In the case study The A7D Affair, Kermit Vandivier, an employee of Goodrich
Corporation, is participates in fraud and is found guilty for conspiracy to defraud the LTV
Aerospace Corporation. In this case study, I will describe what specifically happened,
who else took part, and whether or not the actions taken are seen are morally right or
wrong.
Below are the facts that were involved in the case:
The LTV Aerospace Corporation made a contract with Goodrich for an order of
202 brake assemblies for their A7D attack plane.
10 years earlier, Goodrich had built a brake for LTV that didn’t meet expectations
and ultimately severed ties between Goodrich and LTV.
John Warren was initially made the project engineer but later assigned …show more content…
The extent to which Lawson, Vandivier, and Gretzinger considered the potential moral
issues was very high. They were all aware that there was wrong being done within the
company and spoke up a few times to combat the situation but ultimately fell victim
participating in fraud.
There were cases of groupthink, diffusion of responsibility, and bystander apathy within
the hierarchy of the company. Groupthink was seen when Vandivier told Gretzinger
what Lawson had asked him to do. After Gretzinger had come back from seeing Russell
Line, manager of Goodrich Technical Services Section, he realized that if he didn’t want
to lose his job, he would have to participate in fraud. This case also shows how a
company with an obvious hierarchy would manage their ethical problems by diluting
responsibilities among the employees. Despite them knowing what was truly going on,
they continued to work on the project and went about it without doing anything that
would incriminate their superiors. This was done so that they could dilute the
responsibilities among other workers. Lastly, bystander apathy was seen …show more content…
This right here resulted in
Vandivier working together Gretzinger to prepare the qualifying data.
It is easy to know what the right thing to do is but if placed in the same situation as
these individuals, I couldn’t whole heartedly say I would let my feelings dictate my
actions. I more than likely would have participated in fraudulent actions than to have
said something if it meant I had to provide for my family and myself. But overall,
Lawson, Vandivier and Gretzinger all considered the moral issues of what they were
doing but still participated in fraud.
To see if Vandivier was right to “blow the whistle” we consult 2 theories – Divine
Command Theory and Utilitarianism.
The divine command theory states that things are morally good or bad solely because
God’s command. The question this theory poses is “Are morally good acts willed by
God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed
by God?” which can be answered in a number of ways. In the case of Vandivier, he felt
the need to “blow the whistle” because it was the right thing to do and because it was
the right thing to do, God must have commanded
Corporation, is participates in fraud and is found guilty for conspiracy to defraud the LTV
Aerospace Corporation. In this case study, I will describe what specifically happened,
who else took part, and whether or not the actions taken are seen are morally right or
wrong.
Below are the facts that were involved in the case:
The LTV Aerospace Corporation made a contract with Goodrich for an order of
202 brake assemblies for their A7D attack plane.
10 years earlier, Goodrich had built a brake for LTV that didn’t meet expectations
and ultimately severed ties between Goodrich and LTV.
John Warren was initially made the project engineer but later assigned …show more content…
The extent to which Lawson, Vandivier, and Gretzinger considered the potential moral
issues was very high. They were all aware that there was wrong being done within the
company and spoke up a few times to combat the situation but ultimately fell victim
participating in fraud.
There were cases of groupthink, diffusion of responsibility, and bystander apathy within
the hierarchy of the company. Groupthink was seen when Vandivier told Gretzinger
what Lawson had asked him to do. After Gretzinger had come back from seeing Russell
Line, manager of Goodrich Technical Services Section, he realized that if he didn’t want
to lose his job, he would have to participate in fraud. This case also shows how a
company with an obvious hierarchy would manage their ethical problems by diluting
responsibilities among the employees. Despite them knowing what was truly going on,
they continued to work on the project and went about it without doing anything that
would incriminate their superiors. This was done so that they could dilute the
responsibilities among other workers. Lastly, bystander apathy was seen …show more content…
This right here resulted in
Vandivier working together Gretzinger to prepare the qualifying data.
It is easy to know what the right thing to do is but if placed in the same situation as
these individuals, I couldn’t whole heartedly say I would let my feelings dictate my
actions. I more than likely would have participated in fraudulent actions than to have
said something if it meant I had to provide for my family and myself. But overall,
Lawson, Vandivier and Gretzinger all considered the moral issues of what they were
doing but still participated in fraud.
To see if Vandivier was right to “blow the whistle” we consult 2 theories – Divine
Command Theory and Utilitarianism.
The divine command theory states that things are morally good or bad solely because
God’s command. The question this theory poses is “Are morally good acts willed by
God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed
by God?” which can be answered in a number of ways. In the case of Vandivier, he felt
the need to “blow the whistle” because it was the right thing to do and because it was
the right thing to do, God must have commanded