Case Study Analysis: Case 2- The Scratched Bumper
In this case study, the key and central players are the owners of the car that has been scratched and the individual facing the ethical dilemma of either claiming responsibility of the small accident or running off. The owner of the affected car will be the most affected individual in this case as he is likely to incur the costs of repairing the car, costs that would otherwise be incurred by the responsible. The situation would be more apparent if we were told of any other individual who would have witnessed the culprit in the process of moving the car. Possible witnesses could be supermarket security and other customers who could be in the vicinity of the process. The presence of any of these individuals would have changed the direction of this case entirely.
The possible responses would be to proceed and go home as if nothing happened. The other answer would be to scribble your number on a piece of paper and leave the note on the other party’s windscreen such that they can contact you afterward and help in the repairs. The last possible response would be to report to the supermarket security office immediately such that the owner can be sought, and together you can amicably chat the way forward. Of these responses, the most probable one would be to drive on. The individual portrayed in this case attempts surveying the other car a sign that maybe they will make an effort to contact the other party. Such would actually be the best response.
By making an effort to engage the owner, the individual demonstrates a high level of accountability. Accountability is a moral principle that requires one to be responsible for their actions in that whether you are spotted on the act of the wrong move or not; you’re ready to take the lead and claim responsibility for your actions. Accountability as a moral principle may contradict with such policies as ethical egoism. In ethical egoism, it would be right and justifiable for the doer of the action to proceed and drive on without contacting the owner because of the effect they’d have taken them.
The one response in this scenario that is morally principled is contacting the owner of the other car such that together you can look for a way of helping out. Ordinarily, if I were on the receiving end of the case, I’d require that the culprit would at least make an effort to contact me such that they’d help in the repairs. Considering deontology as an ethical theory which states that when faced with a moral dilemma in decision making where ethics is in play, one should adhere to their duties and obligations. In other words, one should be responsible and practice integrity in an ethical dilemma during decision making, especially if ethics is in perspective.
Running away without making any effort is a dangerous move. Let’s imagine the owner or the security officers and other law enforcers spot you in the process. It would be tough to explain your step as it would be seen as a deliberate move to dodge. None of us would want to go through the tedious process of facing the law forcefully because of an action that we would otherwise have controlled and avoided. As earlier mentioned, I would also want to do to someone else what I wish for myself. Therefore, I still believe and firmly hold that contacting the other party would be the best response to take.