Module 2 Assignment - Avery Lamis

.pdf

School

Illinois State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

141

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

2

Uploaded by AdmiralMooseMaster897

You are a project manager for a recliner manufacturer. A young child died after his head was caught in the leg rest on a recliner of the same design as yours. You learn that several children have died in this manner but you did not manufacture any of the recliners involved. A federal regulatory agency has studied the problem but has not required the safeguards to be installed. The safeguard would cost $2.50 per chair, but your analysts have estimated that the lawsuits for all anticipated deaths and injuries will only cost $1.10 per chair. Your major competitors have decided it is not cost-effective to install the safeguard and the reclining action is not as smooth with the safeguard. What would you recommend to your company? 1. What would the decision be based upon government requirements and why? Just because it is legal, does not make it ethical. In this case, the federal regulatory agency studied the problem, but did not outlaw the making of the chairs without the safeguard. By choosing the path to continue to make the chair without the safeguard, as the project manager, I would be justifying profitable behavior that is unethical but not- yet illegal, as stated by the article. It would be profitable to continue making the chairs as they are, and legally. However, the ethical decision would be to begin making the chairs with the safeguard to save potential lives that would be harmed without it. Although, if ethics were not in the question, and I were to decide strictly based on government laws, I would choose to make the recliners as they are. The agency studied the case and determined it was not risky enough to ban under law, therefore I would have no reason to stop making a profit. 2. What would the decision be based upon the utilitarian approach and why? According to the utilitarian approach, the best decision would come from doing what is the best for the greatest number of people affected. Regarding the making of the recliners, I think the best decision to make for the greatest benefit for all would be to begin making the recliners with the safeguard. This way, it would prevent death and injury among customers and would overall be the best choice for the greater good. 3. What would the decision be based upon universal law and why? If my decision was based on universal law, I would make the same decision as I would in the first two questions, which is to make the reclining seats with the safeguard. Although it is legal and more profitable to continue making the seats without the safeguard, it is not what I would want people to do. I value human life way more than I do money, and I would want other to feel the same. Especially if I was a mother of a small child who could potentially be harmed by this product, I would hope that the project manager or at least someone working for the company would also value human lives over making a profit.
4. What would the decision be based upon market forces and why? Based upon market forces, I would make the recliners without the safeguards. In this case, the reward to continue making them would be greater than the potential loss in lawsuits. Stated above, to make the recliner with the safeguard, it would cost $2.50 per chair, however it is also estimated to cost about $1.10 per chair with regards to lawsuits of injuries or death. It is not in the company’s best interest to act ethically yet, as the problems caused by recliners have not been from those that our company has made. 5. What would the decision be based upon distributive justice and why? Under the ethical framework of distributive justice, I would install the safeguard on to the recliner chairs. Within this principle, I have an obligation to protect and not harm those who are less than me, which in this case would be the children being affected by the chairs. Because of this obligation, it would be my duty to install the safeguard to protect the children against harm, and their parents from grief. Both the parents and the children would be considered less than me because of their lack of knowledge regarding the product, which in turn makes them less than me, and me responsible for them. 6. What would the decision be based upon individual rights and why? Based on individual right’s, the customers have the right to knowledge and the right to not be injured. Releasing the recliner chairs without the safeguard is impairing the customers right to not be injured, as there is a high risk that a small child could get their head stuck in the leg rest of a recliner. On the same note, the customers also have rights to their knowledge of the product, in which case they are being denied because why would a company want to release a statement that describes the dangers of their product which would hinder sales. So I would make the safe choice which is to honor the individual rights of the consumer and to install the safeguard.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help