The Sole Remaining Supplier

Although the liability of a malfunctioned transistor is on he manufacturer, Justifying the manufacturer’s acts of deception would be utilitarianism because of Its moral reasoning. In this paper, I shall discuss the general utilitarian issues of the case. In addition, I will apply the different steps of the utility Test and I shall apply this comparative approach to the study of the Common-Good Test.
Although my judgments are implicitly concerned with generalizing the ethical issues of the case, I shall criticize the utilitarianism; the view that the best decision is the one that maximizes the expected utility over those who are affected Baron 1990). In addition, the paper shall inform as well as to which approach, the utility Test, or the Common-Good Test best evaluates the case. Introduction utilitarianism is foreseen as unjust because it leads to conclusions that permit those who are fortunate to hurt people with less fortunate situations.
For example, in The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier, if the company decides to continue it sells of transistors without the proper engineering testing It is benefiting financially at the cost of the pacemaker patients and their families who rely on such technology for survival. If utilitarianism Is the normative theory. Hen my Judgments correct or not could fail to bring sense to any present or future consequence.

However, this sort of knowledge will allow the reader to understand the situation of the case. Utilitarian Issues There were many ethical issues involving the selling of transistor supplies to the pacemaker company. If the company continues to supply the transistors then It Is possible that It could suffer a future financial loss. If a lawsuit were to occur, the company would not only lose financial profits but also its shareholders and employees would suffer from the consequence as well.
By stopping the selling of the transistors to the pacemaker company, it would put them out of business; however, the supplier needs to evaluate the number of deaths that have occurred because of the different malfunctions of the transistors. On contrast, if the company remains as the sole supplier of the units and decides to stop Its manufacturing, heart patients In need of a pacemaker would die.
In addition, the pacemaker technology would be put at a halt and improvements would never be found; therefore, future heart pacemaker patients would not benefit from any innovative breakthroughs. Utility Test The consequences of a heart patient dying because of the selling of a transistor are high according to the case; however, based on Thomas Shanks, (1996) heart patients In need of a pacemaker Implant for survival can be saved only by supplying the transistors but the company that manufactures the transistors are concerned saved.
Although the pacemaker technology was in its infancy, malfunctions continued to be of concern to the manufacturers because of the legal actions that could occur; therefore, the utilitarian question would be determined on the following question: How many deaths will occur because of the malfunctions with the transistors? The answer could be that in cases such as, The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier the patient in need of an implant, the supplier, the manufacturer, and the stakeholder should sacrifice the chances of a malfunction although all of the patients involved have a right not to sacrifice in any way.
However, a right is a social rule that saves people certain worries and protective behavior. If a heart patient in need of an implant is sacrificed, all human beings would have to take precautions against companies such as this one for the benefit of there. In addition, all individuals regardless of medical reasons would worry about situations like this because at the end, implanting a pacemaker at their risk for the benefit of others would worry everyone. For this principle, the sacrifice may not be Justified in utilitarian terms.
Outcomes or Utility Rights can always be outweighed; therefore, rights are never absolute. An individual’s Judgments are prone to error. We suspect of those who take a situation upon themselves to violate someone else’s rights for their own good or someone else’s good. Rights are worth enforcing because they serve as a utilitarian purpose. In a utilitarian analysis, practices put forward as rights might not be Justifiable in terms of their consequences because they are for their own goal achievement rather than for everyone.
In short terms, heart patients in need of a pacemaker would not be the only ones suffering from such consequences because all individuals have equal standing rights as a person regardless of medical reasons or not. Applying the Utility Test Making the correct decision to produce the best outcome for everyone requires a revision of the current engineering testing. The following considerations will examine the company’s goods while minimizing the harm to heart patients. Without the manufacturer of the transistors, the company will go out of business, the employees lose their Jobs, and shareholders lose their money. The supplier company runs the risk of legal action, which would result in the possible employee layoffs and shareholders experience a potential financial loss. Pacemaker patients face death because manufacturer would stop selling transistors for the creation of pacemakers. However, if the transistors continue to be manufactured pacemaker patients continue to face a possible death because of malfunctions. 0 Future icemaker patients although not the primary stakeholders, could benefit from the implants because of the ongoing advances and improvements that the company does to improve their units.
The following possible options could be taken into consideration by the supply company. 0 Stop selling transistors to the buying company. Although the supplier losses profit earned from the sales of the transistors, it would avoid any future legal actions and avoid Jeopardizing the company. In addition, the rights of the supplier’s employees and stakeholders would be preserved. Employees will continue to have a Job and earn a living, which it would to be possible if layoffs occurred after the financial lawsuits. On contrast, the company in business and earning profits. Future patients could benefit from new and improved pacemaker technology. It also preserves the right of their employees and shareholders to continue earning a living and making profit. It also preserves the rights of the patients by providing a choice. The patient will make the decision of risking a malfunction without someone else’s decision. Drawing a Conclusion The ethical decision would be to continue to supply the transistors in order for the majority of people to benefit.
If the manufacturing company stopped producing the pacemakers, the patient’s basic right would be lost; therefore, their freedom to life would be lost as well. An individual’s should outweigh any financial gain or loss too company and although the pacemaker technology was a new innovative alternative, consideration should be given to how it would make a difference in the future. Employees would keep their right to earn a living, while the company’s shareholders keep the right to increase their wealth. This decision is the only possible way that would serve the majority of the people.
Common Good Test As the Pacemaker technology was serving as the common good, by protecting people’s rights to a new and promising medical technology, the supplier of the transistors and the manufacturing company compared the penalty Judgments in question. They would make safer product vs.. The question of not making the product. For example, the company knew that the transistors malfunctioned but was reconsidering the selling of the product because they were concerned with the possible legal actions. If the company stopped selling the transistors, it would avoid any legal action.
On contrast, society depends on new medical technologies; therefore, if they kept the possible malfunctions as a secret it would avoid any future effects. The two facts mean that the consequences of selling the transistors would justify the means because by selling the units an action is right if it creates the best outcome. However, this stipulation rules out any effects because if patients accepted an implant knowing of such malfunctions rather than denying the malfunctions the company is acting honest and its fulfilling its contractual obligation at the same time. Which Approach
The Utility Test is the most informative method compared to the Common Good Test because it allows people to determine if the transistors design is defective; therefore, it makes the manufacturer liable for any injuries that their product causes. Conclusion Utilitarianism allows a company or an individual evaluate their decisions through a set of practical guidelines (Baron, 1985). In this paper, I have summarized the utilitarian approach to the common good test and I have described several suggestions in which an individual’s intuition often contradicts the utilitarian theory.
People seem to think that penalties are inherently deserved and that they should be applied even when there is deterrence. In addition, it is believed that compensation should be greater when people get harmed by nature. In contrast to utilitarian, people are reluctant in harming people Just to help another person, and they become reluctant to initiate reforms when the benefits are unequally distributed although People differ in each case but according to the findings of Larkin, Anisette, & Morgan (1990), those who follow utilitarian are no different from those who do not follow utilitarian.