Pulverizer

For Scenario 1:

To Fred, this could go two directions in which it will impact the company and clients as well as the team's decision.
The boss could respond positively or negatively to the question of either rewarding Fred for his creativity or penalizing
him for behaving without an order, the members of the team that he dis-included will definitely have a negative view of
him either way because Fred made them look bad. Therefore, I'm going to assume that their boss is satisfied with the
actions of Fred and the team is not, making this a lower positive outcome than action 3. The team will have a low score
here because, as Fred said, they did not come up with the solution. As for the company, it will have a positive result
because it can now take advantage of Fred's cost-effective solution which will ensure that the business is legally protected.
Eventually, the number of injuries declining would benefit consumers in a positive way. Furthermore, due to the redesign
that occurs, customers will be adversely affected at the same time by the price increase for the product.

This may seem like a good idea for the Kantian course, under the Kantian ethics which states that we position our
respect for moral over other considerations. Fred is obligated to honor the basic values of rational beings. In refusing to
include the other engineers, he disrespects their ability to help decide the appropriate course of action for the project.

For Scenario 2:

Another view of the success shown by Fred and his team and their effect on business and customers is that there
is no fair indication under current tort law that merely placing stickers on products will limit the amount of litigation that
the company would face from the injured consumers. There may therefore be no substantial change. For purposes of not
sharing his knowledge and learning about the machine with his supervisor, Fred gets a negative score that can somehow
be addressed. It gives the team a negative score for not having a viable answer either, but not as much as Fred did, because
they didn't have Fred's expertise. Since Fred has not spoken out or voiced his thoughts, this will result in a negative
outcome for the company as they are still being prosecuted as the number of accidents will not decrease dramatically.
Consumers who are the one who should be pleased will still be adversely affected by an accident, not as negatively
affected as before, but as some people are observant and vigilant and will read the signs and act accordingly, accidents
are unlikely to occur or will go down to some degree, but not as much as if the pulverizer were to be restructured.
Consumers are not negatively or positively affected from a price point of view, since the expense of stickers and extra
page in a manual can be presumed to be insignificant.

This course of action respects the willingness of the customer to make decisions, who has to determine whether
or not to read the notices, and then decide for himself how to act on that knowledge, but one has to wonder how many
people are really willing to cut off their fingers. But remember, this isn’t utilitarianism which means it requires us to choose
the right action for the most people, And if Fred knows that there is a situation that is likely to circumvent common sense,
which reduces the likelihood that legal costs could decrease for the organization, then Fred did not really understand the
willingness of his manager to mitigate legal liability and make a wrong decision.

For Scenario 3:

What Fred does would have won him a high score because he provides the company with a cost-effective solution
that will have a positive impact on everyone involved. They will also benefit the team positively by taking part in the
process and earning proper gratitude for their assistance. As far as the drug is concerned, its positive benefits would result
in a reduction in litigation in general. And the company would have received positive benefits for the consumers due to
fewer accidents. Nonetheless, the consumer would have to face a price increase that would result in less sales. I assume
that Fred and the engineering team are following the company's guidance.
 By acting in this way, Fred is going to respect his own will, the will of his boss and his staff. Since his opinion is
needed as much as the advice of the legal staff, he does not disrespect their will, but offers an alternative to the ultimate
decision-maker who is their boss. The consumer's pure will is respected because someone never says "let me cut off my
leg," their equal aim of using the product is to have nice yards, not to lose limbs. If it is possible to make a change that
would allow them to do so without the possibility of injury, then that attempt should be made.

All in all, I believe that if the people involved tried to do the right thing first, as Kantian ethics would advocate,
then there would be no dispute. If the intended intervention of the individuals was genuine, there would be no doubt as
to what action should be taken in this case to remedy the situation causing injury to customers who are simply trying to
keep their yards safe. By focusing on intention combined with the rational decision-making capacity of others, the Kantian
method of reaching an appropriate course of action appears to be preferable to a blind statistical analysis of utilitarianism.