have done the right thing. As much as they cherish themselves and love their family, as well as, company, they too have the obligation toward others. They should avoid harming others, whether directly or not. Most importantly, they ought to have utmost for the drivers’ lives. No amount of money is tantamount to a single life. Recall would have been the best choice. Company officials should make official statement to their patrons and the public, which is praiseworthy act. Further, the government should raise its standard beyond the minimum.
There should be a leeway for companies to raise their standards beyond the bare minimum. Any companies ought to treat people (such as customers and drivers) as ends in themselves and not simply as means for continuous profiting. Fairness and justices are the true measures of being an established and reputable company. ABC should have convened its board, incorporators, sub-contractor, and other officials about recalling its vulnerable trucks. It should have issued a press release and press conference. It should prepared a multi-billion libel suit against anyone who would put ABC in a bad light. ABC can then start actually recalling trucks, pay claimants, injured drivers and other affected individuals, and prepare itself for any possible repercussions. When a company cherishes peoples’ lives more than profits, it would most likely stay on top of the competition. Other people, in turn, will love the company for being people lover than money lover. In case there is a need to remedy other company issues, the company itself will have no problem dealing with them based on previous experience, records, and testimonies. [Note: As compared to others companies, they are now more opened to recall of their products when similar problems arise.]
