Suppose two informed parties agree to terms of a contract and each party carries out their obligations.
Does ethics impose any additional implied obligations between the parties?
For example:
say I agree to bake and deliver an apple pie in exchange for a sum of money. I bake and deliver the pie and receive the payment. Moments after, the recipient learns he has a medical condition that prevents him from eating apple pie. Do I have any moral obligations beyond those of any other random party?
No. The contract has been fulfilled. This medical condition should have been discussed and put forth in the contract.
However, you may still be left with a moral conundrum. Will you feel bad about this situation?
The only ethical implications you may face from society would be "did you do your due diligence when coming up with the terms of the contract?" Did you, as a proprietor, establish all required facts/data that were needed to execute your end of the contract? (probing questions) As an example, if the customer ordered a cake, you would probably ask, "what kind of cake? Chocolate? What kind of frosting? (Allergies?) etc. Yet I sincerely doubt that you could be completely held responsible and at fault, because after all- you did deliver what was asked for. It (to me) seems like it should be the customer's responsibility to let you know of any medical conditions that might hinder.
From the perspective of 'big food', take for example General Mills, it is an ethical (and legal) obligation for them to properly label potential hazards. This is because there is no way for me as a customer to ask specifically and directly to GM, "Does your product contain peanuts?"
Hope this helps...
While having been involved in a previous contract doesn't seem like it should impose additional ethical obligations, it certainly doesn't release you from the obligations that naturally arise from being a participant in a situation that caused harm to another at your own action, regardless of fault or responsibility.
In an extreme example, if you were driving and somebody jumped in front of your car and got hit, most people would agree you have an ethical obligation to help the person you just hit. This doesn't mean that hitting them was your fault, or that you could have avoided the situation at all, but just being involved gives you obligations. Leaving after that would be not only morally reprehensible but illegal.
The same applies if there was a previous contract. The contract doesn't obligate you to do anything extra, but the fact that you were involved in the situation does. You aren't responsible as a contractual partner, just as a citizen, but you can't escape the additional ethical weight of having been involved in the incident instead of a mere spectator or stranger.any other random party.
Your obligations neither begin nor end with obligations under contract.
If there was no contract do you think you had no obligation to the person? Obligations under contract are a subset of all your obligations to the person.
Suppose you are an icecream seller at a beach. It dont matter that a person bought icecream from you or not, if he is drowning and you can save him its on you to save him.
If this is hard to understand then put yourself in place of that man.
