Case 1 Shortcut
In the case Shortcut, Bruce Carson, who owns a civil engineering firm has a contract with the state to specify the route of a new road connecting two major cities. He determines that the shortest route would save 20 minutes from what would be a two-hour trip, but would require the state to destroy a farmhouse which has been owned by the Jones family for 150 years. The prospect of losing the home, of course made the Jones family as insisting in the paragraph “no amount of money would tempt them to sell their home to the state or anyone else.”. So, there are two directions that Bruce could go in this situation. Bruce could exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse saving people 20 minutes from what would be a 2-hour trip or say nothing and not have the moral guilt of forcing the Jones family out of their home.
For a worst possible resolution to the case Bruce could not care about family tradition, and what opinion the Jones family has, Bruce could use eminent domain with an iron fist condemning the farmhouse forcefully making the Jones family homeless. While doing this would speed up the build process as for this paradigm the goal for Bruce is to get the family out as fast as possible with no care to the family's traditions/values. Kicking out the family would also save twenty minutes from a 2-hour trip, which over time would reduce car emissions into the earth's atmosphere and decrease the build time as shaving off the 20 minutes would mean less length of road to build, would Bruce be able to live with the moral guilt of kicking out a family who are happy where they are at until being forced out of their home, which would probably destroy a family's moral after this situation happening to them.
For a best possible resolution to the case Bruce could take tradition and family values into consideration. Knowing that the Jones family values their home immensely and the moral guilt that Bruce could face, tearing family tradition and happiness apart, he could just walk away from the Jones family pretending that he never even visited the family and go on to building the new road which would be a 2-hour trip. While doing this paradigm would be morally pleasing to Bruce knowing that he would not have to live with the guilt of making a family unhappy by tearing up their tradition, the problem ahead for Bruce doing this resolution would be the liability of his civil engineering firm if anyone from the state found out that there could have been a shorter pathway just like he was contracted to do. Bruce could also have the guilt of lying to the state if he specified this route would be the fastest even though it was not.
To summarize the two paradigms would Bruce be able to live with the moral guilt of kicking out a family who are happy where they are at until being forced out of their home which would probably destroy a family's moral after this situation happening to them, or have the guilt of lying to the state if he specified this route would be the fastest even though it was not. Also, the liability of his civil engineering firm would be questioned if anyone from the state found out that there could have been a shorter pathway just like he was contracted to do.
It's hard to pick if the case is more like the negative or positive paradigm as the case Shortcut Bruce`s character is not expressed. It's hard to choose as its unsure what type of person he is if he is a caring, warm hearted person who values family, or is he a cold-hearted individual who does not care about families and only wants to get as much money from the state as possible