What are the relevant facts from the case?
It is notable that the relevant facts in the case can be analyzed in a business perspective. It is essential to observe that working under a government contract can be perceived as a good proposition although there are those who argue that it may not be a favorable undertaking. In addition, there are frequent flows of orders as well as revenue increment.
This leads to improved returns. Nevertheless, there are obvious downfalls which companies face while working in this manner. For instance, extensive research and documentation are required. As a matter of fact, an individual may not qualify for government contracts (Shaw, 2005). Moreover, whenever slight failures occur, serious repercussions might be imposed on companies that are involved.
The other side of the argument is that there are high quality prospects from the government. A typical example is the brake scandal that befell Goodrich A7D. The fact that Goodrich won a contract due to his competitive bid for air flight products such as wheels and brakes, he had to present a report of certainty for the qualifying tests (Shaw, 2005). Unfortunately, calamity befell him when a brake failure resulted into accusations. Eventually, he lost the contract.
This was quite frustrating bearing in mind that too much effort had been put in place prior to the unfortunate ending. This scenario leads to one important conclusion that before signing a contract, a decision must be made based on the possible risks that might occur in case complexities arise (Fielder, 1988). Moreover, whenever a scandal arises, one needs to make a decision on the best moral decision as opposed to Goodrich idea which wholly relied on presenting a false report.
Primary characters in A7D Affair: the following were the key characters who were instrumental in the A7D affair.
- B.F. Goodrich
- John Warren
- Kermit Vandivier
- Robert Sink
- Russell Van Horn
- Richard Gloor
- Russell Line
- Searle Lawson
- Ralph Gretzinger
- H.C. Sunderman
Possible alternative could s. The following were some of the likely options that could be adopted as per the case:
- Rediscovering and restoring individual responsibility and accountability,
- Reinstitute decision making tool in cooperate strata in order to eliminate impersonal rule and
- Embrace democratic models of decision making, responsibility and accountability
What would three philosophers advice (which alternative would they suggest)? Give theorist and refer to their ideas. The most promising utilitarian, Aristotle, Kant (Ross), Norzik(Locke) or Rawls
Utilitarianism can be used as the most appropriate tool since it combines the views and advises of philosophers such as Aristotle, Ross and Locke in reference to the case. Opinions and views of such philosophers appear attractive and quite appealing to majority of the audience since they address cases related to government policies and public affairs (Ross, 1969).
According to Aristotle’s view, moral responsibility in this case should be judged on the basis of whether one knows what he or she is doing (Shaw, 2005). In other words, if an individual ha the full understanding of his or her action, then the person should be fully responsible for the outcome.
This implies that even if Goodrich made it through in making unsecure proposal, he could have still put extra effort to eradicate or minimize cases related to bureaucratic shortcomings. The philosopher argues that this can be made by putting more emphasis on the professional, individual and moral responsibility. By so doing, this would help to decimate any tendency of bureaucratization that tends to interrupt the flow of ideas and information as it is evident in the case (Shaw, 2005).
Using his classical formula, Aristotle argues that whenever an individual makes a decision without full understanding of its tentative impact, then his act may not be judged as voluntary. His argument is relevant to the A7D Affair where one should not consider Goodrich and the subject to be blamed. According to Locke, whenever individuals attempt to offer their labor to the natural world, they should definitely be responsible for the outcome (Shaw, 2005).
For instance, one can deduce that since Goodrich made the contract to produce goods for the government, then he is responsible for the scandal. If one examine the case basing it on Immanuel Kant opinion on moral ethics, there is need to conduct a scientific analysis before a thorough and sound conclusion is drawn on the most appropriate measure to take against the scandal (Fielder, 1988). This philosopher assumes that moral responsibility should not be judged by observation but through reasoning.
He confirms that an action should be sought and analyzed in a humane nature and not on the basis of any given world situation (Shaw, 2005). In this case, his piece of advice seems to rhyme with that of Aristotle. Therefore, from the philosophical analysis and point of view, Goodrich should not be blamed for his action. On the contrary, one should assume that he never knew anything about the likely impacts.
Moreover, the fact that Goodrich presented false report can be justified by his moral reasoning rather than just the factual evidences piled against him (Shaw, 2005). When this case is argued on the aforementioned perspective, the only alternative to eliminate any scandal is to monitor the inhuman resources such as technology, institutional order and decision making models.
Practical constraints
In the case of A7D Affair, there is a practical constraint in reasoning. For instance, the corporate decision makers could have communicated with the other stakeholders on how to respond to the problems facing the company at the time the scandal occurred (Shaw, 2005). Moreover, the other practical constrain was on ethics. Goodrich lacked moral ethics since he confidently presented a false report for the quality test on the brakes and wheels.
From the case, it is evident that even the copy of the test logs was drastically tampered with. Hence, moral reasoning was definitely not applied in the A7D Affair.
What actions should be taken? Base this action on the theorist.-Aristotle
From the classical formula applied by Aristotle, there should be no harsh measures that should be taken against Goodrich. As already mentioned and also according to the theorist, Goodrich was not morally responsible for the scandal and therefore, he should be excused in the first place.
However, measures that should be taken need to be based on organizational structure and technology used. It is against this backdrop that there should be an attempt to uplift individual responsibility among corporation with close supervision by the government (Hicks, 2012). In addition to this, the government should also monitor and enhance accountability of professionals in all bureaucracies to prevent future scandals.
References
Fielder, H. (1988). Give Goodrich a break, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 7 (1).12-18.
Hicks, S. (2012). America’s Economic Moralists: A History of Rival Ethics and Economics, Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 186.
Ross, D. (1969). Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shaw, W. (2005). Business Ethics. Boston: Cengage Learning.