Scribd
Upload
76 views

Lecture 4: Moral Reasoning II: (Chapter 2, Martin & Schinzinger, Ethics in Engineering)

This document summarizes key points from a lecture on moral reasoning and ethics in engineering. It discusses several moral theories for determining if an act is moral, including act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, duty-based ethics, rights-based ethics, and virtue ethics. It then analyzes the DC-10 cargo door accident, noting design flaws and decisions made by management that contributed to fatal accidents. The document considers how different moral theories may apply and notes there is no single best theory, advocating balancing various considerations. It discusses issues like self-interest, social/cultural factors, and the professional obligation to protect the public interest.

Uploaded by

Muhammad Ahmad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views

Lecture 4: Moral Reasoning II: (Chapter 2, Martin & Schinzinger, Ethics in Engineering)

This document summarizes key points from a lecture on moral reasoning and ethics in engineering. It discusses several moral theories for determining if an act is moral, including act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, duty-based ethics, rights-based ethics, and virtue ethics. It then analyzes the DC-10 cargo door accident, noting design flaws and decisions made by management that contributed to fatal accidents. The document considers how different moral theories may apply and notes there is no single best theory, advocating balancing various considerations. It discusses issues like self-interest, social/cultural factors, and the professional obligation to protect the public interest.

Uploaded by

Muhammad Ahmad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Lecture 4: Moral reasoning II

(Chapter 2, Martin & Schinzinger, Ethics in


Engineering)

M&S p 77: Acts are moral when


they
Produce the most good for the most people:
Act utilitarianism (Mill)

Fall under a code that if widely followed would produce


the most good for the most people:
Rule utilitarianism (Brandt)

Fall under principles that would be agreed to by all


rational agents in an impartial situation:
Duty (Rawls)

Respect the inalienable human rights of all people


affected:
Rights (Locke & Melden) - only meaningful if they can be
exercised

Most fully manifest relevant virtues that foster the


achievement of social goods
Virtue (Aristotle & Macintyre)

DC10 Cargo Door

DC10 Cargo Door

DC10 Cargo Door


On June 12, 1972 A DC-10 left Detroit with 67
passengers, after reaching 12,000 ft, the cargo
door blew off, collapsing floor and disrupting all
hydraulic controls to tail section. Only the pilots
skill and the light load prevented a disaster.
June 27, 1972 Daniel Applegate, Director of
Product Engineering for Convair, the fuselage
contractor, wrote a memo to his supervisors
detailing potential problems of cargo door. The
problem was first recognized in Aug 69. The same
thing had also happened in a ground test in 1970.
Recognized design flaws - floor, latch

DC10 Cargo Door (cont.)


After the Detroit near-disaster, NTSB (National
Transportation Safety Board) investigation revealed
several problems and recommended immediate
design changes. FAA did not follow NTSB
recommendations. FAA director John Shaffer and
Douglas President Jackson McGowan reached a
gentlemans agreement to voluntarily fix problem,
but no further official action was taken.
In July 1972, Three inspectors at Long Beach plant
certified that Ship 29 had been modified (but it was
not). Two years later, after leaving Paris, its cargo
door blew off at 13,000 feet, killing 346 people.

Why Did This Accident


Happen?
McDonnel Douglas was in precarious financial
condition - trying to beat Lockheed L1011 to market
Convair did not push too hard, since by contract,
they may have been held liable for the costs of all
design changes
Engineers pressed the matter through normal
channels to the highest levels within both
companies, but did not take it any further, Standard
operating procedure at McDonnell Douglas and
Convair was for engineers to defer to upper
management, even though they were aware of
serious design flaws
Were the engineers negligent?

Is one theory best?


Each theory may provide insights:
For a particular situation or a particular person

There is considerable complementarity:


Between Rights, Duties & Rule-utilitarianism,
e.g:
The right to life implies the duty not to kill

They offer similar advice in most cases

Safest to rank duties above utilitarianism


Respect for equity is a fundamental duty
Utilitarianism useful if applied carefully

Use of Ethical Theory

Making ethical decisions in


practice
Theoretical insights:
Virtues, rights, duties, utilitarianism

Practical insights & Context-specific issues,


e.g:
Characteristics of the available options
Company & societal cultures
Personal situation

Apply moral autonomy to make an ethical


decision (reflective equilibrium):
Balancing theoretical and practical considerations

Self-interest
Moral theories respect reasonable selfinterest:
Utilitarianism includes ones own welfare
Duties include duties to oneself
Rights include ones own rights
Virtues include self-respect

Must balance self-interest with concern for


others
In this case, ethics is a matter of balance:
Equity is always a useful test

Social customs & religions


Social customs:
Shared beliefs & values within a social context
Many similarities between cultures
Engineering is cross-cultural and innovative:
Often introduces new social issues, e.g: internet

Religions:
Can support moral autonomy so long as:
Individual autonomy respected & discrimination
avoided

but no single religion shared by all engineers !

Protecting the public


interest
Engineers intend to change the way we live:
Inevitably affects the public interest
creates a professional obligation to the public

All ethical theories agree that responsibility to


the public is paramount:
duty of care, human rights, greatest good

However employers & engineers also have


rights:
Case by case decision, balancing the moral
obligations:
Search for win-win options

What is the basis of the professional


obligation to protect the public
interest?

Legalistic view:

Laws define unacceptable behaviour. However:


Legal obligations differ between countries
unethical behaviour may not be illegal (laws lag
innovation)

Professional society view:


Behaviour guided by a code of ethics. However:
Not all engineers join professional societies
Codes of ethics may vary between professional societies

Employment contract view:


Contract with employer specifies conduct. However:
Contract may conflict with the public interest.

Another basis for duty to the public:the implied social contract


Implied contract between a profession &
society:
Society grants certain privileges in return for an
expectation of ethical behaviour:
Duty to exercise power wisely

Appealing but may not be stable through


time:
Western societies are placing greater emphasis on
legal remedies for unethical behaviour:
The status of professions is falling (commercialisation)
The cost of professional indemnity insurance is rising

Some open issues in


ethics
Ethics is an evolving discipline:
Existing theories may develop or new ones emerge
Social expectations may change

Moral reasoning is culturally based:


Theories discussed are based on western thought
They focus on individual rather than group behaviour

Internationalisation is forcing change:


In the balance between business, government &
society & the individual (intl legal framework weak)
International norms may emerge

You might also like