Trisha Samuelson Reply
Thank you, Trisha, for your response to the discussion, which I find more intriguing, and I concur with your opinion that both workers of BFGoodrich understood what their condition was right and wrong and that their leadership figures affected them. They collected facts on what they felt was right and wrong, adapted the insight to their case, and then made a judgment based on those two issues. Before concluding to any moral sense, individuals ought to comprehend that they are indeed being faced with an ethical matter, and they need to establish the course of their actions. They also have to choose to pursue the noble deeds of their actions before coming to a final decision. And as highlighted by utilitarian theory, the ultimate consequences of one’s acts determine if they are right or wrong because the end product should be happiness.
Troy Kravig Reply
Thank you, Kravig for your post. Even though Merck came up with an ethical decision of providing the people with free drugs that helped a lot of individuals, I believe that he was obligated to do a moral act. There is a vast difference between having an obligation to decide to do something ethical and making an ethical decision. For instance, feeling ethically obligated to visit and support the orphans is different from attending and supporting the orphans regardless of other determining factors such as time, resources and power or position. I believe that Merck was not fully entitled to deliberating the decision of giving out drugs at no cost even though he contributed. As much as Merck’s decision to do an ethical act was not entirely his duty to partake, but the consequences of the act were inline with utilitarian theory as the result of the decision was happiness.