Background
Tricia is CEO of Able Again, which is a non-profit organization: it partners with a for-profit organization for the manufacture of low-cost adapted motorized scooters for the disabled. She as requested advice from her ethics consultant regarding issues facing her company.
She has heard about ethical theories, which typically provide conflicting opinion. She wants her ethics consultant to compare and contrast them, with examples and in the context of her company’s issues. Her chief concern is to persuade her board about the advantages of being ethical in business practices. Secondly, she wants to learn a lesson from Ford Pinto case. She is under pressure from the Board to roll-out the new scooter by the summer. However, the engineers at the for-profit feel that it requires more testing. She wants to know what theoretical and practical lessons can be leant from the case, and applied to her situation
Utilitarian
According to the Utilitarianism’s principle of utility, our actions should be directed towards a greater good of the society. Under this theory, sacrifices by the few, for the greater good of others is permissible. This theory offers a straight forward approach for deciding what the morally right course of action is situations we may find ourselves in. First we should discover all the various course of action. Next, we should determine all the foreseeable benefits and harm that can result from our actions. However, this theory has some problems; it suggests that we assign values to benefits and harms resulting from our actions, and do some sort of cost benefit analysis.
Kant
Kant contended that ethical obligations are based on external moral principles (“higher truths”) that are absolute, invariable and do not allow for exceptions or extenuating circumstances. These principles create absolute duties that must be performed regardless of the consequences and in spite of social conventions and natural inclinations to the contrary. There are no exceptions, no excuses.”
A second significant contribution is Kant’s fundamental rule of respect, which says that all human beings are intrinsically important and that the well-being of each is an end in itself. It is wrong, therefore, to treat others as instrumental means for our own gain or gratification or to achieve some perceived greater good.
Finally, Kant contributed the Rule of Universality: Do only those acts which you are willing to allow to become universal standards of behavior applicable to all people, including yourself. This requires us to generalize from our conduct and ask whether we would want others to do whatever we would do. It can be simplified to “If everybody did it, would it be a good thing?” (You will recognize this as one of the conscience prodders.)
Ross
Ross’s theory of right and wrong is based on his concept of a ‘‘prima facie duty’’ or ‘‘prima facie obligation.’’ He defines this notion in the following passages. Promise Keeping and Lying 141I suggest ‘prima facie duty’ or ‘conditional duty’ as a brief way of referring to the characteristic (quite distinct from that of being a duty proper) which an act has, in virtue of being of a certain kind (e.g., the keeping of a promise), of being an act which would be a duty proper if it were not at the same time of another kind which is morally significant.
Natural Law
“The Decalogue provides some good advice to how the relationship between employees and employers should be. Business must shut on Sunday as this is the day of Sabbath and the fourth commandment says ‘thou must remember Sabbath day, keep it holy’. Employers are expected not to behave rivalries towards other firms in the industry as the tenth commandment suggests ‘Thou must not covet thy neighbor’. This implies that employers should treat employees with respect and value and not exploit them or their wages in order to compete with other firms. Employees, however, are also expected to behave in a certain way too for example they are expected not to steal (8th commandment). Furthermore, they are expected to whistle-blow if they see any practice which is moral and for this they should be rewarded. This belief stems from the commandment ‘thou must not bear false witness’ (9th commandment).
.”
Rawls
Rawls theory, in contrast to Utilitarianism, forbids all research that violates liberty, which one is entitled to by virtue of being a member of society. Therefore, all experiments that use coercion and deception are ruled out, and it would be considered as inappropriate to take advantage of less well-off persons. Further, research that will have direct therapeutic effect is acceptable, but not the one that takes advantage of sick and poor.
In real life business situation, I would recommend a blend of these theories. In an overview, I would agree with the Utilitarian approach that research and experiments should be done with the greater good of the society in mind. However, I would suggest that the various nuances should be taken into consideration. Inspired by Kant’s and Ross’s theory, I would suggest that only those individuals who are rational and autonomous of giving consent should be included in the research. I would also stress upon the need for the researcher to provide all necessary information to these individuals, so that they are able to make an informed decision. All measures should be taken to avoid any coercion or any deception.
In context of Able Again, which is a non-profit and also has to work with a for-profit supplier, above mentioned blended approach would be advisable. With regards to its approach towards it Board, it is necessary that all relevant information is made available, such that Board can make informed decision. There shouldn’t be any element of coercion or manipulation of the Board members or CEO itself. The organization should have an ethical approach towards its disabled clients a well, and shouldn’t try to take any advantage because of their physical condition. It should try to seek informed consent whenever it is required.
Able Again’s situation becomes diametrically opposite when it comes dealing with the for-profit partner. It should not see itself at any disadvantage because of it non-profit structure. Consequently, it should try to seek all relevant information from them so as to make an informed decision. These steps will help the CEO develop greater trust with its Board and its for-profit partner.
Lessons from the Ford Pinto Case
The Ford Pinto case has a lot to inspire the Able Again’s management team. This would be particularly in regards to the delay in getting out the new scooter in the market, which would have otherwise been available by next summer. The for-profit manufacturer has advised them that they are not sure about its reliability on rocky terrain, and would need to test more. In this context, the manufacturer is following ethical practice by providing them full information, and therefore, allowing them to make an informed decision. This fits perfectly well according to Kant’s and Ross’s ethical theories. Not following up on the manufacturer’s advice would mean allowing disabled people to use the not thoroughly tested scooter. This would be tantamount to using unsuspectingly disabled people as subject of the experiment. This does not even follow the Utilitarian theory as there is not guarantee that faults found post roll-out will be rectified either. So, there is no surety that all this is being done with the intention of doing greater good to the society. If they still want to roll it out, then they should at best, caution the users against using it on rocky terrain. Perhaps, they should inform them of possible scenario as what might happen. Considering the user will be using them more out of compulsion than choice, and in light of Ford Pinto case, it is advisable that they be rolled out only after completion of thorough testing. Considering Able Again is a non-profit organization, and there is no opportunity cost of delaying the launch, it does not stand to lose anything if the launch is delayed.
The same ethical principles will come in handy in the context of Tirica’s, CEO of Able Again, relations with the Board. It is natural for the Board to be anxious about the delay in the launch of the scooter. However, it is Tricia who has the report from the manufacture about the reasons for the delay. Therefore, it is incumbent on her to provide all necessary information to the Board, so that they are able to make an informed decision. As per the theories discussed above, the Board would appreciate being informed of the repercussions of allowing imperfect scooter being distributed to disabled. Able Again being a non-profit will be ill equipped to handle the negative publicity and litigation in face of accidents if the scooters were launched in their current state. In the light of this, I would provide all relevant information to the board and seek extension of the launch date.
Bibliography
A2 Economics & RS with Komilla. Application of Natural Law to Business Ethics. 12 01 2011. Web. 12 02 2014. <http://a2withkomilla.blogspot.ca/2011/01/application-of-natural-law-to-business.html>.
Carson, Thomas L. "ROSS AND UTILITARIANISM ON PROMISE KEEPING AND LYING: SELF-EVIDENCE AND THE DATA OF ETHICS*." Philosophical Issues (2005): 140-157. Web. <http://orion.it.luc.edu/~tcarson/Phil-Issues-Ross&Util.pdf>.
Hoffman, W Michael. "Case Study: The Ford Pinto." Corporate Obligations and Responsibilities: Everything Old Is New Again. n.d. 222 - 229. Web. <http://businessethics.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2012/01/HoffmanPinto.pdf>.
Josephson Institute. Moral Absolutes and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives. 28 12 2010. Web. 12 02 2014. <http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/blog/2010/12/moral-absolutes-and-kant%E2%80%99s-categorical-imperatives/>.
Munson, Ronald. "Ethical Theories: Medical Research and Informed Consent." Munson, Ronald. Intervention And Reflection: Basics Issues in Medical Ethics. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadworth, 2004. 28 - 30. Print.
Velasquez, Manuel, et al. Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. n.d. Web. 12 02 2014. <https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html>.
