Care for a little philosophical challenge?

Question

I had to write a paper using two opposite moral theories. The scenario is as follows:

A car manufacturer has found a mistake with its brake pads. The mistake causes the brakes to malfunction once in a great while. In fact [no more than] 15 people have died. It will be cheaper for the automaker to cover up the incident and pay off any lawsuits that arise in the process. Which two moral theories do you choose?

I chose egoism (the manufacturer) vs. altruism (my belief). Which do you choose?

Answer 1

How about a different approach. Nihilism (true morality is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible) vs. Utilitarianism (a form of consequentialism) vs. Absolutism (certain actions are good or evil, regardless of the context of the act).

Ponder away!

Answer 2

Cheaper than what . . . a recall? If the auto maker choses the easy road out and the lie comes out they could face bankruptcy in light of the class action suit on behalf of all the owner's who own the bad breaks for relief as well as future sales lost due to negative public opinion about the company. It may be cheaper in the short run to "cover it up" but a cover up is only good for so long as it is covered. In the long run the company could pay far more dearly. You gotta take things like this on a case by case basis and see if there are any opportunities from doing things right. Since breaks need to be replaced anyway - cross market the recall with select brake manufacturers and car care providers - bringing them business and getting a kick-back on the back end. You might even out the costs that way and if not it can cost you significantly less. What do you think?

Answer 3

I might choose to approach the problem through macroeconomic efficiency versus the value of human life.

If we looked at things from the perspective of the economy, perhaps we would argue that the added expense of fixing the brake pads would make the car unaffordable to people who needed cars, and therefore cause them economic hardship. We could reimburse the families of those killed, and therefore the whole economy would be better off.

By contrast, we could claim that the value of human life is more important than economics, and therefore life cannot be replaced with insurance. In such a case perhaps it is the moral duty of the company to replace the brake pads and save lives.

Actually, this scenario is exactly why courts award punitive damages against companies that intentionally ignore safety problems. The courts want to make a dilemma like this less likely, because the cost of not fixing the brakes (when punitive damages are included) would be so high. . . . This means that the company would never get into the dilemma, because it would never be in its self-interest to intentionally sell defective products and risk the crippling costs of punitive damages.

Answer 4

I compare this to the death penalty. Some people believe it is better to let one guilty person go than to execute one innocent person. Others believe the opposite.
Settling law suits for death or injury due to an inferior product, plus being responsible for those deaths or injuries is something to consider. I vote for a manufacturer's recall. That's not altruism, it's abiding by moral and man-made laws.

Answer 5

Egoism is a business decision.altruism is a moral one.
The choice depends on the individual.
My choice,fix the brakes!

Answer 6

Egoism.
But i would also REALLY make sure that no one ever finds out.
Because chances are they will, like they did on ford pinto case.
And if they do find out, the damage to my reputation will be so great that it is probably worse to change the breaks now, even though I only care for profit.

Answer 7

I choose the manufacturer.

Answer 8

greed vs morality

Answer 9

Band aid approach versus doing what's right.

Peace.

Answer 10

I would choose hubris vs. responsibility