Dumping is a way for companies to turn losses into profits.  These actions follow the teachings of psychological egoism.  The only moral obligation they have is to them.  The companies believe it because, they want to make money.  If a company is not making money, it will not survive for too long.  People end up suffering as a result.

There are morals that would prevent most people from providing a dangerous product to those that have not interacted with it before.  There are very few reasons that dumping could even be considered a moral choice.  One way dumping could be supported is if the product is safe for use, but no one is buying it.  A product should be properly disposed of when it is found to be not safe for human use.

The way U.S. companies dump products on other countries is a complete opposite to the regulations preventing dumping from foreign countries.  An article by Bryan Johnson talks about how the Commerce Department compares the products that are suspected of being dumped.  “When a U.S. company charges a foreign company with dumping, the Commerce Department assumes that the products in question are similar. For example, if U.S. farmers charge Colombian farmers with dumping, it is assumed that the American farmers are accusing the Colombians of dumping the identical crop to that produced by the Americans.”

Comparing products as if they were the same is like comparing apples to oranges, while assuming they are both apples.  This situation is similar to a toy company accusing another company of dumping, when the other company is selling camping equipment.  The morals are set to where only the company that is selling toys can sell them in that area.  No one else is allowed to sell any products within that same location.

After looking at the anti dumping laws, they appear to be written a little one sided.  The ones that wrote these laws made it so only one side benefits.  This follows the psychological egoism teachings of the actions being selfish.  It will only work if it benefits the people writing the laws.  It is a case of questionable ethics and morals, and with the one exception, is in no way justifiable.  It is like saying it is OK for one person to take something from someone, but it is not OK for it to happen the other way around.

When trying to perform a job to the best of anyone’s ability, we try to keep that job as long as possible.  Some people have the ability to turn off their moral principles and turn on their drive to just get the job done.  There is usually no consideration of the possible outcomes of the choices made.  Instead, it is viewed as the person just doing their job because they were told to.  Turning a blind eye to the possible outcomes is seen as acceptable to keep the job.

The qualification reports should not have been worked up to satisfy the demand of the company.  It is like telling someone it is ok to drive a car without breaks, knowing it is not.  There are a few moral principles that could be applied to this entire situation.  One of them is the principle that honesty is a necessity when dealing with things that affect others.  Telling someone their car does not need brakes is like saying their life is not considered to be valuable.  The only thing that matters is getting the car sold, and making money.

This situation once again shows the values of psychological egoism.  It doesn’t matter who gets hurt, as long as I get what I want.  When told to do something along the lines of hiding information that would protect the people testing the product, it would be against most people’s moral principles.  A particular principle this refers to is the feeling about lying.  Lying is one thing that is done when trying to protect oneself from the consequences of actions taken.

Someone steals money, but tells the person it was stolen from that they did not do it.  This is done to prevent being punished for stealing.  Vandivier should have prevented the brake pads from being issued for testing.  Instead, he chose to lie on the reports because he was told to.  The consequences of this decision were the near accidents that could have cost the test pilots their lives.  An airplane mechanic would not lie about a faulty engine or landing gear when there are hundreds of lives that could be lost.

Another principle is self-respect.  If the person writing those reports holds his life to be valuable, they should see other people’s lives as being valuable as well.  He put his morals aside to preserve the self-interest of getting his kids through school.  There is no way to completely justify the actions that were chosen.  When the children find out what he did, they may not look at him the same.  He was still able to justify to himself that he was doing it for a good reason.

If someone can talk themselves out of upholding their own personal morals, they did not have strong morals to begin with.  The idea that it benefited him raised his self-interest and followed the psychological egoism belief.  The outcome does not matter as long as it helps me.  When it comes to other people, our self-interest should not be the determining factor used to make our decision acceptable.

This scenario is similar to the scenario about dumping.  The only consideration taken by either situation is how this choice helps them get what they want.  Doing what is told is a way people justify the choices made.  It is a way to sacrifice moral principles to gain self-interest.  It may be legal to simply follow orders, but it is not morally justifiable in a lot of situations.           Next time a choice is made, think about whether or not the choice is being made willfully, or as a sacrifice for some kind of gain.