Reference no: EM133346626
Topic: Critique of DeGeorge's position and argument on whistle-blowing and on the responsibility of the professional (engineers, in this case) working in a large organization.
Indicate what kind of ethical reasoning (consequentialist or non-consequentialist reasoning) was operative in the decision-making process that led to the wrong-doing by the large organization (corporation).
This element of your paper relates to the issue of a conflict of duty that may stop someone
from doing the right thing, such as blowing the whistle to inform the public of a danger to the public. (This is the obligation to third parties, the public, mentioned by Bayles, as one of the duties and responsibilities of engineers and other professionals.)
This element of your paper relates to DeGeorge's claim that the engineers were not morally (ethically) to blame by allowing the public to be uninformed about the dangers of using their product, i.e., his claim that the engineers did nothing wrong by failing to blow the whistle on wrongdoing being done by their organization (corporate structure).
Question: What kind of ethical reasoning led to the executives (Ford) to decide against making their product safer for the public (the consumer and others) to use?