George Nash Desperate Air Case Summary

George Nash, Desperate Air Corporation (DAC)’s Vice President is facing an ethical dilemma. The company was desperate to generate cash after experiencing substantial losses, had a negative cash flow, and bankruptcy looms. The company planned to sell its undeveloped property to Fledgling Industries. Nash gave a report of environmental audit of the property, which showed that the property had no problem to the Fledging representative. However, during the negotiation process, Nash was informed that there were highly toxic wastes on the property, which can hurt innocent people if the sale went through. The issue here is should Nash mention the toxic wastes to the Fledgling representative before he closed the sale? To solve this issue, Nash can refer to Deckop’s decision-making models, which are utilitarianism, profit maximization, and universalism. Utilitarianism can be understood by the common phrases “The greatest good for the greatest number” and “The ends justify the means.” From utilitarianism perspective, we need to analyse who benefits and who is harmed. The best decision is the decision that …show more content…
We should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We should do the right thing to do. Under certain circumstances, universalism theory can be hard to apply, but in this Desperate Air Case, we are talking about others’ life. Our decision can harm someone’s life. Nash should imagine himself in Fledging Industry’s place. He knows that if he decided not to mention the toxic wastes to the Fledgling representative, anyone from Fledging Industry will harm. If Nash is in Fledging Industry’s place, he knows that his own decision will harm himself. Even though DAC will be making profits from the sale, Nash is considered unethical as he will harm others from Fledging Industry. An ethical decision should consider harms and benefits to both parties, and the fundamental rights of a