The Issue of the Use of Car Phone - Case Study Example

Car Phone: Is it Conducive or Counter-Productive? Driving will never be made easy. That is one thing for sure. At the same time, communication is inevitable. That is why mobile phones are developed. However, safety is important whenever an individual do these things whether it be simultaneous or one at a time. Obviously, in order to enjoy these stuffs that technology provides, we have to ensure our safety. Ultimately, no matter how careful we are, danger will still be there. When car phone was made, the most effective reasoning used to justify its use is that it will make communication accessible and easy. However, the downside of it, commonly asserted by those who are aware of its harsh effects, is that it is more of risk since driving requires attention to accidents. Both reasoning are ethically correct. However, they have different foundations which will be discussed later on. It is better to deal first with the facts that involve the issue. In dealing with the issue of the Car Phone, there are several parties involved. It is better to sort them out. The major groups that have taken a stand about this issue are the industry, the critics and the government. They have their own opinions and stances about the issue of the use of car phone. First, we have to consider the standpoint of industry, in particular, the CEO and the Engineers, who are behind the formulation, construction and development of such technology. Three major points can be drawn upon from the industry when they have initiated this affair. First, according to Kevin Roe, the formulation of this industry is a “business” (Richtel 1). Basically, they want to earn from selling their product. That is the most common objective of every person who has an innovation. Second, the industry asserted that the mobile phone is a “must have accessory for the elite” (Richtel 4). There is an implication here that the possession of such things defines the status of an individual in society. The ones who can afford can have it. To some level, this is quite discriminative about social classes. Lastly, it is considered a tool to improve communication conditions and to make things more doable. In one the ads mentioned in the article, there is a statement that implies it importance. It says “You can reach all those important clients and still beat the traffic” (Richtel 4). In relation to the second assertion, the third condition reaffirms that this communication system is important and is needed. These viewpoints coming from the industry is valid. There is really a need to have means of communicating faster and effective. However, the second group, the critics, provide a very different stand about this matter. Under these critics, the academic, the medical, and the non-government institutions are involved. Their explanation about having trouble with the car phone is because of the inherent risks involved with its usage. The academic field has researched and devised methods to determine further the harsh effects of driving like “driving simulator” (Richtel 7). The results have shown that no matter if the phone is hands-free or not, the risk cannot be eliminated (Richtel 7). Harvard and the University of Utah have both provided reasonable justification for this (Richtel 7). The medical field, on the other hand, do not just say that the use of car phone is risky but also implies that it is costly in terms of health care and probably insurances that people avail. Cars, when damaged, can be fixed. However, life, once destroyed, cannot be fixed. The medical field provided records that “2600 deaths and 570,000 injuries” happen annually and these are related to distracted-driving wherein the usage of mobile phones is the culprit (Richtel 7). The non-government institutions are also involved with this demeaning endeavour. Their call and stance about the issue is the same to that of the medical and the academic field. They have even provided funds and supported researches conducted by the aforementioned institutions. The first two parties involved have competing interest: the commercial interest perpetrated by the industry and the welfare of the people subjected to the consequences of technology. These two interests oftentimes clash. At some point, there is no thorough deliberation coming from both sides as to how people will respond and consider the use of a new product or technology. There is not even enough information dissemination that is happening to ensure knowledge about the usage of such things. Since these two interest clash, the government, the last party, serves as the mediator and the resolver of the conflict between the two warring interests. Government should prioritize the common good. This is already a generally-accepted truth. When dealing with the issue of the safety of the people, the government interferes to ensure that welfare and the common good of the citizens it serve is safeguarded. Knowing the casualties of the use of the hands-free mobile device and drawing reasonable judgments from the researches published, the government has tried formulating certain provisions to respond the needs of the growing issue and mitigate its further effects. There are propositions like banning texting and using phone while driving to ensure the safety of the people who are travelling along the road (Richtel 9). There are conditions wherein the legislation was passed. This passage guarantees that the state, as an institution, is capable of ensuring safe conditions for the citizens. These parties have raised plausible points accordingly to their belief as entities. However, there should be an assessment as to what are their foundations when they engage in a debate about these issues. Consequentialist Theory Consequences are the main foundation of this theory. Whether an act is morally right or wrong depends on the consequences (Consequentialism 1). This defines the consequentialist theory. How does consequentialist ethics theory affect the decision-making process of the entities involved with the issue of the car phone? The business and industry proponents want to utilize what the technology has to offer. In this case, they are reasonable. They want to provide better communication systems. They want to minimize the pressure for those who feel pressure of the strenuous tasks of the corporate world. Communication is inevitable. This perspective of the industry comes from a utilitarian approach (Consequentialism 1). It is true, yes that the product they have provided does something good. However, that good condition is not absolute. The effectiveness of the product has to consider the context in which it is used. At the same time, this condition also falls under “maximizing consequentialism”, wherein providing better communication system, is the best consequence rendered (Consequentialism 2). Technology must be utilized and maximized. However, there are cases that the technology has not considered the consequences it will yield. The critics, as classified in one of the aforementioned paragraphs, have seen as well the other consequences that the proponents had failed to recognize and realized later when the casualties have been high. “Actual consequentialism”, provides that the consequence of using mobile phones while driving is high. There have been recorded deaths and casualties to justify such (Consequentialism 2). At the same time, “Equal Consideration” should have been asserted by the industry (Consequentialism 3). This is implicitly pointed out by the critics. They target the drivers too much without considering consumers. In some cases, the demands of those who are not targeted by the industry are left behind. Not enough consideration was made. Now the government, the last party, acts on the premise of “Total Consequentialism” (Consequentialism 3). They have acted upon legislations because it pointed out that everyone must be safe. This encompasses that it is not just the drivers who are currently at risk but also those future drivers who might be at risks once they have not been informed about these conditions. Industry: The Engineers Code Non-consequentialist theory, oftentimes, has its foundation and attribution from utilitarianism (Consequentialism 8). Engineering profession has always aimed to improve the living conditions of the society by maximizing all the stuff that society offers. The ASME Code of Engineers justifies the very existence of mobile phones and devices. Assessing the fundamentals of the Code namely, human welfare, honesty and competence, the minds who formulated the said technology has been successful in upholding those three (ASME 1). They have improved the communication system, provided a new technology that will ensure welfare and showed competence upon deliberation of the product. Another, the developers have been able to fulfil the premises of the code. They have issued statements about what the product does in relation to safety (Richtel 1). Despite the existence of certain provisions in ASME that consider the consequences of the new technology, these consequences are not really considered. There are inconsistencies and clash. Specifically, the first statement of the fundamental canons indicates that the welfare and health must be considered is not considered at all as to how the conditions brought upon by product happened (ASME 1) (Richtel 1). This already shows that the consequences of the developments of new technology are not really considered. The premium is on how the technology improves lives and not on how the technology can affect the other aspects of life. This will definitely be demise because it undermines the totality of living conditions and becomes too selective when it comes to priorities. Another problematic premise in the code is the devotion to the public and loyalty to the client (ASME 1). This somehow indicates that there is really no consideration as how the loyalty to both sides affects each other in all possible means. As seen in the article of Richtel, the welfare of the public was undermined when several incidences occurred the same way as to how the private industry was blamed for the atrocities. In this case, there is relative difficulty in identifying who must be responsible. The engineers may be blamed on a certain level. However, their code protects them such because they have fulfilled what they must do. This seems derogatory. This derogation can have a detrimental effect on how they exercise their profession no matter how much they are committed on improving the lives of those who are presumed to suffer from the effects of introducing new advancements in technology. The very code that engineers have has protected them. The utilization of technology somehow exempted them. This shows that the non-consequentialist theory cannot be good most of the time. This gives a reason for the developers to not necessarily consider the full scope of the effects their new technologies bring as long as their greater aim, which is utilization, is achieved. The full-blown assessment of things is not their responsibility most of the time. This provides an assumption that they are blinded as well by the somehow positive output of their own developments. This blindness somehow hinders them from fully understanding the nature of things that they are handling. Virtue Ethics Moral Character is the foundation of Virtue Ethics (Virtue Ethics 1). Relatively, the individual has the sole responsibility of determining and understanding the very nature of what a virtue is. It is also a matter of how will the virtues of a person affect the decision-making process. The question posed about the issue of the car phone is this: how did the virtues of the proponents affected their decision to make and introduce such product in the market? “Given that virtue is a multi-track disposition,” there are several possible reasons why the said product came to existence (Virtue Ethics 3). The proponents want to be true to their objectives: that is to improve the living conditions. Their virtue is somehow “honesty” wherein their motives are clear and cannot be contested to some extent (Virtue Ethics 3). They have been honest that they want to fulfil an obligation they imposed on themselves by developing a new technology. However, they have forgotten the fact they have been dishonest in some aspect of not informing the eager public of what will be the harsh effects that will be brought upon by the existence of the new technology. Most of the blame about the detriments of the mobile technology is always geared towards the developers. Yet there is a failure to assess the individual who has availed the use of such technology. There is still responsibility on the part of the individual who uses such because whatever will be the backlash of its usage will not always be the burden of industry who made it. There should be an initiative on the part of the people to use their “moral or practical wisdom” (Virtue Ethics 4). The neglect on the part of the user to think about the effects of using the technology is coming from his part. “Eudaimonia or happiness, flourishing and well-being” is probably the greatest goal of an individual (Virtue Ethics 6). Yet this is hindered by the irresponsibility and blaming of individuals who have failed to recognize themselves as crucial arbiters of their own welfare. Resolution Car phone’s usage is debatable due to safety being at risk. However, that risk can be mitigated. In the end, people must realize that when they avail of technology provided and developed by man, there is responsibility that comes along with its usage. Educating people about these things are more than enough. Giving warnings and conducting researches about its effects are practical. However, the most crucial key player is the individual. No matter how many efforts we exert to provide information to them to understand the complexities of technology and as long as apathy and irresponsibility exists, people will not learn. Technology must serve the humankind and it must make the lives of humans easy. It should not be the other way around. The very problem why accidents occur is that people do not know how to set limits on themselves and acting responsibly. They keep on abusing the great comfort that technology provides. Everything should be taken into moderation. That will address the issue. An individual must recognize the limits of technology to enjoys it benefits and perks rather than abusing its use and end up digging one’s own grave. Technology is beneficial. It is just the abusive nature of human that makes technology bad. There should be ethical decision-making and sound deliberation of the consequences to avoid the detriments. WORKS CITED Richtel, Matt. “Driven to Distraction: Promoting the Car Phone Despite Risks.” Dec. 2009. Doc. “Virtue Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. July. 2007. PDF. “Consequentialism.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Feb. 2006. PDF. “Code of Ethics.” ASME. Nov. 2006. PDF. Read More