Resolving Problems

CHAPTER 4
Main Ideas in this Chapter
• In analyzing a case, first identify the relevant facts and relevant ethical
considerations.
• Ethical problems can be compared with design problems in engineering:
• There are better and worse solutions, even if we cannot determine the best
solution.
• Line-drawing, comparing problematic cases with clear-cut cases (paradigms),
sometimes helps in resolving unclear cases.
• In cases in which there are conflicting values, sometimes a creative middle way
can be found that honors all of the relevant values to at least some extent.
• Utilitarian and respect for persons approaches sometimes can be used together
to resolve ethical problems in ways that yield a creative middle way.
Fictional case of Steven Severson
• THIRTY-FOUR-YEAR-OLD STEVEN SEVERSON was in his last semester
of his graduate program in mechanical engineering.
• Father of three small children, he was anxious to get his degree so
that he could spend more time with his family.
• Sarah, his wife understood how important getting a graduate degree
was to Steven, and she never complained about the long hours he
spent studying.
• But she, too, was anxious for this chapter in their lives to end.
• As part of his requirement to complete his graduate research and obtain
his advanced degree, Steven was required to develop a research report.
• Most of the data strongly supported Steven’s conclusions as well as prior
conclusions developed by others.
• However, a few aspects of the data were at variance and not fully
consistent with the conclusions contained in his report.
• Convinced of the soundness of his report and concerned that inclusion of
the ambiguous data would detract from and distort the essential thrust of
the report,
• Steven wondered if it would be all right to omit references to the
ambiguous data.
Ethical Analysis of Steven case
• This chapter focuses on the task of ethical analysis with an eye on resolving
ethical issues facing engineers.
• We begin with the fictional case of Steven Severson.
• It seems clear why Steven is tempted to omit references to the ambiguous
data.
• He is understandably anxious to graduate and move on to other challenges
in his professional life.
• He is worried that full disclosure of his findings could slow down this
process, a process that has imposed a heavy burden on his family.
• However, his question is whether it would be right to omit reference to the
data
• Although this case is about Steven’s academic work rather than his work as a
professional engineer, he is preparing for a career in engineering.
• Therefore, we might look at the National Society of Professional Engineers’ (NSPE) Code
of Ethics for Engineers for guidance.
• One of its fundamental canons states that in fulfilling their professional duties, engineers
shall ‘‘avoid deceptive acts.’’
• Is omitting the ambiguous data deceptive?
• Steven might think it is not, because it is not his intention to deceive.
• Apparently he is still convinced of the overall soundness of his report.
• He does not want readers to be misled by the discrepant data.
• However, here a conceptual question needs to be raised.
• Can the omission of data be deceptive even when there is no intention to deceive?
• In answering this question, we can look at another provision in the
NSPE code.
• Under its rules of practice, provision 3 states,
• Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner.
• a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports,
statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent
information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should
bear the date when it was current.
Ethical Analysis on the basis of Common
morality
• Common morality should remind Steven Severson of the importance
of honesty.
• From this vantage point, his examiners can be seen as having a right
to expect him not to distort his data.
• Misrepresentation of the data would be seen by them as a breach of
the trust they place in students to do honest work.
Ethical Analysis on the basis of NSPE Code of
Ethics
• Several relevant provisions in NSPE’s code of ethics calling for
objectivity, truthfulness, and cooperative exchange of information
seem to settle the matter decisively.
• Steven should not omit the data.
ETHICAL ANALYSIS METHODS
Line Drawing Method
• An appropriate comparison for line-drawing is a surveyor deciding
where to set the boundary between two pieces of property:
• We know the hill to the right belongs to Jones and the hill to the left
belongs to Brown, but who owns this particular tree?
• Where, precisely, should we draw the line?
EXAMPLE:
• Consider the following example.
• The NSPE says about disclosure of business and trade secrets,
‘‘Engineers shall not disclose confidential information concerning
the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former
client or employer without his consent (III.4).’’
• Suppose Amanda signs an agreement with Company A that obligates her
not to reveal its trade secrets. Amanda later moves to Company B, where
she finds a use for some ideas that she conceived while at Company A.
• She never developed the ideas into an industrial process at Company A,
and Company B is not in competition with Company A, but she still
wonders whether using those ideas at Company B is a violation of the
agreement she had with Company A.
• She has an uneasy feeling that she is in a gray area and wonders where to
draw the line between the legitimate and illegitimate use of knowledge.
• How should she proceed?
PARADIGM CASES(clear cut cases of ethical
misconduct)
 Here is a paradigm case of bribery:
• A vendor offers an engineer a large sum of money to get the engineer to recommend
the vendor’s product to the engineer’s company.
• The engineer accepts the offer and then decides in favor of the vendor.
• The engineer accepts the offer for personal gain rather than because of the superior
quality of the vendor’s product (which actually is one of the worst in industry).
• Furthermore, the engineer’s recommendation will be accepted by the company because
only this engineer makes recommendations concerning this sort of product.
• In this case, we can easily identify features that contribute heavily in favor of this being a
clear-cut instance of bribery.
• Such features include gift size (large), timing (before the recommendation is made),
reason (for personal gain), responsibility for decision (sole), product quality (poor), and
product cost (highest in market).
• The advantage of listing major features of clear-cut applications of a
concept such as bribery is that these features can help us decide less
clear-cut cases as well.
• Consider the following case, which we will call the test case (the case
to be compared with clear-cut cases).
Test Case
• Victor is an engineer at a large construction firm.
• It is his job to specify rivets for the construction of a large apartment
building.
• After some research and testing, he decides to use ACME
rivets(mechanical fastener) for the job.
• On the day after Victor’s order was made, an ACME representative visits
him and gives him a voucher for an all-expense paid trip to the ACME
Forum meeting in Jamaica.
• Paid expenses include day trips to the beach and the rum(beverage)
factories.
• If Victor accepts, has he been bribed?
• As we examine the features identified in the first case, we can see
similarities and differences.
• The gift is substantial because this is an expensive trip.
• The timing is after, rather than before this decision is made.
• However, this may not be the last time Victor will deal with ACME
vendors. Therefore, we can worry about whether ACME is trying to
influence Victor’s future decisions.
• If Victor accepts the offer, is this for reasons of personal gain?
• Certainly he will have fun, but he might claim that he will also learn
important things about ACME’s products by attending the forum.
• Victor made his decision before receiving the voucher, we may think
that he has made a good assessment of the product’s quality and
cost compared with those of competitors.
• However, we may wonder if his future judgments on such matters
will be affected by acceptance of the voucher.
• Although Victor’s acceptance of the voucher might not constitute a
paradigm instance of a bribery,
• Table 4.2 suggests that it comes close enough to the paradig-matic
case to raise a real worry.
• In looking at the various features, it is important to bear in mind just
what is worrisome about bribery.
• Basically, bribery offers incentives to persuade someone to violate
his or her responsibilities—in this case, Victor’s responsibility to
exercise good judgment in behalf of his company.
• Assessing the bribe requires determining where on the scale the
various factors fall.
• The importance of each factor in particular cases must be weighted.
• Those two or three features that are judged most important in a
particular case can be identified by drawing a circle around the
appropriate X’s.
• (For example, in Table 4.2, the X’s for gift size, timing, and
responsibility might be circled)
CONFLICTING VALUES: CREATING MIDDLE WAY
SOLUTIONS
• We have already pointed out that values of common morality (e.g.,
being honest and preventing harm) can conflict with one another.
• There are situations in which two or more moral rules or duties seem
to apply.
• In such situations,we have to suggest middle way solutions.
• This occurs often in engineering ethics, as in other areas.
• When we take a closer look at such a situation, we may find that one
value clearly has a higher priority than the other.
• From a moral standpoint, we then have what we can call an easy
choice.
• Suppose you are driving along a freeway on your way to a dinner
engagement. You have promised to meet a friend at 6 p.m. and are
almost late.
• YOU see a person waving for help and realize there has been an
accident. If you stop to assist, you will not be on time for your dinner.
• In a situation like this, you might well stop even though you have
promised to meet your friend at 6 p.m.
• The need to render assistance has a higher priority than keeping the
MEETING on time.
• Examples occur in engineering ethics also.
• James is an engineer in private prac-tice. He is approached by a client who
asks him to design a project that both know clearly involves illegal activity.
• Engineer Susan is asked to design a product that will require the use of
outmoded technology that, although less expensive and still legal, poses
substantially greater risk to human life.
• James and Susan should simply reject such requests out of hand, even
though they could dramatically increase the profits of their firms.
• The obligations to obey the law and to protect human life so clearly
outweigh any obligation to maximize profits.
• James and Susan should have no DIFFICULTY in deciding what is right to
do.
• Sometimes we may be forced to make some difficult choices—choices
in which we are not able to honor some real and important values in
a way that we consider desirable.
• However, it is best to look for a creative middle way between
conflicting values, a resolution in which all the conflicting demands
are at least partially met.
• To take another example, suppose an engineer, John, is representing his
company in a foreign country where bribery is common.
• If John does not pay a bribe, valuable business opportunities may be lost.
• If he makes payments, he may be doing something illegal under the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or he may at the very least be violating his
own conscience.
• Instead of yielding to either of these unattractive alternatives, one writer
has proposed a ‘‘donation strategy’’ according to which donations are
given to a community rather than to individuals.
• A corporation might construct a hospital or dig new wells.
• In the 1970s, for example, Coca-Cola hired hundreds of Egyptians to plant
orange trees on thousands of acres of desert, creating more goodwill than
it would have generated by giving bribes to individuals.