Case Study MOD 3 BA 3200

SAMPLE CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT

YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO USE THE EXACT ETHICAL PRINCIPLES LISTED IN THIS CASE STUDY, HOWEVER YOU NEED TO USE THE FORMAT FOR IDENTIFYING YOUR SELECTED PRINCIPLES FROM THE TEXTBOOK. YOU SHOULD NOT COPY THIS EXAMPLE OR MAKE YOUR CASE STUDY EXACTLY LIKE THIS EXAMPLE. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE SO THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO VIEW HOW THE FORMATTING SHOULD BE.

THIS CASE STUDY SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE FOR HOW CASE STUDY ANSWERS SHOULD INCLUDE CITATIONS (PAGE NUMBERS) AND NUMBERED (1ST Ethical Principle, 2NDEthical Principle, 3RD Ethical Principle) TEXTBOOK RELATED ETHICAL PRINCIPLES TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS. YOU MUST NOT SIMPLY INCLUDE YOUR OPINIONS. ALL OPINIONS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CITED (PAGE NUMBERS) AND NUMBERED (1ST, 2ND, 3RD ) TEXTBOOK RELATED ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FROM THE COURSE TEXTBOOK. YOU MUST INCLUDE EXAMPLES FROM THE CASE STUDY TO SUPPORT YOUR SELECTED CITED AND NUMBERED ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. ALSO, NOTICE HOW EACH QUESTION IN THIS CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT HAS 3 CITED AND NUMBERED ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.

Question 1- Were any moral issues involved in Mr. Vandivier’s decision to write up the final qualifying report? Explain.

I do feel that systemic issues (1st ethical principle, p. 14) played a part in Mr. Vandivier’s decision to write the report on the faulty brakes. In 1968, there were not the same checks and balances in place that we have today in the manner of vendors or independent testing facilities. To say that this decade was more naïve is probably an understatement. During this era, people and businesses were given the benefit of the doubt and it would not have been uncommon to allow a company to perform its own test to prove they are meeting requirements of a contract. Scandals of this sort were rare up to this point and there had been no need to develop independent testing facilities to assist with verifying compliance with requirements. This is in direct relation to how our social system was structured in 1968.

If faced with this same challenge in today’s society, in addition to having tests done by a vendor, it would be more common to see an individual refuse to perform the actions and to also take the issue to the media to expose their concerns. This is because there is more access to information and there are also laws that have been passed to protect and individual from repercussions when reporting unethical actions. These are just a couple of ways that our social structure has changed in the last four decades.

In the air force brake case, there were also corporate issues (2nd ethical principle-p. 14) that affected the case. Mr. Vandivier was by far not the only person that had knowledge of the defective brakes. Everyone from the person who engineered the original design all the way to Vandivier had the information. This brings to mind that the corporate ethics were to put the company’s best interests above the interests of anyone else. They were certainly not considering the welfare of the military program or the families that could be affected by their decision to proceed with falsifying the report.

Individual moral issues (3rd ethical principle- p. 14) were at play when Mr. Vandivier and the others involved decided to place themselves above the pilots who would be using the brakes. They valued their jobs and lifestyles above the actual lives and health of these pilots. Each of these persons was individually responsible for their own decisions to support the report and to do whatever it took to get the contract fulfilled. Not one of these individuals was brave enough to risk the fallout associated with exposing the failure of the parts and the intent to falsify the report.

Question 2 – In your judgment, is it morally right or morally wrong for a person in Mr. Vandivier’s situation to write up a false report as he did? Formulate the moral standards on which your judgment is based. Do your standards meet the consistency requirement (that is, would you be willing to apply the same standards in other similar situations)?

I feel that there were several moral standards involved in the decision of Mr. Vandivier to write the report that qualified the faulty brakes. Self-interest (1st ethical principle-p.9) was definitely in play when Mr. Vandivier decided that his ability to continue providing for his family in the manner they were accustomed to over the possibility that pilots could be killed was more important. He admits to thinking through the facts regarding that his job paid well, was pleasant and his future looked reasonably bright (Text pg 8). This analysis in making his decision directly conflicts with the characteristics of moral standards of preferring other values, even self interest.

There is also the impartial consideration (2nd ethical principle-p.10) which was not used by Mr. Vandivier to make his decision on the report. If he had tried to review this decision using impartiality he would not only have weighed the consequences to himself and his family. He would instead have weighed the consequences to the public or society in addition to the impact on his family as well. Vandivier would have thought more of the impact a pilot dying because of the faulty brakes would have on their family, on the military’s responsibility to provide a safe work environment, and also the long term impact to B.F. Goodrich as the supplier of the parts.

Another moral standard that was involved is the possibility of serious injury (3rd ethical principle-p.9) to the pilots and the potential benefits for B.F. Goodrich and Mr. Vandivier himself. Because the brakes failed continuously in the tests and only passed when certain criteria was manipulated, it would have been obvious that there would be someone injured by using the defective parts. Vandivier let the benefits that he would receive by continuing to have a job and that B.F. Goodrich would receive by fulfilling the contract requirements outweigh the potential risks of injury to the pilots. These actions go directly against the moral standard of not doing serious harm or injury to others.

Question 3 – In your opinion, would Mr. Vandivier be morally responsible for any “accidents” that resulted when pilots tested the brake? Explain your answer. Would this responsibility be shared with any others? Explain, with support/justification from the textbook and lectures.

I do feel that Mr. Vandivier was morally responsible for accidents that occurred due to the faulty brakes in the fact that he helped to cause the brakes to be approved for testing (1st ethical principle-p. 42). He fell into compliance with the company’s orders when faced with the potential of losing his own job. His justification of this was that someone else would write the report anyway, but failed to look at the possibility of him possibly going to the military with his proof of the brakes failing. If he has of taken these actions, he could have contributed to the prevention (Text pg 42) rather than the support of the brakes.

Another factor that proves Mr. Vandivier was morally responsible for any accident that occurred is the fact that he knowingly completed the false report (2nd ethical principle-p. 42). Vandivier had all of the information concerning the brakes failing, criteria being modified to allow the brakes to pass tests, and that the discs were too small prior to completing the report. Because he had all of this knowledge prior to writing the report, Vandivier meets the criteria of knowing what he was doing and therefore accepted the potential for disaster (Text pg 42).

I do think Vandivier’s responsibility can be shared with others in the company and that he should not have been made the scapegoat for the entire fiasco. In his defense he did not act of his own free will (3rd ethical principle- p. 42) but rather at the directive of his superiors (Text pg 42). There were several individuals throughout the chain of command that had the same knowledge that Vandivier did and they all turned a blind eye to the facts and forged through to reach the company’s goal. This reduces Vandivier’s responsibility but in no way completely absolves him from blame.