Presentation on theme: "Ethics – Part 2 IE491 October 31, 2005. Review of Ethics Last week we looked briefly at – the origins of ethics Theories of Ethics (Utilitarianism, Duty."— Presentation transcript:
Review of Ethics Last week we looked briefly at – the origins of ethics Theories of Ethics (Utilitarianism, Duty Ethics, Rights Ethics, Virtue Ethics) Engineering as a profession Codes of ethics (IIE, NSPE, Order of an Engineer) Ethics cases (e.g., space shuttles)
This week Show how to analyze problems from an ethical viewpoint.
Analyzing Ethical Problems 1 st Step – completely understand all issues involved and enumerate them. Three categories of issues – Factual – what is actually known about a case. Conceptual – the meaning or applicability of an idea. Moral – which moral principle is applicable to the situation.
Two analysis techniques Line Drawing Flow Charting
Line Drawing Useful for situations in which the applicable moral principles are clear, but there seems to be a great deal of “gray area” about which ethical principle applies. Polar opposites are established. Positive paradigm (example, pattern). Negative paradigm. Moral problems are placed along line in accordance with where each fall on a continuum. “P” is placed where you believe problem fits relative to entries.
Example - Problem 1 Dispose of slightly hazardous waste into lake. Water source for nearby town. EPA limit 10 ppm. Average concentration of disposal – 5 ppm – Expect no health problems. Person not able to detect (taste) compound.
Problem 1 – hypothetical considerations 1. Dump 5 ppm waste in lake; harmless, but unusual taste. 2. Town’s water-treatment system can effectively remove waste. 3. Town can remove waste with company-purchased equipment. 4. Town can remove waste with taxpayer-purchased equipment. 5. Occasional (rare) illness, lasts for an hour. 6. At 5 ppm people get fairly sick, lasts one week, no long term effect. 7. Special equipment can reduce ppm to “1.”
Hypotheticals on line and “problem” estimate Negative paradigm Positive paradigm (NP) (PP) 6 5 4 1 P 7 2,3
Flow Charting Helpful when there is a sequence of events or a series of consequences that flows from each decision. Gives a visual picture and readily allows one to see results of each decision.
Please read – Section 4.5: Conflict Problems 1 st - Conflicting moral choices, but one is obviously more significant than the other. 2 nd – “Creative Middle Way,” an attempt at a compromise that will work for everyone. 3 rd – When 1 and 2 don’t work, bite the bullet, use your “gut feelings” and make best possible choice from information available. Section 4.6: Bribery/Acceptance of Gifts Bribery never acceptable.
Info source Engineering Ethics, 2 nd Edition, Charles B. Fleddermann, Chapter 4, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
Ethical Problem Solving Techniques: Addressing Airbus 330-300 Case Study By: Joe Mathew IE 491 University at Buffalo April 22, 2005
Incident Summary Airbus A330-300 departed Vancouver Substantial amount of smoke and vapor seen emitting from Engine 2 Emergency landing in Vancouver Engine 2 shut down Inspection showed fuel was leaking
Causal Factors 1. Incorrect entry on maintenance office duty board Did not follow trouble shooting manual (TSM) Unnecessarily removed LP fuel line from fuel/oil heat exchanger 2. Unfamiliarity with Equipment Retainer hidden from view Did not use Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 3. Engine vibration caused detachment of fuel/oil heat exchanger LP fuel line Substantial leak from Engine 2
Line Drawing – Causal Factor 1, 2 Negative ParadigmPositive Paradigm Compliance with TSM and AMM was not achieved. Compliance with TSM and AMM was achieved. Negative Paradigm: The workers do not follow the Trouble Shooting Manual and the Aircraft Maintenance Manual resulting in troubleshooting and performing maintenance without reference Positive Paradigm: The workers followed the Trouble Shooting Manual and Aircraft Maintenance Manual so that all troubleshooting and maintenance is performed with proper reference and guidance. P
Flow Charting – Causal Factor 3 Preventive fuel leak inspection needed on aircraft Proper inspection with use of elevated platform? High-Power Engine Run Performed? Fuel Leak Detection Implemented? Perform High-Power Engine Run Implement Fuel Leak Detection Perform inspection with use of elevated platform Preventive Fuel Leak Inspection Performed Yes No
Dharmy Bhatt IE 491: Ethics Presentation April 22, 2005 Bell’s Amusement Park Tulsa, Oklahoma
Accident Summary April 20, 1997 – Two roller coaster cars collided on the Wildcat roller coaster The two cars were going up a hill and an anti- rollback device failed to keep the first car on the track and it slipped back and crashed into the car behind it. The roller coaster was inspected two weeks before this accident. One person was killed and five others were injured.
Causal Factors 1. The “chain dog” was riding up on the edge of the chain trough. If the chain rides up the side of the car and onto the left leg of the chain near the top of the hill, the chain can disengage and the car could slip. 2. Maintenance records/maintenance of the roller coaster. There was no documentation for scheduled or nonscheduled maintenance of The Wildcat, or for operating procedures.
Flowchart – The “chain dog” Factor The Wildcat can operate. Has the chain dog been changed? No Has someone inspected the changes? A maintenance worker must inspect the changes. No Yes Is the “chain log” at the proper height? Fix the height of the “chain dog” and inspect again. The Wildcat can operate properly. No Yes
Line Drawing-- Maintenance Negative ParadigmPositive Paradigm Documentation hinders the performance of each car. Proper documentation exists and the roller coaster is acceptable. P 1. Every time The Wildcat breaks down, it is documented. 2. Operating procedure are followed for the most part. 3. Operators haven’t been trained at all. 4. Changes made to the car don’t need to be written down. 5. Proper part replacements should be followed. 12354
Ethics Problem Solving: Whiteshell Air Service Ltd. Airplane Engine Failure Theresa J Moehle IE 491 April 22, 2005
Accident Summary: Airplane departed Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba without incident After plane was leveled in air, large backfire heard and loss of engine power Pilot landed plane in swampy area with minor and severe injuries to passengers
Casual Factors Incorrect installation of airplane parts Cylinder push rod tube Valve adjustment screw protrusion beyond limits Caused damage to valve train – exhaust valve would not open overtime Failure to properly inspect airplane Field Barometric Power Reference Check Valve clearance checks on 400-hr schedule
Line Drawing: Incorrect Installation of Parts NPPP Airplane parts are installed incorrectly causing immediate, fatal damage Airplane parts are installed correctly 1.Parts are installed incorrectly, but corrected immediately 2.Parts are installed incorrectly, and cause minor damage overtime 3.Parts are installed incorrectly, but cause no damage overtime 123P
Flow Chart: Failure to Properly Inspect Plane Should plane be inspected? Have parts been replaced? No Yes Inspect plane before flying Had last Check within 400 hrs? Yes Inspect plane before flying Has pilot noticed Irregular Sounds? Inspection is not needed Inspect plane before flying No Yes
Assignment Work in group to – choose problem and get my permission before you start – sources of info on original class schedule and syllabus document. analyze problem using both techniques shown today. present your analysis in class using PPT. send me one copy of your electronic file via e-mail. Due November 28 th.
Groups 1 - 4 Group 1 – Beh, Brewster, Frankenfield Group 2 – Geldard, Haseley, Henry, Hwang Group 3 – Jain, Kapoor, Keum Group 4 – Kingsley, Koperski, Lottes, Mufalli
Groups 5 - 8 Group 5 – Muller, Munch, Oh Group 6 – Olsen, Oropeza, Pandit, Patel Group 7 – Pelchy, Saputra, Sriniva Group 8 – Swanson, Thornton, Ward, Zimmermann Presentation order will be randomly drawn and announced on Nov. 28 th.