The Sole Remaining Supplier

The case of “The Sole Remaining Supplier” deliberates between what is more important, a human beings life or financial loss. During the year 1975, doctors across the nation started to implant a new and promising medical technology called pacemakers. It was in its early years; therefore, cardiology doctors did not possess the advanced skills needed to install such equipment. A patient’s heartbeat depended solely on these units to survive; however, a malfunction from such unit would cause a patient to die. Although the liability of a malfunctioned transistor is on the manufacturer, justifying the manufacturer’s acts of deception would be utilitarianism because of its moral reasoning.
In this paper, I shall discuss the general utilitarian issues of the case. In addition, I will apply the different steps of the Utility Test and I shall apply this comparative approach to the study of the Common-Good Test. Although my judgments are implicitly concerned with generalizing the ethical issues of the case, I shall criticize the utilitarianism; the view that the best decision is the one that maximizes the expected utility over those who are affected Baron 1990). In addition, the paper shall inform as well as to which approach, the Utility Test, or the Common-Good Test best evaluates the case.
Introduction
Utilitarianism is foreseen as unjust because it leads to conclusions that permit those who are fortunate to hurt people with less fortunate situations. For example, in The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier, if the company decides to continue it sells of transistors without the proper engineering testing it is benefiting financially at the cost of the pacemaker patients and their families who rely on such technology for survival. If utilitarianism is the normative theory, then my judgments correct or not could fail to bring sense to any present or future consequence. However, this sort of knowledge will allow the reader to understand the situation of the case.