Developing software that controls the autopilot system on a prototype of a commercial airplane is highly recommendable for safety reasons. Testing the system suitably is equally imperative. Hurrying up the testing to meet the publicly announced testing deadline may lead to compromising the reliability and safety of the entire aircraft system.
We will write a custom Essay on Ethical Reasoning to Determine the Course of Action specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Various theories recommend different methods of handling the moral dilemma. The managers, travelers and professional bodies have the right to obtain trustworthy information about the security system installed in the aircraft. Bodies such as the Global Agenda Council on Space Security and Department of Defense Space Management have legal and moral responsibilities for ensuring space safety.
An engineer also has the responsibility to model an autopilot that receives data from the Global Positioning System software installed in the aircraft. The GPS receiver should be able to calculate the aircraft’s position in space. Equipped with such positioning information devices, an autopilot helps keep the plane straight. Moreover, it helps efficiently execute the flight plans.
Performing the right task is essential. It would be morally challenging to decide whether to implement the universal professional demands or those of the boss or not. There are two alternative actions for solving the dilemma. The first possible action is implementing the demands.The other option is objecting to implement them.
Objecting to implement the unprofessional demands is the best course of action to take since it would guarantee the safety of those on-board. The decision to object to the demands obeys the rules of Kantianism theory. The theory states that what an individual desires to accomplish and what he/she should accomplish are often incompatible.
This means that an individual may make decisions that result to immediate discomfort and unhappiness. However, the decision should ultimately lead to satisfaction. The entire rationale of morality is taking the right course of action just for the sake of it. The manager’s appreciation of the intention to test the aircraft appropriately should have no impact on the decision to turn down his/her request.
The short-lived feeling of displeasure should not also have an impact on the decision made. Therefore, I would take the decision to comply with the correct rules and procedures and save lives of people and the aircraft. Certain groups of people may disagree with the decision. This may be due to their inability to determine independently what is either wrong or right.
Kant states that an individual determines his/her behavior by making use of the law of autonomy. Therefore, a decision is either wrong or right depending on the intention of the action. In addition, morality is never relative. An individual is either morally upright or not. This happens because morality is not determined by the outcome of the decision but by the intention of the action.
Since it is impractical to predict accurately the consequences of human actions, I would adopt the Kantianism theory in order to save the situation. This means that the task is accomplished professionally. The action would ensure that the stakeholders incur no losses. However, if they incur losses due to the decision, I would remain contented that the intention was non-malicious and the consequences were beyond my control.
Alternatively, one would prefer to act based on the theory of Consequentialism. The accuracy of this theory is determined by two ethical principles. The first principle states that the consequences of an act establish whether an action is morally right or not. The other principle affirms that the degree of superiority of the results determines the scale for measuring the morality of the action.
The problem with this theory is that it is difficult to accurately predict the outcome of an action. A person who adopts this theory can choose to comply with the demands of the boss and keep details of their action secret. They may comply with unprofessional requests and hope that no evil would befall the stakeholders.
Another group of people may prefer to adopt the theory of Virtue Ethics. The hypothesis deemphasizes rules, consequences, and particular acts. It greatly focuses on the personality of the actor. The important factor, according to this hypothesis, is whether the person who is acting is articulating excellent personality or not.
Therefore, an act is considered to be right when performing this act, the individual exercises, demonstrates or builds up an ethically virtuous character. Any one undergoing through similar challenges can rely on the theory, evaluate the moral character of the boss, and comply with the demands, particularly if he/she is convinced that the boss is morally upright.
Conclusively, the right decision should not be based on general assumptions. The character of the boss has no direct influence on the consequences of the decision. Similarly, the theory of Consequentialism may be irrelevant since outcomes of decisions are influenced by a myriad of factors. Some of the factors are beyond human control. I, therefore, prefer the Kantianism theory because it requires an individual to take control over his/her decisions.