Serrling a Lawsuit

Settling a Lawsuit

When the company in question sold lawn products that turned out to be lethal, killing hundreds of dogs and cats, the pet owners naturally expected to receive some kind of fair compensation for the loss of their family pets. When the company stopped selling the products -- after it became obvious that the pesticide in the lawn care product was responsible for these animal deaths -- it was like a public admission that something was terribly wrong with their product.

How Ethics Relate to this Case

In this case, if I am the representative assigned the task of negotiating a deal to settle the dispute, and there are three options I am considering using in the negotiations -- and those three options presented in the instructions are the only three I can give consideration to -- I am in deep moral / ethical trouble. So I am answering the questions on this assignment not according to the unethical standards reflected in the three things the assignment suggests a representative might be planning. Of the three strategies that the assignment puts forward, only one has any value when considering ethical conduct in negotiations. The first one asks the families to appoint a representative for me to negotiate with, and that is proper and helpful. But to suggest that he or she receives "a premium for getting the parties to settle" is way out of line and not ethical.

Responding to this case, three ethical theories relative to this case need to be applied. The first one, the Ethics of Purpose -- which asserts that a positive conclusion can't reasonably be expected to be achieved when there are "bad means" being employed by one of the parties. By wishing to fatten up my own bonus (by shortchanging the families that lost their pets), I am also violating the ethical theory Ethics of consequence because the end (my own fatter wallet) does not justify the means (deceiving those harmed by the use of pesticide). I am also violating the Ethics of principle because I would not want a negotiator to rip me off the way I am planning to shortchange the people who are the ones hurt.

Question ONE: The ethical values I would use in this negotiation? I would first establish trust. As a representative I take responsibility for the deaths of these animals and would like to cooperate with those harmed to help them feel like justice was done. Unlike the three options in the instructions, I would not say I only had $100,000 to divide up among the families but I would not reveal my bottom line, because that is an appropriate tactic. I would also do my homework and research how much money has been awarded to other individuals in similar cases.

Question TWO: To assure that the negotiation was conducted fairly, I would employ all five of the standards: reciprocity (I'd want to be treated fairly); universality (I would want to be a role model for others); publicity (I would want my good faith bargaining strategy to be publicized); trusted friend (telling a close friend I was ethical would be easy); and the legacy standard (yes I would want to be recalled as a tough but fair and ethical negotiator).

Question THREE: It would be ethical and perfectly reasonable to hide my bottom line ($250,000) from the families; you don't have to show all your cards to be ethical in this case. However, it would be highly unethical to tell the families that I only have $100,000 to work with, or that if they don't settle quickly the "money will be gone."