Ethical analysis of The Goodbye Fears Monster toy

Please rewrite your diagnostic, expanding it to a minimum of 1000 words and including 3 college-level sources with academic ethos. This does not include the primary source -so you should have a minimum of 3 secondary sources. Document all sources in MLA style, including parenthetical citations and a Works Cited page-failure to do this is plagiarism and will result in a failed paper. Improve upon your original concept, or even transform it completely, taking into consideration the annotations on your original paper, your rubric score, and the instruction and materials we have reviewed the past few weeks. You may consider at least a paragraph of counterargument to round out your paper. As in all assignments, AI is prohibited. attached below is the original diagnostic, my teacher made some annotations saying In general, you are demonstrating critical thought here in your objections, but in an essay we don’t just shout ideas at our audience-we conclusively support them in a detailed way and insulate them from any attack from a skeptical audience. If you want to do that, as I advised chose one specific argument to elaborate in detail rather than skimming through a bunch. lastly here is the case in which the diagnostic rewrite will be about, Case #2 “The Goodbye Fears Monster” Author Irina Raicu, from the Markula Center for Applied Ethics You might know (or remember) that some little kids find it difficult to fall asleep at night because of various fears that prey on them in the quieter, darker pre-sleep environment. The Goodbye Fears Monster, a new toy currently under development by the Metell toy company, is designed to respond to those fears. The furry, teddy-bear-like Goodbye Fears Monster (well refer to it as GFM for short) is soft, roly-poly, and comes in a variety of colors; what makes it unique, however, are its interactive features. The toy is designed to listen and respond to a child who speaks to it. When a fearful child is about to go to sleep, he or she is supposed to press GFMs belly button (which is, actually, a button); that action turns on the toys microphone (which is hidden by its fur). The child is then encouraged to tell the monster all of his or her fears. Once the child stops speaking, the monster replies, I will eat all of those fears! Nom nom nom. There. Theyre gone. Are you worried about anything else? The process is supposed to repeat until the child says he or she has no more worries to detail. At that point, GFM gently replies, Well, then, now we can close our eyes and go to sleep in peaceand turns off the microphone. The childs statements are recorded, and all of the recordings are made available to the childs parents (they are sent directly to the childs parents phones, via a companion app). Marketing materials that accompany GFM tell prospective customers that the interactive toy will allow young children to express fears that they might not otherwise disclose to anyone; reassured by their fears being eaten by the friendly toy, children might sleep better (which, of course, would allow parents to sleep better, too); the recordings will give parents new insights into their childs thinking. The Metell company also promises to share the recordings (at no cost) with child psychology researchers, in the hope that the data collected will promote the development of new therapies or other methods to alleviate common childhood fears. As part of the promotion of this new (rather expensive) toy, the toy makers propose to distribute free GFMs to children living in homeless shelters throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Question #2 Should this toy be approved for production, and why? Weigh potential ethical situations or downsides against the potential benefits to reach your conclusions. If this toy is not ethically viable, what are the that defend this action?