Case Study Assignment $1$

PHIL$215/$ ARBUS $202$

General Information

$1.$ Due Date: Friday, June $7,$ at $11$:$55$ PM

$2.$ Late Penalty: $10\%$ per day. No exceptions without a documented excuse of sufficient weight $($e$.$g$.$ a medical emergency$).$

$3.$ Passing off the work of others as your own constitutes plagiarism and is a serious offence. All suspected cases of plagiarism are referred to the Associate Dean's office. See the University of Waterloo$$s webpage on Academic Misconduct for important information on plagiarism and other academic offences. $($See below for instructions on appropriate methods of citation for your essay.$)$

$4.$ Important note on Generative AI: The use of generative artificial intelligence tools$$for example, Chat GPT$$at any stage in the production of content for your submission is not permitted and will be open to the charge of academic misconduct $($with associated penalties$)$ under UW Policy $71.$

General Instructions

$1.$ Read the Specific Instructions below.

$2.$ Do not put your name anywhere in this document.

$3.$ Keep this Assignment Sheet in the document you submit. Do not delete.

$4.$ Keep the Setup and Question in the document you submit. Do not delete.

$5.$ Keep the Decision Making Model in the document you submit. Do not delete.

$6.$ Keep the Decision Making Worksheet in the document you submit. Do not delete.

$7.$ Do all of your work in this document.

Specific Instructions

$1.$ Read Chapters $2$ and $3$ of the textbook.

$2.$ Review the online materials for Chapters $2$ and $3$ in LEARN.

$3.$ Read the Setup & Question below.

$4.$ Read the Decision$-$Making Model provided in this document.

$5.$ Use the Decision$-$Making Model to fill in the Decision$-$Making Model Worksheet.

$6.$ You must make explicit use of course concepts from the lectures in LEARN and from the readings in the text.

$7.$ When completed, save and submit this document to the Case Study Assignment $1$ Dropbox, accessed under the $$Submit$$ tab on the course Homepage in LEARN.

$$

Setup and Question

Setup

Progress and Safety

Parasol Incorporated has a flying automobile that has been in development for $15$ years. The vehicle promises to revolutionize the automotive industry and the company$$s survival is dependent upon its success. Ralph works for an independent industry oversight committee and has been tasked with assessing the safety features of the motor vehicle. The project is in its final stages when Ralph is assigned to review the project for final approval before the product is brought to market. According to the internal documents submitted to Ralph$$s office, the automobile passes the safety tests with flying colours. However, upon closer inspection, Ralph becomes concerned that the testing methodology is unsound. He contacts the man in charge of the program at Parasol, Kelly, and informs him about the testing irregularities he has identified. Kelly responds by assuring him that the testing procedures are acceptable and that further tests are unnecessary. Still, Ralph refuses to sign off on the project and insists on further testing under realistic conditions. After a time, new tests are conducted, and the results seem to show that the vehicle is safe. However, Ralph remains unconvinced. His own analysis of the tests leads him to suspect that they were conducted in way designed to guarantee a successful outcome. He proceeds to call his boss, Eugene, to discuss his concerns.

Eugene tells Ralph that Kelly is an old friend and is a trustworthy guy. Eugene then proceeds to say that Ralph should be a team player and not get in the way of progress. Ralph continues to insist on more rigorous testing until he is ultimately overruled by Eugene, who orders him to sign off on the flying vehicle. Realizing that his contract leaves him no options, Ralph complies with the order and signs off, but he also writes an internal memo to the members of the oversight committee he is working for in order to outline his concerns about the safety$-$testing methods.

Even so$,$ Ralph wonders if the internal memo is enough. After all, there may be more he could do to get his message out, but he also worries that doing more might jeopardize his position on the oversight committee, perhaps even costing him his job.

Question

What should Ralph do$?$ Should he leave the matter as it stands, or should he try to find additional ways of drawing attention to his concerns about the safety testing. What steps might he take? $($Answer these questions using the Decision$-$Making Worksheet.$)$

Decision$-$Making Model $($Step by Step$)$

Step $1$: Determine the facts

$$ State the morally relevant facts. $($Who$?,$ What?, When?, Where?, How?$)$

$$ Remember, you are listing the facts of the case. You are not trying to define the ethical issue just yet. You are not making any value judgments just yet.

Step $2$: Define the ethical issue

$$ Who are the stakeholders, and what is at stake for each one? Which stakeholders have proximate and genuine interests in the case?

$$ State what the ethical