at they believed to be a piece of equipment that met government standards. If the part was not tested properly, and did eventually fail, isn't the testing department more morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was in charge of installing the chip? In large corporations there may be several testing departments and in some cases one may be held more responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like this can serve as a dual purpose for finding irresponsible employees as well as those that are morally excused. The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the measure of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by the product. Since Company X was repeatedly being added to the list of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level of seriousness, in the opinion of the contractor approval committees, is not of monumental importance. Yet a person has to wonder how this case would have been different if it caused the loss of life in a military setting. Perhaps the repercussions would have taken effect much faster and been more stringent. The fact that Company X did not cause a death does not make them a safe company. They are still to be held responsiblefor any errors for which their products cause, no matter the extent.As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility, mitigating factors and excusing factors, most would argue that the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the employees responsible. A company should be reprimanded and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity. Furthermore, opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit both thecompany and the government since it wo...
