Case Study
Steve is updating the HVAC system in his house. The house is older and quite large. It will likely require new zoning as temperatures vary considerably throughout the home. His friend, Terry, owns a small HVAC company and tells Steve that new zoning is going to be difficult without doing major construction.
However, there are some things that could be done to improve the temperature disparities throughout the house but “it will be far from perfect.” He quotes Steve a very favorable “friend discount” for the job.
For good measure, Steve enlists a larger and more reputable firm to bid on the job as well. The company sends out their best project engineer, Paul, to see if anything can be done to zone the house effectively and efficiently.
Paul spends the day at the house trying to come up with a creative solution for the problem. Paul appears very committed to finding a solution and is genuinely excited and enthusiastic about the challenge.
A week later Paul returns with an elaborate and creative proposal for Steve. Paul assures Steve that this solution will correct the temperature disparities and guarantees that he will work above and beyond to make sure the job is done to near perfection. Steve is very impressed with the design that Paul has come up with but needs to think about it because the cost is more than he intended to spend.
Steve tells his friend Terry about the proposal and Terry says that it is a “genius” idea. He also tells Paul that he will do the job using Paul’s design for half the price.
Steve did not sign any agreement with Paul’s company; however, Paul invested a
tremendous amount of time and energy on the design. Paul is very committed to
his job and as has a tendency to trust people as evidenced by the fact that he let
Steve make a copy of his detailed proposal that included his drawings. Paul
basically assumed that Steve wouldn’t give them to someone else.
Using two moral theories, one of them being Kant’s deontology, try to
determine the best course of action for Steve by constructing a brief ethical
argument.
Grading Rubric
1. All aspects of the case study are addressed in a thorough manner -25
Points
2. All arguments are logically strong and not fallacious -25 Points
3. At least two moral theories were used effectively 25-points.
4. The case study was analyzed from multiple perspectives and all conflicts
were addressed – 25 points.
