Promoting the Car Phone Despite Risks - Case Study Example

Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks Name Institution Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks 3 Ethical Issues in the Case 3 Consequentiality Theory of Ethics 5 ASME Codes of Ethics 6 Virtue Based Theory 7 Solutions to the Case 9 References 11 Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks Ethical Issues in the Case Wireless service providers and mobile phone providers carry out promotional strategies that appeal to drivers as their main market target. They carry out these promotions with the aim of promoting the sales of their products. Ethically, this is basically wrong because as they promote use of phones, they are aware that the phones could cause accidents leading to body injury and even deaths. However they also carry out educative campaigns that warn drivers that they should not talk while driving because it is hazardous. AT&T put stickers on the front part of their phones indicating that drivers should not text as they drive. Their information is conflicting because they mix both the information. They are promoting the use of hand-free devices and at the same time they are warning customers against the same case. This type of information is confusing to the customers as to what decision to follow. Customers tend to be compelled by what the media advertise. For instance, they showcase a man driving while a message is conveyed saying that you can drive and at the same time care for what is on the other end. The same advert shows the wife on the other side making a call while on a speedboat. Such adverts are confusing to the customers who would want to do exactly what they see being portrayed in the media. On the other hand the democrat representative, Mr. Simitian, comes to support the use of hands free devices while driving because it’s more effective. By this he thinks that drivers would be less distracted to focus on the road while driving. He however fails to get the support of mobile industries such as AT&T. This is a conflict of interest between Mr. Simitian and mobile phone industries. The campaign of lobbying the act of legislating hands free phone is turned down by the same people who had proposed the idea. This is contrary to the codes of ASME that prohibits the members from engaging in conflicting situations with others. They should by all means avoid conflicting issues with others in this case; AT&T and Cingular industries have not honored the ethical codes of ASME despite the fact that their industry lies in the technological sector. The industries at one point negate statements that they do not know what hand-free devices are. They say this in response to the Simitian claim to lobby the companies producing hands free mobile phone devices. The Oregon State University (2011) supports the industries that to some extent they are ethically right when they carry out educational campaign against warning the users of the mobile phones not to do that while driving. They are aware of the dangers of using the device while driving and therefore it is ethically right when they alert the drivers not use the devices. But they again negate this ethics when they continue designing devices that promote the use of phones while driving. Minton (1998) notes that as they continue to evolve their mobile industry, they are very aware that their educational efforts are not working. Verizon, AT&T and Cingular are against the fact that legislation of the phone use in the car will discriminate against the minority drivers. If they would actually be serious about the safety of the drivers while driving, they would let the legislation be passed. An advert of the Nuvifone by AT&T industry showcases a woman who cruises through the streets looking for a particular place by the directions given by the Smartphone. If this was happening in the real situation then such a customer of AT&T would be pulled over by the police for using the phone while driving. However the legislation was passed through because the safety of drivers is given more importance than the marketing of such multitasking phones. Consequentiality Theory of Ethics This theory puts weight on the fact that the morality of a given act is measured through the consequences associated with the results. In this case, even when the act is justified but the results are meant to be negative then the whole act is said to be morally wrong. Armstrong (2011) notes that the theory takes to task the utilitarian concept of humanity in that individuals should always aim at attaining the good and avoiding the bad. Stevens (2001) argues that it will be irrelevant when a certain act is debated to be ethically right when the outcomes are destructive. The theory stresses on maximizing on the good while minimizing on the bad side. Marketing mobile phone use while driving is ethically wrong looking at the risks associated with using the devices. The companies such as AT&T have even gone further to design a phone that gives directions to every location. Nilsson (1996) agrees that such phones allow multitasking without giving in consideration the consequences that arise as a result. Even though they are carrying out educative campaigns that warn people of the dangers they might face when they use the phones. Consequentiality theory overlooks these actions because the bottom line is that drivers will purchase these phones and they will use the services while driving hence increase the chances of causing road crashes. The passing of the law to protect the use of the phone while driving is ethically right because they are concerned on maximizing on the safety of the drivers. ASME Codes of Ethics American Associations of Engineers have a designed code of ethics which govern the operation of their practice. The code requires that engineers hold safety as the most important tool in their profession. They have to recognize the fact that life, health, and individual’s welfare of the members of the public depends on the judgment of the engineers in accordance to the decisions, practices that is involved in the machines, devices and processes in the engineering department. They are not supposed to approve of seals that hold a risk factor to the public and incase of such circumstances the engineers are supposed to inform the public of the consequences. The information pertaining to some product should be provided to the users to make them understand the safe use of the same product. Engineers are supposed to avoid any conflicting situations with others so as to allow transparency in their operations. In addition to this code they are not supposed to partner with companies that they believe are violating with the canons and they should take responsibility by taking such information to the rightful authorities and give further help that could be needed of them in furnishing such matter. Engineers are supposed to take up duties only in areas of their competencies and they can only do so when they are qualified in those fields. They have to continue to develop as far as their career is concerned while also allowing ethical development of the other engineers supervising them. They are required to act in a professional manner by being faithful and should keep away from conflicting cases or even the anything that appears to be a conflicting interest. The case of promoting mobile use while driving is against majority of the canons under the engineers codes. The fact that using a mobile phone while driving is likely to cause death is a breach of the codes, their main aim is to ensure human safety, welfare and health. Therefore it is ethically wrong to promote or even design a gadget that when used would endanger someone’s life. The person using the phone while driving would be susceptible to injury or death. The manner in which AT&T behaved with the Californian democrat, Simitian, dishonors the codes of the engineers. The companies; Verizon, AT&T and Cingular had been carrying out campaigns educating the public of the safety measures to take while using the hands free devices when driving, when Simitian wants to legislate the use of the device, they all change their views saying that they have no idea of what hands free devices are. It is ethically wrong for such act to be done in business operations. Suleiman (2005) points out that the codes require the engineers to be environmentally considerate when designing a product that would carry consequences to human use. If the given product does not work for the benefit of humanity then it is considered ethically void and the production of such product should be terminated. In the same way the devices that encourage the use of the phone while driving should be avoided. Virtue Based Theory The most important feature in virtue-based theories is the fact that it focuses on the motivation of the agent; the reason why a particular person would want to take up on certain tasks. It does not focus on the outcome of the action as the consequential theory does. Hurst (2010) writes that the pursuit of the action necessitates the observation of certain traits and the ability of that person to pursue a given type of excellence which requires a sound judgment. They can be done in regard to self or in regard to others. That splits these virtues to self regarding and other regarding. Various characteristics are seen as virtues; they include; justice, kindness and generosity. These traits lead the ones who possess them to regard others in their actions. Self control and courage will mostly lead someone take up actions that are self driven. They use these traits to do actions for themselves in leading others. Hurst (2010) argues that the main focus of virtue ethics is the underlying concept of moral process as a professional development. They see that someone cannot just be rational without possessing the major virtues. Therefore virtue ethics centralizes itself on morality of individuals. A given sense of moderation will be needed for one to acquire excellence through these virtues. Business individuals who stick to their rational business decisions exercise the virtue of courage. Though, when to call it quits is also a virtue in that when things are not working they don’t have to stick to the decision but they have to adopt something else that could be working instead of the initial thought. In promoting the mobile phone despite the risks involved, marketers of the mobile phones and the producers such as AT&T should be concerned of the lives of drivers before designing phones that would jeopardize someone’s life. The probability of a driver causing an accident as a result of divided attention is high. Hart (1997) suggests that such a driver is likely to overlook some of the major road signs as he or she concentrate on the phone. AT&T and Cingular are also against the bill that outlaws drivers from using the phones while driving. They imply that the drivers should just use phones as much as they want without caring for their safety. They even continue to evolve phones such as Nuvifone which they run its adverts showcasing a woman following map directions through the phone. We would say that they care about the drivers by running educative campaigns portraying the dangers associated with using the device while driving. They would be right by the fact that they provide caution to the public, but why continue making the phones? Someone would ask that question. The Californian Democrat also came in to support the fact that hands free devices should be legislated. He lacks the virtues that are other regarded. Cullen (2003) points out that the statistics show that people are dying on the roads while using the phones. The numbers are so high that lead to deaths by road accidents that are associated with mobile use. Lucan (1999) suggests that the only way to reduce this death is to outlaw such an act so as to save the drivers from further deaths. Solutions to the Case Mobile phone producers and service providers should recognize that mobile phone use while driving creates a chaotic disorder on the highways and they should apply rationality to this situation and stop making phones that encourage multitasking in the car. The driver’s full attention is vital for the safety of his life while driving. A moment he slips off his attention from the road can lead to devastating effects of injury or even death. If they do this, they will not be quixotic but rather just minding about the safety of their consumers. Rationality should also be applied in the kind of promotions that they show to the public. People will love to be associated with a certain lifestyle in the society. Therefore an advert that shows a rich classy man multitasking behind the wheel with his phone while the wife on the other end, is talking while on a speedboat will send a misleading message to the other drivers. They will want to do that so that they associate themselves with the kind of lifestyle featured on in the advert. The marketers ought to be guided by logic and rationality as far as social responsiveness is concerned. They have to strike some kind of balance between profit making and people’s welfare. It will make no point to promote a product that is likely to cause injury or death of two people in every 1000 people who use phones while they drive. The best way to balance this mess is to run warning adverts alongside promotional adverts. In that they should feature how a fatal accident could occur to someone using the phone while driving. This type of warning would at least make some drivers pull over whenever they want to use their phones. A concern of human welfare is a social responsibility that every firm should strive to practice. They continue to operate because of the society. They should not be producing products that cause harm to the very society. References Armstrong, S. (2011). “Consequentiality Ethics Theory.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Retrieved From, 30th September 2011 Cullen M. (2003).Ethical Uses Of Cell Phones. Cell Phone Code of Ethics. 34(7) 55-60 Hart, P. (1997). Wireless Telephone Safety. Wireless Users and Non Users Nationwide. ; A Broader Perspective. 13(6) 23-25 Hurst, R. (2010). “Virtue Ethics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved From; . Accessed; 30th September 2011 Lucas, M. (1999).The Motive behind Promoting Hands Free Mobile Devices While Driving. A Journal of Ethical Issues in Marketing.5 (8) 211-213 Minton, (1998). “Cellular Phones and Fatal Traffic Collisions. “Accidents Analysis and Prevention.” 30(4) 17-22 Nilsson, A. (1996). Changes in Driver Behavior. Function of Hands Free Mobile Telephones. Accidents Analysis and Prevention, 23(7) 201-209 The Oregon State University. (2011) Cell Phones, Driving Don’t Mix. Science Daily, Dec 9 Suleiman, E. (2005).”ASME.”Codes and Standards. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering.12 (6) 54-59 Stevens, A. (2001). In Vehicle Distractions and Fatal Accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 33(4) 33-39 Read More