C LICKER Q UESTION George was showing Amita a copy of a drawing
software package he got from a friend. Amita says to George, Hey
this is great, but you didnt pay for it, you shouldnt really be
using it. George says, Look, I wouldnt have bought it because it is
too expensive and I cant afford it, so the company hasnt lost a
sale. Besides I didnt take a physical object, so it isnt
stealing.
Slide 3
C LICKER Q UESTION Talk to your neighbor and record what you
think: A. George is right there is no problem, he isnt stealing
from the company B. George should delete the software from his
computer C. George shouldnt pirate software, but the company is not
going to find out, so he should not delete it
Slide 4
Slide 5
Slide 6
O UTLINE : Review Pentium Case From Codes to Cases. Moral
Considerations. Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis.
Slide 7
Slide 8
Slide 9
Slide 10
Part 1: From Codes to Cases Part 1: From Codes to Cases
Slide 11
G OING B EYOND T HE C ODE The code of ethics for engineers
gives us a good set of guides to follow. But knowing what the codes
say and what exactly to do in a given situation is not always
obvious. The primary reason for this is that really hard ethical
situations require moral reasoning and conflict resolution.
Slide 12
W HERE WE WILL BEGIN To start our exploration into case
analysis, we will simply begin by looking at some cases. Our goal
will be to engage in a form of proto- moral reasoning about the
cases, which involves the following: Taking note of which codes of
engineering ethics apply. Identifying conflicts. Making a choice of
what to do. All of this will lead us to a discussion of moral
considerations and moral reasoning.
Slide 13
Slide 14
C ASE 1: P ROTECTING THE SAFETY OF SOCIETY Suppose you are
asked by your employer to design a bridge that will cost only $1
million. After doing a study you determine the following: a) An
ideal bridge can be built for $1.5 million. b) Given the design
constraints, a bridge built for $1 million will collapse in a
moderate earthquake. c) A bridge built for $1.25 million, it will
survive a moderate earthquake, but in an infrequent extreme
earthquake it will collapse.
Slide 15
C ASE 1: P ROTECTING THE S AFETY OF S OCIETY Suppose your
employer says, if we dont build the bridge for $1.25 million, then
we are going to have to lay off half of the staff, including you.
He further asks you to go ahead with the next stage of the project.
What do you do?
Slide 16
Slide 17
W HAT IS THE CONFLICT ? The code of ethics for engineers
requires: You to take the safety of society as being of paramount
importance. However, you also feel a personal sense of loyalty to
your company and fellow co-workers. You dont want anyone to lose
their job. The conflict is between your duty to society and your
loyalty to your own career and the welfare of your other fellow
employees.
Slide 18
W HAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ? The conflict is between your future
employment and the employment of others in your company, and the
welfare of society. In a case like this the welfare of society
comes first. We have to take into account the fact that your duty
to protect the public is greater than your duty to your own career,
and that of your fellow employees.
Slide 19
Slide 20
Slide 21
W HAT IS THE C ONFLICT ? The code of ethics requires that you
Safeguard the publics welfare. But it also requires that you Tell
the truth when making public statements concerning your area of
engineering. To solve this conflict, you must Correctly understand
what each code is telling you And choose to act on the obligation
that is of priority.
Slide 22
W HAT IS THE C ONFLICT ? What does protecting the public mean?
Making sure that they are safe What does issue public statements in
an objective and truthful manner mean. Telling the public the
nuclear reactor is not safe but outlining the uncertainties But the
government is asking you to alter your report in order to protect
the public.
Slide 23
W HAT IS THE CONFLICT ? Your obligation is to safeguard public
safety and to tell the truth in your role as an engineer. This
means that you cannot alter data as an engineer, and that you must
tell the truth about the nuclear reactor. The government is calling
on you as a citizen to alter documents as a way to protect your
fellow citizens. The conflict is between your obligations as an
engineer and your obligations as a citizen.
Slide 24
W HAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ? Role conflicts are hard!!! No easy
answer!!! This is where thinking about other moral considerations
matter. What about the publics right to know? What about the
governments obligation to tell the truth? In this case your duty as
an engineer to tell the truth when making public statement trumps
your civic duty to be loyal to your government.
Slide 25
C ASE 3: A CKNOWLEDGING MISTAKES Suppose you are part of a team
that has built a device. And one of your customers, that has bought
the device, maintains that the device no longer works. As part of
the team that designed it you are uncertain why the device doesnt
work, but after a conversation with some of your colleagues you
realize that the problem must be on the side of your company. In
fact, you are sure that someone on your team must of made a design
mistake.
Slide 26
C ASE 3: A CKNOWLEDGING M ISTAKES You approach your boss and
tell him that you are sure that your team is responsible for the
failure in the device. Your boss says, Well we will just replace it
with a fixed design. We dont need to tell them anything. It could
undermine our relationship with the company, they might not come
back for business. Should you go ahead and tell the client?
Slide 27
U NDERSTANDING Y OUR O BLIGATION The code of ethics for
engineers requires: You to avoid deceptive acts. Your boss is
asking you to not reveal something to the client because by not
revealing it you can maintain their confidence while at the same
time replacing the device. Are you violating the code of
ethics?
Slide 28
D ECEPTION BY C OMMISSION VS. O MISSION There are two kinds of
deceptive practices. Deception by commission occurs when a person
tells a lie, such as when one reports data that one knows to be
false. Deception by omission occurs when one omits something that
another party has a right and interest in knowing.
Slide 29
W HAT IS THE CONFLICT ? Your boss wants you to omit something
because doing so will help the company. Your client however has an
interest in knowing about the functionality of the product that you
sell them, since they use it. So, although your boss is not asking
you to lie to them and tell them that the product is fine. He is
asking you to omit the truth, which is in clear violation of
avoiding deceptive acts.
Slide 30
W HAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ? It is true that a company that makes
too many products that are faulty will go under. It is also
important to recognize that a company that is known to be
unreliable in terms of owning up to its mistakes is subject to
being ostracized. Telling your boss that your team made a mistake
is a good thing. It shows integrity. Letting the client know that
the mistake shows courage. It also brings goodwill into the
relationship between company and client.
Slide 31
S UMMING UP AT THIS STAGE Being an ethical engineer requires:
Knowing your obligations and duties as specified by the code of
ethics. Recognizing what your obligations require of you. Being
able to reason to a conclusion about what to do by employing moral
considerations.
Slide 32
Part 2: Moral Considerations
Slide 33
W HAT A RE MORAL C ONSIDERATIONS ? Moral considerations come
from moral theories. They are considerations that moral theorists
have argued to be important in evaluating whether an action or a
way of being is morally right or good. There are many different
moral theories. Some of them overlap in various ways. Others are
completely distinct.
Slide 34
B ASIC C ATEGORIES FOR MORAL CONSIDERATIONS : Action-based
theories maintain that the unit of moral evaluation is action. On
this account when we say that something is morally right or wrong,
what we are saying is morally right or wrong is some action.
Agent-based theories maintain that the unit of moral evaluation is
not action, but the agent. On this account when we say that
something is morally right or wrong, we are talking fundamentally
about a way of being, and not specific actions.
Slide 35
T HE C OMPONENTS OF A CTION Action IntentionConsequence
Intention = what you aim to accomplish by performing the action.
Consequence = what actually happens as a result of your
action.
Slide 36
T HE M ATRIX OF A CTION Consequence Killed Saved Killed
Intention, action and consequence can vary in a number of ways.
Action Pushing Bill Intention To save To harm To save To harm
Slide 37
C ONSEQUENCES M ATTER The consequences of what you do matter.
They should always be part of what you consider prior to acting. If
your action has the potential to harm someone or something (such as
the environment), that is something you must take into
consideration, when deciding what to do.
Slide 38
T WO D IMENSIONS OF C ONSEQUENCES All actions have costs. Costs
are the negative consequences of your action. All actions have
benefits. Benefits are the positive consequences of your action
When thinking about consequences one must think: (a)About both
costs and benefits. (b)About costs and benefits for all parties
involved.
Slide 39
I NTENTIONS M ATTER The intentions under which you act matter.
They should always be part of what you consider prior to acting.
Paying attention to your intentions and those of others is
important to assessing the moral dimensions of performing an
action.
Slide 40
T WO D IMENSIONS OF I NTENTIONS On the one hand, we want to
recognize that intentions matter in the following sense: Intentions
are valenced. Some are positive, such as the intention to save; and
others are negative such as the intention to harm. On the other
hand, we want to recognize that intentions matter in that when we
are choosing to act we should consider: a) How we would feel, if we
were acted upon in the same way. b) If we are treating others with
respect.
Slide 41
P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES M ATTER Fidelity involves keeping ones
contracts and duties, and not lying. Reparation is the duty to make
up for the injuries one has done to others. Gratitude is the duty
to be grateful for benefits that have been given to you.
Slide 42
P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES M ATTER Non-maleficence is the duty not
to harm others physically or psychologically. Harm-prevention is
the duty to prevent harm to others. Beneficence is the duty to do
good to others. To foster their good will, wisdom, health and
security.
Slide 43
P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES M ATTER Justice is the duty to prevent an
unjust distribution of burdens and benefits. To be just is to
prevent unfair distributions of burdens and benefits in all areas
of life. Non-parasitism is the duty to not free- ride on society
either professionally or personally. It involves taking only the
appropriate benefits from the burdens one has undergone.
Slide 44
A PPLYING P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES When reasoning with prima facie
duties there are two kinds of cases: Cases where duties do not
conflict. Cases where duties do conflict. In cases where duties do
conflict, we use rules about priority in order to settle the
conflict.
Slide 45
R ULES OF PRIORITY Non-injury overrides all other prima facie
duties. You cant harm a person to save another. Fidelity overrides
beneficence. You cannot forgo a contract in order to be kind to
someone else.
Slide 46
V IRTUE M ATTERS Virtues are character traits that we develop
through an education. These character traits regulate our behavior.
The four cardinal virtues are: Courage Temperance Justice
Prudence
Slide 47
O UTLINE : Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis Techniques
Applying Techniques to a Real Case
Slide 48
Part 3: Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis
Slide 49
W HAT IS REQUIRED IN M ORAL R EASONING I dentifying the
situation. What is being asked of you or your company? R ecognizing
the relevant factors. Who are the parties? What are their rights?
What are your companies obligations and their rights? A pplying
moral considerations. What are the consequences ? What are the
intentions of the actors ? What moral obligations are at play? What
virtues are at play? P roposing a position-of-action. What do you
think should be done in the situation? Why do you propose what you
propose? Defend what you propose.
Slide 50
W HAT IS NOT REQUIRED IN M ORAL REASONING Having a defensible
and thought out position-of- action does not require that there are
no other defensible alternative positions of action. Having a
defensible and thought out position of action does not mean that
you dont have to listen to and reason with others who are relevant
parties. Having a defensible and thought out position of action
does not mean you should not seek advice also.
Slide 51
C ASE A NALYSIS (I) We learn to reason morally and come up with
a position-of-action by doing case analysis. Studying cases gives
us an environment in which we can practice reasoning about morality
and what to do in problematic situations without causing harm. Some
cases are hypothetical, in that they never actually occurred, but
they could occur. Some cases are actual, in that they actually
occurred. In case analysis it is important to study both
hypothetical and actual cases.
Slide 52
C ASE A NALYSIS (II) The steps for case analysis: 1. Read the
case carefully. 2. Identify all the parties involved. 3. Identify
all the obligations and rights involved. 4. Apply moral
considerations. 5. Come up with a position-of-action.
Slide 53
T HE T ABLE T ECHNIQUE I Party Involved Intention: Positive or
Negative Consequences: Cost and Benefit Rights / Duties Step 1:
make a table charting the relevant factors.
Slide 54
T HE T ABLE T ECHNIQUE II Using the information in your table:
Choose some combination of relevant factors to come up with a
position-of-action. Write out your position-of-action as an
argument that uses the factors you have chosen as reasons for your
position-of-action. Attempt to defend your position of action
against responses a person may have to your position.
Slide 55
R EASONING FROM ALL SIDES A person that is good at moral
reasoning can often perform the following task: Defend a position,
regardless of whether they believe it. Reason for the opposing
position, regardless of whether they believe it. Identify possible
positions that further discussion.