Framing Ethical Problem

8/11/2019 Framing Ethical Problem

1/34

Framing Ethical Problem

moral and ethics in engineering profession


2/34

Problem solvingstrategies

How does an engineer decide whetherit is ethical to work on a particularproject or product?

What tools are there for an engineerwho needs to decide which is ethicallycorrect path to take?

Theories help us to frame our understandingof the problem , but there are no formulasand no easy plug and- chug methods forreaching a solution.


3/34

Reasonable solutions :1 . c lear about which moral values are at

stake and how they pertain to thesituation.

precision in using the key conceptsapplicable in the situation.2. knowing and appreciating the implications

of the available facts that are morally

relevant.3. good judgment is exercised in integratingthe relevant moral values and facts toarrive at a morally desirable solution.

Steps in Resolving Ethical Dilemmas


4/34


Completely understand all of the issuesinvolved.The issues involved in understanding ethical

problems can be split into 3 categories:- Factual- Conceptual- Moral

Steps in Resolving Ethical Dilemmas


5/34

Understanding all the issues involved helps toput an ethical problem in the proper framework

Factual issues involve what is actuallyknown about a case.Find the relevant FactsFacts Not always clearFacts may be controversial. Ex: Is Social Contracts well understood



6/34

How can controversial ethical problems beresolved?

Factual issues can be resolved throughresearch to establish the truth.Not everyone will agree to the truth- Further research helps clarify the situation,- increase areas of agreement, and- sometime achieve consensus on the facts



7/34

Understanding all the issues involved helps toput an ethical problem in the proper framework

Conceptual issues have to do with themeaning (definition) or scope of a term orconcept . Conceptual issues not always clear cut Conceptual issues often controversial What is the scope of proprietaryinformation?



8/34


Conceptual issues are resolved by agreeingon the meaning of terms and concepts.

Sometime agreement isnt possible - Further analysis of the concepts clarify

some of the issues- helps to facilitate agreement



9/34

Once factual and conceptual issues have beenresolved, to the best extent possible determine:

Moral issues :Which moral principle is applicable to thesituation?Does one concept apply to two different

case?Ex: Once is determined when it is a gift orbribe, the moral principle is easily applicable.



10/34


Moral issues are resolved by agreement asto which moral principles are pertinent and

how they should be applied . A Deeper analysis of the issues always help.



11/34

Lecture #6

Case Study : Semua Boleh Ent.

Florida based leading developer of carrier - class high speednetwork access solutions for broadband voices, data and

videos

Florida based leading developer of carrier class, highspeed network access solutions for broad band voices, dataand videos.

Auto manufacturing firm were losing market share to foreignimports.To meet stiff competition, the CEO ordered that the companyproduce a SUV crossover that would be priced at less than

RM100k.The car had to be designed and produced in 24 months rather than42 months for a new car line.The standard safety procedure of testing for rear-end impact wasnot carried out until after production due to accelerated productionschedule.The car eventually failed the test- fell below the state of the art forcars of that size.The chief engineer for safety claims that a potential safety risk ifhit from the rear and could possibly burst into flame.Cost benefit analysis - modifying the gas tank of the 1.5 million cars that wouldeventually be built would cost RM60million.- statistical data showed that the modification would prevent theloss of about 80 burn deaths, and 80 serious burn injuries.- Insurance companies valued human life at RM200k , and a seriousburn injury at RM50k.The CEO of the company claims that the cost benefit analysissuggested that the cost of making the car as safe as thecompetitions will cost more than the amount the company will haveto pay if sued by families of those killed in accidents, and so he hasauthorized production. The chief engineer has gone over the CEOshead and has brought the issue to the board for a vote.


12/34

Lecture #6

Case Discussion


videos


Was this a clear-cut unethical case by SemuaBoleh Ent? CEO? Chief Engineer?Point out the unethical action by the company?CEO? Member of the Board of Directors?Was it ethical to accelerate production scheduleat abnormal rate at the expense of final productsafety?Was it ethical for the CEO to authorize theproduction based on cost benefit analysis?

Was it ethical for the director to tag along withthe band wagon?


13/34

Lecture #6

Application to a Case


videos


Factual IssuesWhether the SUV cross over is really asafety hazard?The chief engineer claims that the new modelcars carries a potential safety risk.The cost benefit analysis suggested that it iseconomical for the to proceed with theproduction.

So there is no controversy on factual issues


14/34

Lecture #6


Conceptual issues

What constitute acceptableproduction schedules?Is bidding to design and produce in 24

months rather than 42 monthsconstitutes acceptable productionschedules or deceptive? Whether compromising on safety risk isan acceptable business practice?

So conceptual issues are more controversial


15/34

In the broad sense, the entire set of factual,conceptual, and moral issues raised could becalled a moral issue.

In the narrower sense, only the issue

involving determining the relevance orapplication of a moral principle (or principles)to the situation is a moral issue.



16/34


Moral/Application issues

Is negligence an acceptable business practice?Is it right to be deceptive so your company canmake a profit?Answer is obviousLying and deceit are no more acceptable in yourbusiness life than in your personal lifeThe key is If we can conceptually decide that Semua BolehEnt. practices were deceptive; than our analysisindicates that their actions were unethical.



17/34


Is the company guilty of an ethical breaches?- Product Safety hazards- Deception/not telling the truth- Not keeping promise- misrepresentation- Falsification



18/34


Which moral considerations to employ?


Moral Standards:

1. Maximize social Utility2. Respect moral rights

3. Distribute Benefits andBurdens justly

4. Exercise caring

Ethical Frameworks:

1. Utilitarianism2. Rights and Duties

3. Justice4. Ethics of Care


19/34


Which moral considerations to employ?


Utilitarian standardsconsider only theaggregate social welfare,but ignore the individual

and how that welfare isdistributed.

Standards of justicedistributive issues, butignore aggregate socialwelfare and the individual.

Moral rights consider theindividual but discount

both aggregate well beingand distributiveconsiderations.

Ethics of care consider thepartiality that must shown

to those close to us , butignore the demand forimpartiality.


20/34

Integrating the moral considerationsThe moral considerations do not seem to reducible toeach other yet all seems to be necessary parts of ourmorality.Strategy for ensuring all 4 kinds of considerations areincorporated into ones moral reasoning is to inquiresystematically into the 4s involved in a given moral

judgment .


1. Does the action maximize social benefits andminimize social injuries?

2. Is the action consistent with moral rights ofthose whom it will affect?

3. Will the action lead to a just distribution ofbenefits and burdens?

4. Does the action exhibit appropriate care forthe well- being of those who are closely relatedto or dependent on oneself?


21/34


Utilitarianism provides a clear and straightforward basis for formulating and testingpolicies.

- An organization policy, decision, or actionis good if it promotes the general welfaremore than any other alternative.

- A policy is considered wrong if it does notpromote total utility as well as somealternative would.



22/34


Using Utilitarian Principle

- Act utilitarianism: consequences of aparticular act in a particular situation- Rule utilitarianism: utility applies

appropriately to classes of actions ratherthan to given individual actions.

Why favor the rule utilitarian rather than theact utilitarian approach?

- inability to know all the consequences withcertainty.

- more harm is done by breaking a moralrule than any good that can be achievedby doing so.


STEPS OF A UTILITARIAN ANLYSIS


23/34

Accurately state the action to be evaluated.Identify all those who are directly and indirectlyaffected by the action.Consider whether there is some dominant, obviousconsideration that carries such importance as tooutweigh other considerations.Specify all the pertinent good and bad

consequences of the action for those directlyaffected, as far as into the future as appearsappropriate, and imaginatively consider variouspossible outcomes and the likelihood of theiroccurring.Weigh the total good results against the total badresults, considering quantity, duration, propinquityor remoteness, fecundity, and purity for each value,and the relative importance of these values.


STEPS OF A UTILITARIAN ANLYSIS


24/34

Deontological approaches denies the utilitarianclaim that the morality of an action depends onits consequences Moral DutyRightsJustice


Is the CEO ethically justified in authorizing theproduction despite the safety claims?


25/34

Universal acceptability principle- Can the action be performed by everyone withoutany contradiction developing to prevent its continuedperformance?- Is the CEO to advocate marketing the product even ifthe were themselves in the position of uninformedconsumers? Humanity as an end , never as merely a meansprinciple- Does the action respect consumers as end andnot as means only?


We should always act in such a way that we can will themaxim of our action to become a universal law.

Moral Law Consistency Universality

priori


26/34

First formulation; an action is morally right for a personin a certain situation if, and only if, the

persons reason for carrying out theaction is a reason that he or she wouldbe willing to have every person act on, inany similar situation

UNIVERSALITY

REVERSIBILITY


Kantians Categorical Imperative requires that everyoneshould be treated as a free person equal to everyoneelse.


27/34

Second Formulation;

an action is morally right for a personin a certain situation if, and only if, in

performing the action ,the person doesnot use others merely as a means foradvancing his or her own interests, butalso both respects and develops theircapacity to choose freely for

themselves.


The ultimate principle of morality requires that themaxim must be capable of being consistentlyuniversalized, must respect the dignity of persons, andmust be acceptable to rational beings.

If the maxim passes all 3 tests, it is moral,if it fails any 1 of the 3, it is immoral


28/34

Is the actions violate the Positive rights of providingconsumers a right to life? Is there any conflict of rights?How about human rights? Given two rights, which one take precedence?- right to property vs right to life


Is rights are the dominant consideration?


29/34

Compensatory justice?Retributive justice?Procedural justice ?


Justice and fairness


30/34

Moral accountability for oneself or as agents forothersResponsible for fulfilling obligationsRole responsibility


Moral Responsibility


31/34

Moral accountability for oneself or as agents forothersResponsible for fulfilling obligationsRole responsibility Can use a deontological approach or utilitarianism

Directors Obligation to make known to the publicthe facts that the company knew but did not makepublic

- WHISTLE BLOWING


Moral Responsibility

When is a Gift a Bribe?


32/34

When is a Gift a Bribe?

During a sales visit, a sales representative offers

you a coffee mug with his companys name andlogo on it. The value of the mug is RM5. Can youaccept this item? Does the answer to thisquestion change if the item is RM500 crystalbowl with the name of the company engraved onit? Your meeting with sales rep is running intolunch hour. She invites you to go out for lunch atMcDonald. Is this practice acceptable?

A sales rep from whom you often purchase asksif you would like to play golf with him thisweekend. Should you go?

Problem solving

strategies

Problem Solving


33/34

Lecture #7

Problem Solving

Factual :

who offered a gift? what its value was? what its purpose was?

Conceptual:more difficultwhether the gift is of sufficient value to influencea decision.

whether that influence is the intent of the gift

Once the conceptual issues have been worked out,moral issue is often very clear.


34/34

Framing Ethical Problem

Documents

Transcript of Framing Ethical Problem