PHIL 186 SJSU The A7D Affair

Anonymous
timer Asked: Jan 30th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $25

Question Description

Case 1.3 in Shaw that was upload below ( read the case and respones)

These responses will be graded on clarity of argumentation (yes, these responses should be argumentative!) as well as your usage of the moral theories we have learned in the course. It ought to go without saying, but I will say it anyway, that the usual cannons of good academic writing apply in the case of CSRs just as they do for every piece of work you submit to a university level course - so, you are expected to spell words correctly, format your assignments in a rational way, and make use of citations where appropriate.

The most important feature of your grade, however, is your use of the assigned theory. Merely mentioning a moral theory is not enough – so, for example, if you think that raising the minimum wage would be the correct course of action for utilitarian reasons, then you ought to proceed to give an argument why utilitarians in particular should agree with you. That is, you should argue not just that raising the minimum wage would be nice, or make people feel good, but that it would have the best consequences (this line of thinking will make sense when we cover what Utilitarianism is). Moreover you should be specific about what those consequences would be, and why they support your conclusion.

PHIL 186 SJSU The A7D Affair
case_1.3.png

Tutor Answer

Tutortitus
School: Carnegie Mellon University

Hello, attached is the complete solution to the assignment. Thank you

Running Head: CASE STUDY: A7D AFFAIR

Case Study: A7D Affair
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Case Study: A7D Affair

1

CASE STUDY: A7D AFFAIR

2

Question 1
The characters in the case study include B.F. Goodrich, Kermit Vandivier, John Warren,
Searle Lawson, Robert Sink, Russel Line, and Ralph Gretzinger. Some of these characters were
involved in unethical practices. These practices clearly give an insight into how some businesses
go into an extra mile to make profits regardless of the outcomes of their activities. Vandivier was
buying 202 brake assemblies for a new Air Force light attack plane called A7D. In addition,
Vandivier made an order of LTV. According to the case study Goodrich had made brakes for
LTV but had not met the expectations as required. In essence, the brakes Goodrich had made
were defective, but he could disclose it. It was Warren who was given the brakes to design, and
as someone with experience, nobody could doubt his work. But later it was learnt that the brakes
were defective. In essence, this case study shows the secret dealings Goodrich and his employees
like Warren were involved in making defective brakes. They knew that the brakes were faulty or
had failed the tests, but went ahead to give a clean bill of health, perhaps to make a sale and
money.
Question 2
Based on my assessment, Gretzinger, Lawson, and Vandivier were concerned about the
moral aspect of their work. However, they involved themselves in fraud because at first, they
trusted each other and only made reservations about the brake failures instead of singling out the
actual problem. In essence, for Vandivier, his reasoning was that he could ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors