The Aircraft Brake Ethical Scandal

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Asymmetric Information and Moral Hazards
The Payoffs
Deontological Process
Moral Sentiments
The Engineering Ethical Code
Personal Point of View
Conclusion

Introduction

The Aircraft Brake Scandal is one of the most popular cases for moral and ethical research. This is the story of a valiant man who was not afraid to challenge the corporation to protect himself and bring justice. The case can be considered from the point of view of deontological ethics, compliance with ethical professional standards, and interpersonal relationships. The Aircraft Brake Scandal is indicative of reasoning about the motives of human actions from the point of view of moral justification.

Asymmetric Information and Moral Hazards

The need to study the moral and ethical aspects of business provoked the emergence of terms designed to find the root causes of ethical dilemmas in the organizational environment. The term asymmetric information describes a situation where one party during a business process has more information than the other, which can be used to gain an advantage. The ethical conflict at Goodrich arose because the company clearly had asymmetric information compared to the buyer of the brakes. Management was certainly aware that the parts were not safe; however, the benefit was more advantageous, and the management asked for a forged report. This is an example of a transaction in which the seller knew better about the shortcomings of the proposed product than the buyer, and took advantage of this situation.

The term moral hazard refers to a situation where one of the parties protected from the risk will act differently than in a situation where there is no protection from the risk. Moral hazards represent the danger that a transaction is made with the unfair intentions of one of the parties, using knowingly false information. An attempt to protect against the risk of disclosure of bad faith was made by Goodrichs management by falsifying the report. Moral hazard played into this situation, as Goodrich knew about the lack of quality in brakes.

The Payoffs

The ethical problem at Goodrich arose in part because managers chose the wrong profit strategy. The management of the company did not focus on the payoffs, which could be an improved reputation and profitable orders in the future. For Goodrich, this order was not a big profit, and, despite a sufficient amount of time for development, the company did not pay due attention to it.

Management focused on the short-term outcomes: making a profit at minimal cost. For Vandivier, long-term results were more important and he did not take the opportunity to easily finish the order by forging a report. For Russell Line, short-term results were more important, and he ordered his subordinates to falsify the report, removing responsibility. In such an act, there is a manifestation of ethical egoism, according to the concept of which moral agents should act in their own interests. This is an ethical problem of principle and agent, which results in the fact that the outcomes will always be contrary to ones interests. For senior management, forgery and deceit were beneficial, they acted in their own interests and sought to frame the author of the report.

On the one hand, through falsification, managers tried to fulfill their obligations to shareholders to maximize profits. However, in the long run, misconduct led to a loss of reputation, and trust and, consequently, the loss of potential large orders. It can be concluded that the obligations were not fulfilled properly. The only way Goodrich could have prevented this would have been to develop a strong organizational culture based on ethical principles. In such an environment, management would act in the long-term interests of the company and would be less likely to commit crimes.

Deontological Process

Deontological ethics places special emphasis on the relationship between duty and morality of human actions. According to this approach, an action is considered morally justified because of the specific characteristics of that action, not because of its result. Thus, deontology can justify some actions as morally binding, despite their consequences. Partly, Goodrichs managers were focused on the right deontological process, since the end result was less important than the apparent well-being of the company. However, there is nothing in their behavior that could indicate that they were fulfilling their moral duty. Rather, their actions were dictated by the desire not to be responsible for their mistakes out of selfish motives.

Kants categorical imperative implies, first of all, the need to treat people not as means for selfish goals. The essence of the second imperative is the need to act in a manner that would be acceptable as a general law. Both of these formulations are a way of expressing the principle of respect for the individual. It is necessary to interact with people as with beings that have internal personal value in themselves, regardless of their usefulness. Deontological theory suggests that the moral evaluation of actions does not depend on the consequences, from Kants point of view, moral justification depends in part on motivation.

Goodrichs managers did not seek to treat their subordinates as people of their own worth. On the contrary, they used the technical writer and engineers as a means of easy money, without caring about the consequences. The motivation for doing so was not intended to benefit the company, as they were aware of the consequences of forging a quality report. Neither from the point of view of deontological theory nor from the point of view of Kants imperatives, their act cannot be morally justified.

Moral Sentiments

Virtue ethics is a set of ethical philosophies that emphasize being rather than doing. The basis of all virtues is courage, which is the foundation for the development of other positive moral qualities. Courage is the ability to overcome fear and act correctly in spite of obstacles. One of the four basic virtues is justice, which is a balance between selfishness and altruism. The principle of justice regulates human relationships, allowing people to act ethically approved.

Goodrichs managers did not care about employee morale and did not exalt virtuous behavior. On the contrary, management tried to instill in employees the need to lie for seemingly good purposes. Managers showed neither courage nor fairness, as fear and selfishness guided their actions. The project workers, on the contrary, showed amazing courage, Vandivier and Lawson refused to endanger the future passengers of the aircraft with poor-quality brakes. Vandivier had the courage to make accusations against a huge corporation, despite the high risks to himself. Such behavior for the sake of establishing justice is entirely virtuous.

The Engineering Ethical Code

The professional ethical code has a relationship with the three ethical principles of people, process, and payoff. The staff at Goodrich did not prioritize safety because they did not care that people could get hurt as a result of a bad brake being put on the plane. The process itself was fundamentally unethical since it involved persons who did not have professional competencies and did not act honestly and openly. The result of the attempted forgery of the report violated the basic principle of enhancing the reputation and honor of the engineering profession. The price was deliberately lowered at the expense of quality, which created an unreasonable competitive advantage. All actions of managers and some employees directly violate the basic principles of the ethical code.

Personal Point of View

The ending of this story disappointed me because I hoped for justice and punishment for the guilty. I am glad that Vandivier was courageous enough to crack open the corporations deceit and human casualties were caused by management malpractice. This case can provide invaluable lessons about how a professional and a good person should act. First of all, it is important not to commit acts that go against conscience. It is necessary to have sufficient courage to defend the principles of justice. It is best not to commit morally condemned acts at all. I imagine myself very well in the place of engineer Lawson. If I had been in his place, I would have changed his story: I would have given more support to Vandivier when he made accusations. Besides, I would immediately refuse to falsify the report. However, for an open confrontation with a large corporation, I might not have had the courage.

Conclusion

The case of the Goodrich company is indicative of the moral and ethical side. It demonstrates how selfishness, the pursuit of short-term gain, and the fear of responsibility can lead to a threat to human security. Despite the fact that at the end of the story described by Vandivier, the perpetrators were not punished, the story was made public. Justice can be considered restored since now this case is one of the most popular for consideration from the moral and ethical side.

Click Here To Order Now!