The situation in Pioneering Technologies (PT) is complex and ethically unstable. On the one hand, Owl Vision is a unique product in the field of bionic eyes with clear strategies and benefits for customers. On the other hand, the causes of fall-off because of some changing conditions are poorly investigated. In other words, no guarantees are given to explain the shortages of the new product. Regarding such conditions, the utilitarian ethical framework must be applied as the most consistent option with PT’s corporate culture. The main idea of this approach is that morally right steps are those leading to the best outcomes for many people and resulting in the greatest overall good (Halbert & Ingulli, 2015). The company should analyze the harms and benefits of the campaign and the product not only in relation to its success but all stakeholders and users who may be affected by the decision (Halbert & Ingulli, 2015). The examples include the evaluation of long- and short-term outcomes. Many individuals can be attracted by the campaign at the beginning, but their problems and concerns would grow with time, challenging the company’s reputation.
Following the rules and principles of the utilitarian ethical framework, the identification of the outcomes plays an important role. When the company is confident in positive results and benefits for the company and ordinary users, the success of the campaign within the framework may be observed. Thus, at the moment, PT should not proceed with the advertising campaign as it is but must focus on some changes and improvements before introducing the product to customers. The main steps contain the analysis of the current position, the identification of shortages, and the discussion of the effects (Halbert & Ingulli, 2015). If the harms prevail over the benefits within some aspects, it is important to involve more people and clarify the defects with its solutions.
Considering the current state of affairs, the representatives of Eagle Eye Technology (EET) do not prefer to follow some ethical standards and have already got access to the PT’s concerns and challenges. They decide to stop the PT’s campaign and not to allow misleading the public. Therefore, the idea of whistleblowing is an appropriate mechanism for EET to follow. Whistleblowers are people who try to disclose information inside organizations to the media (Halbert & Ingulli, 2015). Their goal is to reveal a disturbing situation to light. However, in this case, it remains unclear if EET wants to bring some changes or to achieve some competitive advantage and defeat PT in this attempt. As a result, it is hard to say that EET could ultimately win. According to Halbert and Ingulli (2015), whistleblowing might wreak havoc in the industry and damage the reputations of both biotechnological organizations. The chosen mechanism does not presuppose the presence of a definite winner, but the number of losers may unpredictably grow.
Using a poor product and maintaining awareness of its threats provoke multiple risks for people. If PT gets a chance to launch Owl Vision and customers do not have enough information about failed performance due to weather changes, accidents, and other challenges. When a consumer is involved in a motor vehicle accident because of the poor performance of the Owl Vision product, it is possible to address product liability theory as a basis for a lawsuit. The citizen was not informed about the unsafe and dangerously defective product, and this unawareness makes it possible to use the product under unfavorable conditions, meaning cloudy weather (Halbert & Ingulli, 2015). Addressing the current common law of torts, the driver should expect compensations from PT if the problem with the Own Vision product is investigated and proved.
Reference
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2015). Law and ethics in the business environment (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.