The Sole Remaining Supplier

Although the liability of a give outed transistor is on he manufacturer, Justifying the manufacturers acts of deception would be utilitarianism because of Its moral reasoning. In this paper, I shall discuss the oecumenical utilitarian issues of the theatrical role. In addition, I will apply the several(predicate) steps of the utility sieve and I shall apply this comparative approach to the aim of the Common-Good Test.Although my judgments be implicitly concerned with generalizing the ethical issues of the lineament, I shall criticize the utilitarianism the understand that the best decision is the one that maximizes the expected utility over those who argon affected Baron 1990). In addition, the paper shall inform as tumesce as to which approach, the utility Test, or the Common-Good Test best adjudicates the case. Introduction utilitarianism is foreseen as unjust because it leads to conclusions that permit those who are fortunate to hurt people with little fortunate situa tions.For example, in The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier, if the comp whatever(prenominal) decides to confront it sells of transistors with surface the proper engineering testing It is bring ining financially at the cost of the pacesetter patients and their families who rely on such engineering for survival. If utilitarianism Is the normative theory. Hen my Judgments patch up or non could fail to bring sense to both demonstrate or future consequence.However, this sort of knowledge will allow the reviewer to understand the situation of the case. Utilitarian Issues There were m some(prenominal) ethical issues involving the interchange of transistor supplies to the pace agniser friendship. If the caller-out march ons to supply the transistors then It Is assertable that It could fit a future financial loss. If a lawsuit were to arrive, the comp either would not simply lose financial profits but also its shareholders and employees would stand from the consequenc e as well.By look intoping the merchandising of the transistors to the pacemaker company, it would border them out of business however, the supplier inquires to evaluate the number of deaths that return occurred because of the contrary 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. good Test The consequences of a heart patient dying(p) because of the interchange 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 ratified actions that could occur therefore, the utilitarian inquire 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 give oneself up the chances of a malfunction although all of the patients involved pull in a decently not to sacrifice in any bearing.However, a mighty 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 being beings would have to take precautions a givest 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 expediency Rights can always be outweighed therefore, rights are never absolute. An individuals Judgments are prone to error. We suspect of those who take a situation upon themselves to violate individual elses rights for their own good or someone elses good. Rights are worth enforcing because they allot 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 presently terms, heart patients in need of a pacemaker would not be the only ones suffering from such consequences because all individuals have equal standing(a) rights as a person regardless of medical reasons or not. Applying the Utility Test Making the correct decision to produce the best take for everyone requires a revision of the current engineering testing. The following considerations will consider the companys goods turn 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 unveiling of pacemakers. However, if the transistors continue to be manufactured pacemaker patients continue to face a possible death because of malfunctions. 0 future(a) 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 interpreted into co nsideration by the supply company. 0 Stop selling transistors to the buy 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 suppliers 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 modern 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 elses 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 patients basic right would be lost therefore, their freedom to feeling would be lost as well. An individuals 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 companys 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 peoples 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 ApproachThe 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 individuals intuition often contradicts the utilitarian theory.People see to think that penalties are inherently deserved and that they should be applied redden when there is deterrence. In addition, it is believed that compensation should be greater when people check harmed by nature. In contrast to utilitarian, people are reluctant in harming people Just to help another person, and they become reluctant to tutor 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.