Chapter 02

A Practical Ethics
Instructor: Tanzeela Siddiqui
 Learning Outcomes

1.Differentiate ethical issues – Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral

issues.
2.Apply line-drawing method – Compare controversial cases with clear-cut examples.
3.Develop ethical solutions – Balance competing moral demands effectively.
4.Understand moral theories – Recognize their role in decision-making.
5.Apply utilitarianism – Evaluate actions based on overall well-being.
6.Respect for persons approach – Assess decisions based on human dignity.
7.Virtue ethics perspective – Understand moral motivation and character
development.
 OPENING CASE: Using Cadavers in
Crash Tests
Background:
• In 1993, it was revealed that Heidelberg University used
over 200 cadavers, including children, for crash tests.
• Public outcry in Germany led to ethical debates on
human dignity.
Key Ethical Concerns:
• Human dignity – Critics argued that even the deceased
deserve respect.
• Alternatives – Advocates suggested using crash test
dummies instead.
• Consent – The university stated that tests were
conducted with family permission.
Justifications for Cadaver Use:
• Data from such tests helped improve crash test dummies.
• Research contributed to life-saving vehicle safety
advancements.
• Similar studies were conducted in the U.S. under strict
guidelines.
Ethical Considerations:
• Should human cadavers be used for crash tests?
• Are dummies an effective alternative?
• What role does informed consent play in such research?
• Conflict: Public safety vs. human dignity (e.g., cadavers in crash tests).
• Limitation of Codes: NSPE prioritizes safety but overlooks dignity.
SAFETY DIGNITY
• Solution: Use ethical "tools" to analyze and resolve complex issues.
• Toolbox Analogy: Like a carpenter, choose the right tool for each
ethical problem.
• Key Point: Codes alone are not enough—experience and ethical
reasoning are crucial.
 FACTUAL ISSUES
• Solving moral problem  knowledge of the facts
• Designated question about facts  factual
issues
Claims about factual issues
• many apparent moral disagreements turn out to be
agreements over the relevant facts.
• factual issues are sometimes very difficult to resolve
• sometimes we must make decisions about important
moral issues, even though some of the relevant
factual issues cannot be resolved.
 Factual Inquiries
•Is it really the case that important factual information that will
save lives can only be gained from crash testing with cadavers?
•whether using information from testing cadavers produces a
significant decrease in accidents, as opposed to using
information from other sources, such as computer simulations
or testing with dummies.
•Suppose there is sim ply no way to confirm or deny the claim
that cadaver testing results in a higher level of safety. How shall
we decide what to do?
•Should we put greater empha sis on respecting the bodies of
dead humans or obtaining data that may save lives?
 CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
• Responsible moral thinking  understanding
key concepts  resolving moral dilemma
• As clear as we can about the “meanings of key
terms”  CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
• public health, safety, and welfare, conflict of
interest, bribery, extortion, confidentiality,
trade secret, and loyalty
• Disagreement about meaning of terms unable
to resolve arguments
• Human dignity, informed consent
 Conceptual Inquiries

•What is human dignity in the context of scientific research?

•What counts as informed consent when the subject is
deceased?
•Is it ethical to use cadavers for research without prior consent
if it benefits society?
•What distinguishes ethical vs. unethical use of human
remains in scientific research?
•Should the definition of "public interest" include safety
research using cadavers?
 APPLICATION ISSUES

• Whether a given term or expression applies to

an individual action, or a general practice.
• disagreements over application issues can occur
when there is disagreement over
• the meaning of the concept to be applied
• the facts to which the concept is to be applied
• whether the concept applies in the situation
 Application Inquiries

• How does the concept of informed consent apply to cadaver crash testing?
• If the individuals did not explicitly consent before death, can their bodies still
be used ethically?
• Does presumed consent (if no objections were recorded) justify the use of
cadavers?
• How should human dignity be maintained ?
• Does using cadavers for crash tests treat them with respect, or does it
reduce them to mere objects?
• Would notifying the families or performing ceremonies help uphold dignity?
• How does scientific benefit weigh against ethical concerns in this case?
• Should there be limits on what types of experiments justify using human
bodies?
 TEST CASE
Victor is an engineer in a large construction firm. Although
he will not make the final decision, he has been assigned
the task of recommending which welded steel studs should
be used for the construction of a large apartment building.
After some research and testing, he decides to recommend
ACME steel studs for the job. On the day after Victors
recommendation was made, an ACME representative visits
him and gives him a voucher for an all expense paid trip to
the annual ACME Technical Forum, which meets in Jamaica.
The trip will have considerable educational value, but will
also include day trips to the beach and other points of
interest. If Victor accepts, has he been bribed?
Paradigm Case
LINE DRAWING
 CASE
Brad is in the second year of his first full-time job after graduating from
Engineering Tech. He enjoys design, but is becoming increasingly concerned
that his work is not being adequately checked by more experienced engineers.
He has been assigned to assist in the design of a number of projects that
involve issues of public safety, such as schools and overhead walkways
between buildings. He has already spoken to his supervisor, whose
engineering competence he respects, and he has been told that more
experienced engineers check his work. Later, he discovers to his dismay that
his work is often not adequately checked. Instead, his drawings are stamped
and passed on to the contractor. Sometimes the smaller projects he designs
are under construction within a few weeks after his designs are completed. At
this point, Brad calls one of his former professors at Engineering Tech for
advice. I’m really worried that I’m going to make a mistake that will kill
someone, Brad says. I try to overdesign, but the projects I’m being assigned to
are becoming increasingly difficult. What should I do? Brads professor tells
him that he cannot ethically continue on his present course because he is
engaging in engineering work that surpasses his qualifications and may
endanger the public. What should Brad do?
 Conflict of interest

• Obligation to the employer vs. obligation to the public

• preserving and promoting his own career vs safety of public
• The NSPE code requires engineers to:
• hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (Canon 1)
• act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees (Canon 4).
 Creative middle-way solution
possible courses of action:
• go to his supervisor again, pointing out that it is not in the firms
interests to produce designs that may be flawed his obligation to
the safety of the public, to his employer, and to himself and his
career.
• talk to others in the organization and ask them to help him
persuade his supervisortarnish the supervisor’s reputation,
satisfying Brads obliga tion to the public, obligation to his
employer
• find another jobreveal the information to stop the practice
protecting his own career and the public, but against the canon
• tell his supervisor he can’t continue to engage in design work
change the job  Brads career, public safety
• go to the press blow the whistle  protect the public, career
prospects, supervisor’s business
 Common Morality
•A practical ethicist is like a skilled carpenter, using
different tools for different moral issues.
•Some ethical methods include:
•Line drawing
•Finding a creative middle way
•Deeper exploration of moral ideas
•Moral judgments often stem from common
morality,
• “The stock of common moral beliefs which
most people in our culture, and perhaps
people generally, accept.”
 W. D. Ross- Prima Facie Duties
a list of basic duties or obligations
• R1. Duties resting on previous acts: (a) Duties of
fidelity (to keep promises and not to tell lies), (b)
Duties of reparation for wrong done
• R2. Duties of gratitude (e.g., to parents and
benefactors)
• R3. Duties of justice (e.g., to support happiness in
proportion to merit)
• R4. Duties of beneficence (to improve the condition
of others)
• R5. Duties of self-improvement
• R6. Duties not to injure others
 Bernard Gert’s 10 Moral Rules
list of 10 moral rules / moral ideals
• G1. Don't kill.
• G2. Don't cause pain.
• G3. Don't disable.
• G4. Don't deprive of freedom.
• G5. Don't deprive of pleasure.
• G6. Don't deceive.
• G7. Keep your promise (or don't break your promise).
• G8. Don't cheat.
• G9. Obey the law (or don't disobey the law).
• G10. Do your duty (or don't fail to do your duty).
• moral rules specify moral • moral ideals are aspirational
requirements • the moral ideal would be
"Prevent killing," encouraging
• a moral rule like "Don't kill"
proactive efforts to save lives.
sets a strict boundary
• Moral rules are about not • Moral ideals focus on
preventing harm (e.g.,
causing harm (e.g., "Don't
"Prevent deception by
deceive").
promoting honesty").
 Exceptions to Moral Rules
When Do Moral Rules Have Exceptions?
• 1. Conflicting Moral Duties
• When two moral rules clash, the more binding duty takes priority.
• Example: Lying is wrong, but lying to save an innocent life may be
justified.
• Justification: The Universalization Principle—if we accept that
everyone should act similarly in such cases.

• 2. Conscience-Based Exceptions
• If someone sincerely believes a rule violates their moral beliefs, an
exception may be granted.
• Example: A soldier refusing to fight due to a strong belief against
killing.
• Caution: Not all exceptions are acceptable (e.g., harming others due
to personal beliefs).
 ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS OF COMMON
MORALITY
• moral judgments
• Permissible.
• Impermissible.
• Obligatory.
• Supererogatory

• moral statements - usefully be divided into

three levels of generality
• Particular Actions.
• General Practices or Classes of Actions.
• Very General Moral Principles or Criteria.

• intent behind an action

• Sara is a junior electrical engineer working for a government contractor that installs power
distribution systems in rural areas. Her company is bidding for a multi-million-dollar
government contract to upgrade electrical infrastructure in a developing region.
• During the bidding process, a government official subtly hints that if Sara’s company offers a
“special facilitation fee” (a bribe), their bid will have a higher chance of being accepted.
• Sara’s boss tells her,
"This is just how business works in this country. If we don’t pay, another company will, and we’ll
lose the project."
• However, bribery is illegal and goes against engineering ethics. If she agrees, it might help
the company win the contract, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Should Sara go along
with it or refuse?