Ethic Rights

Today my boss told me to lie in a defective parts report, overlooking the fact that these parts could potentially kill or injure people if they were to fail. Even though there is a very small chance this part will fail the lives of ten to fifteen people would be the result of this lie. Killing innocent people is morally wrong so we ought not to do it. On the other hand, recalling these parts will cause harm to the company because it will be more expensive to remake these parts than it will to allow the risk of those ten to fifteen people die. This calls for the decision of my belief backed by rule utilitarianism and my bosses’

belief in act utilitarianism.

To begin with, my stance on this matter evolves from my belief in Rule utilitarianism. To understand the meaning of Rule utilitarianism, one must first understand that utilitarianism mean the greatest happiness for the greatest number or people. A part of utilitarianism comes from consequentialist principle that states the rightness or wrongness of an action can be determines by the good or bad that follows it (Quinton 1).  Utilitarianism is the idea that the amount of good and happiness should be our biggest concern and that we should try to spread the most goodness we possibly can making this a right action; an action is wrong when we go against our personal duty to refrain from causing harm to others. When it comes to Rule utilitarianism it keeps in mind the greatest number of peoples happiness, but I adds that one must follow the moral rules on every occasion. So to fall under Rule utilitarianism we much choose the result that will ultimately cause the most amount of good because the moral rules that are set, are said to do so.  So following the moral rules from my religious beliefs “thou shall not kill” ,no matter how much money, time or stress will be saved I am morally obligated to do what ever in my power to not intentionally kill or cause harm to another human being.

On the other hand, my boss is a like any businessman who is trying to do what would be the most good for his company. Given the situation he is placed in, he considers the principle of act utilitarianism; in his mind he doing what is best for his company by saving money despite the 15 casualties.  “The rightness of an action is determined by its contribution to the happiness of everybody affected by it” (Quinton 1). Allowing these parts to be put into vehicles can possibly cause harm to ten to fifteen people but benefit the greater good of the company. This will allow the company to save money, which over all will save jobs of forty to one hundred employees and allow the company to stay open, make more parts and more money. In terms of being morally wrong to kill consider this approach from What Is Good And Why: The Ethics of Well- Being:

“Killing is not only permissible but an necessity when whatever harm it does is so greatly outweighed by the good it causes…is greater than it would have been had any alternative been chosen” (12).

The harm done by the casualty these ten to fifteen peoples is not greater than the forty to one-hundred it will benefit not to mention the millions of customers that will benefit from the product made with this part. After all, act utilitarianism means to cause the most happiness to the most number of people. Using a defective part with a small chance of failure is not making the customer worst off since they are unaware this error. Also, who is to say these customers could not have done anything to add to the potential danger like drive recklessly, not keep up with their vehicle maintenance or other things.  The duty of the boss is to protect the greater good for the company and employees. But it is also to be an honorable and trust worthy company, which leads to problems.