hatdesigned the defective computer chip could act in good faith that it wouldbe tested to ensure that it did indeed meet the required governmentendurance tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after thetesting process, they were dealing with what they believed to be acomponent that met every governmental standard. If it was not testedproperly, and did eventually fail, isnt the testing department moremorally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that wasin charge of installing the chip? Plus, in large corporations there may beseveral testing departments and is some cases one may be held moreresponsible than another depending on their involvement. A process likethis can serve the dual purpose of finding irresponsible employees as wellas those that are morally excused.The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is thegauging of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by this product.Since National Semiconductor was repeatedly being reinstated to the listedof approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the levelof seriousness, in the opinion of For the contractor approval committees,is not of monumental importance. Yet one has to wonder how this casewould have been different if the lack of testing did cause the loss oflife in either a domestic or foreign military setting. Perhaps therepercussions would have come faster much more stringent. The fact thatNational Semiconductor did not cause a death does not make them a safecompany. They are still to be held responsible for any errors that theirproducts cause, no matter the magnitude.As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility,mitigating factors and excusing factors, they would argue that the entityof the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executiveswithin a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of theemployees responsible into a public forum. A company should be reprimandedand b...
