Ethical Reasoning in the Boeing 737 Max Fraud

The ethical dilemma when the safety concerns over the 737 Max first surfaced

When first questions concerning the safety of the 737 Max were raised, Boeing found itself in a precarious position from an ethical point of view, which may be summed up as follows: For instance, when the first worries about the safety of the passengers were aired, Boeing was forced to make the tough decision of whether or not to continue flying the flights. At the same time, an investigation was being carried out, and the aircraft was grounded (Volkov, 2021). Following the completion of the inquiry, the conclusion was that the government of the United States had sent a safety warning, which resulted in the jet having to make an emergency landing. This information was not made public until after the first crash of an aircraft, which was not the first accident involving a plane. Instead, it was the first crash of an airplane. It is possible that Boeing intended to conduct their study in the background after the initial occurrence or believed the cause of the accident was not due to a weakness in their product. Both of these possibilities are plausible. After the first incident, it is reasonable to assume that Boeing would have wanted to conduct an investigation. In any case, they were curious about the events that had taken place and wanted to understand more about them. Regardless of the reasons for doing so, it is steadfast that there is a specific approach that has to be carried out if the safety of human beings is in doubt. This belief is based on the fact that it is in the best interest of human beings to do so.

The causes of the dilemma

The factors that may have caused/created this dilemma for Boeing were:

1. The financial success of Boeing was the impetus for this decision. It is conceivable that letting Boeing know of a potential problem with their new aircraft and commencing an investigation would cost them a substantial amount of money. Further, a query of this kind can potentially sour relationships with clients, which puts money in danger, which is a secondary worry given their situation.
2. When it comes to making judgments, Boeing has to keep in mind that it is a large and well-known corporation. If Boeing admits fault or finds a flaw in the safety of one of its planes, then the view that stakeholders have of the company, as well as their standards and Boeing in the future, might be poorly be put into jeopardy.

The external (situational) pressures on decision making

1. There is a fair likelihood that one of the deciding factors in their pick was the FAA rating they aimed for. Customers forced to make costly expenditures in training and equipment may have a negative effect as a result of higher scores since ratings are directly related to the amount of training required of pilots.
2. Many people who have a stake in the outcome are putting a lot of pressure to disembark the airplane frequently. As a result of the long process of developing the aircraft and the possibly substantial expenses associated with its assets, the stakeholders may apply pressure from the outside to prevent any additional testing or changes from being undertaken.
3. All aviation laws and regulations relevant to the situation are to be followed. Boeing might utilize this fact to justify its actions and the points it concealed from the general public if there was no breach of the law.
4. The absence of safety standards in aircraft, such as an impartial corporate monitor to guarantee safety behavior or information breaches, is a contributing factor in the incidence of such catastrophes and contributes to the likelihood that they will continue to occur.

The internal pressures (biases) on decision making

As Boeing made its decisions on how it was to solve this dilemma, the internal biases (internal to Boeing and you as its CEO) that may have influenced Boeing’s decisions are:

1. First and foremost, the lack of safety standards in airplanes, such as an impartial corporate monitor to ensure safety behavior or information breaches, is a contributing factor in the occurrence of such tragedies and adds to the chance that they will continue to take place in the future.
2. Secondly, Boeing does not focus on ensuring its customers’ safety or making choices that adhere to ethical standards. They are communicating to their personnel that their assigned duties have been completed and should be recognized for their accomplishments, provided that they continue to operate within the limitations specified before.
3. Third, it is possible that the personnel was pressured to eradicate the need for further testing or rework due to the amount of time spent on producing this aircraft.

The parties affected by Boeing’s decisions over the ethical dilemma

1. spacecraft manufacturing company
2. The Indonesian airlines
3. The Ethiopian Airlines
4. American-based firm constructing aircraft
5. Telecommunication gadgets manufacturers.

The three alternative resolutions for the dilemma

As the CEO of the organization making a choice, the three potential answers to the problem are as follows:

1. Intuitionism: – contains the intellectual pursuit of uncovering the truth about a thing. One ethical perception is when a person feels that lying is inherently unethical, even though they cannot articulate the particular rationale behind this conviction. Because deception is seen as a negative trait, the individual may decide to refrain from lying. In this situation, we would be behaving based on our ethical intuitions.
2. Moral idealism: – contains the perfect code of conduct for society. If you are idealistic, you need to find perfection in everything, including yourself and others, and you do this because you believe the model exists. One of your ideological aims, for instance, may be to end child poverty everywhere in the world. This could be one of your ambitions. It is claimed that a person is romantic if they have lofty, fantastic, and most likely unreachable beliefs or objectives regarding the help they offer others.
3. Utilitarianism: – where the pursuit of activities that brings about enjoyment is encouraged. For instance, if you buy ice cream for yourself, the valuable viewpoint would advise you to choose the flavor that would offer you the most level of enjoyment possible. If you prefer chocolate but can’t tolerate it, you should opt for it because it will bring you joy, and you should avoid it because it will make you feel unhappy. Chocolate will make you feel better.

The potential consequences of these alternatives

The potential consequences of each of these alternatives are:

1. First and foremost, the development of the mind and the conception based on it serve as the foundation for all of intuitionism’s many iterations.
2. Second, the notion of moral idealism may be seen as either an aspiration or an attitude toward the concept that has been formed. Both interpretations are valid.
3. Third, utilitarianism’s ethical theory and morality are summed up in the phrase “the pleasure that follows from opposing activities that result in pain.” Utilitarianism is founded wholly on moral ideas and ethics.

The alternatives to implement

The concept of moral idealism, a magnificent aspiration, has been chosen as the solution that will be used logically for the position of Chief Executive Officer. It has also been decided to adhere to the conviction that the disposition will be in charge of making choices and that this will not lead to any illusions or undue expectations on the part of the individual.

Reference

Volkov, M. (2021). DOJ and Boeing Settle 737 Max Fraud and Safety Charges for $2.5 Billion (Part I of III). JD Supra. Web.