Feb 04, 2024

Plagiarism Scan Report

Characters:5291 Words:899
0% 100%
Plagiarized Unique Speak Time:
Sentences:38
8 Min

Excluded URL None

Content Checked for Plagiarism

The case study presented represents an ethical and responsibility dilemma
on both sides. This case presents Tony, a test worker who identifies a flaw in
the telephone product of his company's recent significant client. Once the
failure is identified, Tony is pressured by the client stating that many jobs
depend on the product, of course Tony knows what the contract with this
new client means in economic terms (Bartlett, 2015). The dilemma is: How
should Tony act? Courses of action The dilemma Tony faces is somewhat
complex. First of all, he can be confronted with his own interests:
Compromising the contract established between the two companies, which
directly favors Tony's economic development since it favors his company.
While on the other hand, falsifying information puts his own work at risk and
this action is directly related to his morale. Additionally, he is compromised
not only from an ethical point of view, but also from a legal point of view,
where the interests of other people take importance: Falsifying data about a
product that will be made available to the public could make him directly
responsible for a potential harm both to people and economically. Not to
mention that if he does not do so, it could cause the loss of many jobs and
harm many families. Either course of action involves both positive and
negative outcomes, not just for Tony. Correct decision-making in this
situation can be made through ethical lenses, since in general, ethics is not
the law, nor feelings, much less socially accepted norms. Faced with this
situation, Tony must formulate his decision in a supported manner (Markkula
Center, 2021). Table 1 is presented below, which summarizes the courses of
action and the positive and negative implications of each one. Table 1 Tony's
Dilemma – Courses of action Positive Implications Negative Implications A)
Report the failure of the telephone device according to the tests. 1. Comply
with the law 2. Does not put his job at risk 3. An unsafe product is not put into
circulation 1. Many people may lose their jobs. 2. Loss of contract with the
telephone company B) Falsify data and approve the telephone device. 1.
Maintain the telephone company contract with his company. 2. Ensure that
the telephone company's operational people keep their jobs. 1. Act outside
the law 2. Putting his own job at risk 3. Cause potential harm to more people
due to the telephone failure The courses of action presented, first-hand and
from a personal point of view, suggest that the best option is to falsify the
data and thereby allow the contract with the telephone company to continue
as well as maintain the jobs of the working families of this product. It is a

Page 1 of 2
"noble" thought or action and in a certain way it refers to the utilitarian lens,
where with Tony's action the greatest good would be done and the least
harm for all those involved (Markkula Center, 2021), with Tony being "the only
one at risk" by falsifying data. But is this true? Not really. We could consider
that those interested in this dilemma are the two companies, the employees
and of course Tony. However, there is another related group: The final
consumers of the product. Although corporate employees could benefit from
an action of data falsification, those who would ultimately be affected would
be the end consumers. And this is when some more questions arise: How
many people are the final consumers? How many people would be affected?
How much money could be lost? How critical or harmful is it to let go of a
product with that defect? What's the point of Tony's company doing tests if
they let go of a defective product? What is the goal of Tony's work? The
answer to these questions lies not only in the utilitarian lens, but also in the
ethical lens of the common good. This ethical lens guides us through the
search for the good of the community where our actions must be aimed at it
(Markkula Center, 2021). Therefore, if the course of action taken were to falsify
the data, although at first hand one may think that one is supporting the
community, the truth is that one is only supporting the interests of a certain
group of people (those that belong to the corporations involved), and the end
customers, who I assume will be many more and better represent the
community, would be being betrayed by the testing company, focused on
being a gatekeeper that only allows reliable products. Conclusion The
decision of the course of action to take in this ethical dilemma falls on the
ethical utilitarian and common good lenses and that is why it is important to
raise all the negative and positive implications of the interested parties,
including the final consumers and the magnitude of the themselves as well
as the potential damage to be caused by a defective product compared to
contract and job losses. Remember that supporting the interests of a few can
be considered an act of corruption or bribery and that although a defect,
problem, error may be initially hidden, sooner or later it will come to light and
the "benefit" initially provided could become a much greater damage
(Brusseau, 2012). A responsible decision supported by sufficient information,
adhered to the law and supported by the ethical lenses mentioned above is
the most recommended.

Sources

Home Blog Testimonials About Us Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Plagiarism Detector. All right reserved

Page 2 of 2