Case 1: Highway Safety Improvements
David Weber wanted to install some new signal that were known to reduce accidents. There was only $50 000 at his disposal that afforded him to implement them at only one intersection. David was faced with a challenge of having to choose between two intersections, a rural and an urban intersection. This case can be argued from an act utilitarian perspective using cost-benefit analysis that the course of action that produces the greatest benefit relative to cost is the one that should be chosen (Harris et al., 2009).
The cost-benefit analysis includes three steps: (i) assessing the available options, (ii) assessing the costs and the benefits and (iii) making a decision that is likely to result in the greatest …show more content…
Ben did not develop his idea or mention it to anyone in the company.
The ethical issue in this case was the misuse of the truth by withholding information. But then one is misusing the truth if they (i) fail to convey information that the audience would reasonably expect would not be omitted and (ii) if the intent of the omission is to deceive (Harris et al., 2009). But in Ben’s case, it cannot be expected of him to disclose such information as he had made it clear to his employer that he is pacifist, thus the development of such an idea would be against his personal morals. Also, Ben’s choice to not mention the idea to anyone is not intended to deceive anyone, but to exercise his personal right as an autonomous …show more content…
These engineers did not abide by any of these codes. Last but not least, registered persons must always ensure adequate supervision of, and take responsibility for work carried out by their subordinates (van Dyk, 2015). For as much as the three argued that they did not first handedly handle the chemicals, as superiors they were supposed to supervise and make sure that their subordinates carry out their duties according to set
David Weber wanted to install some new signal that were known to reduce accidents. There was only $50 000 at his disposal that afforded him to implement them at only one intersection. David was faced with a challenge of having to choose between two intersections, a rural and an urban intersection. This case can be argued from an act utilitarian perspective using cost-benefit analysis that the course of action that produces the greatest benefit relative to cost is the one that should be chosen (Harris et al., 2009).
The cost-benefit analysis includes three steps: (i) assessing the available options, (ii) assessing the costs and the benefits and (iii) making a decision that is likely to result in the greatest …show more content…
Ben did not develop his idea or mention it to anyone in the company.
The ethical issue in this case was the misuse of the truth by withholding information. But then one is misusing the truth if they (i) fail to convey information that the audience would reasonably expect would not be omitted and (ii) if the intent of the omission is to deceive (Harris et al., 2009). But in Ben’s case, it cannot be expected of him to disclose such information as he had made it clear to his employer that he is pacifist, thus the development of such an idea would be against his personal morals. Also, Ben’s choice to not mention the idea to anyone is not intended to deceive anyone, but to exercise his personal right as an autonomous …show more content…
These engineers did not abide by any of these codes. Last but not least, registered persons must always ensure adequate supervision of, and take responsibility for work carried out by their subordinates (van Dyk, 2015). For as much as the three argued that they did not first handedly handle the chemicals, as superiors they were supposed to supervise and make sure that their subordinates carry out their duties according to set