1. E THICS IN E NGINEERING Lecture 2/4 ENGR 10

2. C LICKER Q UESTION George was showing Amita a copy of a drawing software package he got from a friend. Amita says to George, “Hey this is great, but you didn’t pay for it, you shouldn’t really be using it.” George says, “Look, I wouldn’t have bought it because it is too expensive and I can’t afford it, so the company hasn’t lost a sale. Besides I didn’t take a physical object, so it isn’t stealing.”

3. C LICKER Q UESTION Talk to your neighbor and record what you think: A. George is right – there is no problem, he isn’t stealing from the company B. George should delete the software from his computer C. George shouldn’t pirate software, but the company is not going to find out, so he should not delete it

6. O UTLINE : Review Pentium Case From Codes to Cases. Moral Considerations. Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis.

10. Part 1: From Codes to Cases Part 1: From Codes to Cases

11. G OING B EYOND T HE C ODE The code of ethics for engineers gives us a good set of guides to follow. But knowing what the codes say and what exactly to do in a given situation is not always obvious. The primary reason for this is that really hard ethical situations require moral reasoning and conflict resolution.

12. W HERE WE WILL BEGIN To start our exploration into case analysis, we will simply begin by looking at some cases. Our goal will be to engage in a form of proto- moral reasoning about the cases, which involves the following: Taking note of which codes of engineering ethics apply. Identifying conflicts. Making a choice of what to do. All of this will lead us to a discussion of moral considerations and moral reasoning.

14. C ASE 1: P ROTECTING THE SAFETY OF SOCIETY Suppose you are asked by your employer to design a bridge that will cost only $1 million. After doing a study you determine the following: a) An ideal bridge can be built for $1.5 million. b) Given the design constraints, a bridge built for $1 million will collapse in a moderate earthquake. c) A bridge built for $1.25 million, it will survive a moderate earthquake, but in an infrequent extreme earthquake it will collapse.

15. C ASE 1: P ROTECTING THE S AFETY OF S OCIETY Suppose your employer says, “if we don’t build the bridge for $1.25 million, then we are going to have to lay off half of the staff, including you.” He further asks you to go ahead with the next stage of the project. What do you do?

17. W HAT IS THE CONFLICT ? The code of ethics for engineers requires: You to take the safety of society as being of paramount importance. However, you also feel a personal sense of loyalty to your company and fellow co-workers. You don’t want anyone to lose their job. The conflict is between your duty to society and your loyalty to your own career and the welfare of your other fellow employees.

18. W HAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ? The conflict is between your future employment and the employment of others in your company, and the welfare of society. In a case like this the welfare of society comes first. We have to take into account the fact that your duty to protect the public is greater than your duty to your own career, and that of your fellow employees.

21. W HAT IS THE C ONFLICT ? The code of ethics requires that you Safeguard the public’s welfare. But it also requires that you Tell the truth when making public statements concerning your area of engineering. To solve this conflict, you must Correctly understand what each code is telling you And choose to act on the obligation that is of priority.

22. W HAT IS THE C ONFLICT ? What does protecting the public mean? Making sure that they are safe What does issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner mean. Telling the public the nuclear reactor is not safe but outlining the uncertainties But the government is asking you to alter your report in order to protect the public.

23. W HAT IS THE CONFLICT ? Your obligation is to safeguard public safety and to tell the truth in your role as an engineer. This means that you cannot alter data as an engineer, and that you must tell the truth about the nuclear reactor. The government is calling on you as a citizen to alter documents as a way to protect your fellow citizens. The conflict is between your obligations as an engineer and your obligations as a citizen.

24. W HAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ? Role conflicts are hard!!! No easy answer!!! This is where thinking about other moral considerations matter. What about the public’s right to know? What about the government’s obligation to tell the truth? In this case your duty as an engineer to tell the truth when making public statement trumps your civic duty to be loyal to your government.

25. C ASE 3: A CKNOWLEDGING MISTAKES Suppose you are part of a team that has built a device. And one of your customers, that has bought the device, maintains that the device no longer works. As part of the team that designed it you are uncertain why the device doesn’t work, but after a conversation with some of your colleagues you realize that the problem must be on the side of your company. In fact, you are sure that someone on your team must of made a design mistake.

26. C ASE 3: A CKNOWLEDGING M ISTAKES You approach your boss and tell him that you are sure that your team is responsible for the failure in the device. Your boss says, “Well we will just replace it with a fixed design. We don’t need to tell them anything. It could undermine our relationship with the company, they might not come back for business.” Should you go ahead and tell the client?

27. U NDERSTANDING Y OUR O BLIGATION The code of ethics for engineers requires: You to avoid deceptive acts. Your boss is asking you to not reveal something to the client because by not revealing it you can maintain their confidence while at the same time replacing the device. Are you violating the code of ethics?

28. D ECEPTION BY C OMMISSION VS. O MISSION There are two kinds of deceptive practices. Deception by commission occurs when a person tells a lie, such as when one reports data that one knows to be false. Deception by omission occurs when one omits something that another party has a right and interest in knowing.

29. W HAT IS THE CONFLICT ? Your boss wants you to omit something because doing so will help the company. Your client however has an interest in knowing about the functionality of the product that you sell them, since they use it. So, although your boss is not asking you to lie to them and tell them that the product is fine. He is asking you to omit the truth, which is in clear violation of avoiding deceptive acts.

30. W HAT IS MORE IMPORTANT ? It is true that a company that makes too many products that are faulty will go under. It is also important to recognize that a company that is known to be unreliable in terms of owning up to its mistakes is subject to being ostracized. Telling your boss that your team made a mistake is a good thing. It shows integrity. Letting the client know that the mistake shows courage. It also brings goodwill into the relationship between company and client.

31. S UMMING UP AT THIS STAGE Being an ethical engineer requires: Knowing your obligations and duties as specified by the code of ethics. Recognizing what your obligations require of you. Being able to reason to a conclusion about what to do by employing moral considerations.

32. Part 2: Moral Considerations

33. W HAT A RE MORAL C ONSIDERATIONS ? Moral considerations come from moral theories. They are considerations that moral theorists have argued to be important in evaluating whether an action or a way of being is morally right or good. There are many different moral theories. Some of them overlap in various ways. Others are completely distinct.

34. B ASIC C ATEGORIES FOR MORAL CONSIDERATIONS : Action-based theories maintain that the unit of moral evaluation is action. On this account when we say that something is morally right or wrong, what we are saying is morally right or wrong is some action. Agent-based theories maintain that the unit of moral evaluation is not action, but the agent. On this account when we say that something is morally right or wrong, we are talking fundamentally about a way of being, and not specific actions.

35. T HE C OMPONENTS OF A CTION Action IntentionConsequence Intention = what you aim to accomplish by performing the action. Consequence = what actually happens as a result of your action.

36. T HE M ATRIX OF A CTION Consequence Killed Saved Killed Intention, action and consequence can vary in a number of ways. Action Pushing Bill Intention To save To harm To save To harm

37. C ONSEQUENCES M ATTER The consequences of what you do matter. They should always be part of what you consider prior to acting. If your action has the potential to harm someone or something (such as the environment), that is something you must take into consideration, when deciding what to do.

38. T WO D IMENSIONS OF C ONSEQUENCES All actions have costs. Costs are the negative consequences of your action. All actions have benefits. Benefits are the positive consequences of your action When thinking about consequences one must think: (a)About both costs and benefits. (b)About costs and benefits for all parties involved.

39. I NTENTIONS M ATTER The intentions under which you act matter. They should always be part of what you consider prior to acting. Paying attention to your intentions and those of others is important to assessing the moral dimensions of performing an action.

40. T WO D IMENSIONS OF I NTENTIONS On the one hand, we want to recognize that intentions matter in the following sense: Intentions are valenced. Some are positive, such as the intention to save; and others are negative such as the intention to harm. On the other hand, we want to recognize that intentions matter in that when we are choosing to act we should consider: a) How we would feel, if we were acted upon in the same way. b) If we are treating others with respect.

41. P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES M ATTER Fidelity involves keeping one’s contracts and duties, and not lying. Reparation is the duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others. Gratitude is the duty to be grateful for benefits that have been given to you.

42. P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES M ATTER Non-maleficence is the duty not to harm others physically or psychologically. Harm-prevention is the duty to prevent harm to others. Beneficence is the duty to do good to others. To foster their good will, wisdom, health and security.

43. P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES M ATTER Justice is the duty to prevent an unjust distribution of burdens and benefits. To be just is to prevent unfair distributions of burdens and benefits in all areas of life. Non-parasitism is the duty to not free- ride on society either professionally or personally. It involves taking only the appropriate benefits from the burdens one has undergone.

44. A PPLYING P RIMA F ACIE D UTIES When reasoning with prima facie duties there are two kinds of cases: Cases where duties do not conflict. Cases where duties do conflict. In cases where duties do conflict, we use rules about priority in order to settle the conflict.

45. R ULES OF PRIORITY Non-injury overrides all other prima facie duties. You can’t harm a person to save another. Fidelity overrides beneficence. You cannot forgo a contract in order to be kind to someone else.

46. V IRTUE M ATTERS Virtues are character traits that we develop through an education. These character traits regulate our behavior. The four cardinal virtues are: Courage Temperance Justice Prudence

47. O UTLINE : Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis – Techniques Applying Techniques to a Real Case

48. Part 3: Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis

49. W HAT IS REQUIRED IN M ORAL R EASONING I dentifying the situation. What is being asked of you or your company? R ecognizing the relevant factors. Who are the parties? What are their rights? What are your companies obligations and their rights? A pplying moral considerations. What are the consequences ? What are the intentions of the actors ? What moral obligations are at play? What virtues are at play? P roposing a position-of-action. What do you think should be done in the situation? Why do you propose what you propose? Defend what you propose.

50. W HAT IS NOT REQUIRED IN M ORAL REASONING Having a defensible and thought out position-of- action does not require that there are no other defensible alternative positions of action. Having a defensible and thought out position of action does not mean that you don’t have to listen to and reason with others who are relevant parties. Having a defensible and thought out position of action does not mean you should not seek advice also.

51. C ASE A NALYSIS (I) We learn to reason morally and come up with a position-of-action by doing case analysis. Studying cases gives us an environment in which we can practice reasoning about morality and what to do in problematic situations without causing harm. Some cases are hypothetical, in that they never actually occurred, but they could occur. Some cases are actual, in that they actually occurred. In case analysis it is important to study both hypothetical and actual cases.

52. C ASE A NALYSIS (II) The steps for case analysis: 1. Read the case carefully. 2. Identify all the parties involved. 3. Identify all the obligations and rights involved. 4. Apply moral considerations. 5. Come up with a position-of-action.

53. T HE T ABLE T ECHNIQUE I Party Involved Intention: Positive or Negative Consequences: Cost and Benefit Rights / Duties Step 1: make a table charting the relevant factors.

54. T HE T ABLE T ECHNIQUE II Using the information in your table: Choose some combination of relevant factors to come up with a position-of-action. Write out your position-of-action as an argument that uses the factors you have chosen as reasons for your position-of-action. Attempt to defend your position of action against responses a person may have to your position.

55. R EASONING FROM ALL SIDES A person that is good at moral reasoning can often perform the following task: Defend a position, regardless of whether they believe it. Reason for the opposing position, regardless of whether they believe it. Identify possible positions that further discussion.

56. Part 4: Application to Real Case