Acme case, I would say that Mr. Mason could act in several ways and that the ethicality of those actions would depend on who was analyzing the case. For one thing, it would be perfectly reasonable for Mr. Mason to bribe the judge to secure his $5,000,000 (after all, "money doesn't talk, it swears"). He wouldn't even need to feel so corrupt about it, since he could argue that Acme has a duty to protect the owners of its cars, and that the likely recall of the defective axles could therefore save other members of the public from injury and death caused by its defective axle in the future. However, alternatively, Mr. Mason could choose not to accept the bribe, as bribery is ethically wrong, especially in court, and consequently lose the payment, but at least he would follow his duty-based ethics. On the contrary, as an additional consequence of these actions, it would also allow other people to get hurt due to the faulty axle, which, if we follow results-based ethics here, is