nk eg2401 lecture2(h 4pp)
TRANSCRIPT
1/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Professor N. KrishnamurthyConsultant: Safety, Structures,and
Computer Applications Website: www.profkrishna.com
Semester 12012 - 2013
My NUS e-mail : [email protected]
EG2401 : ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM
Lecture – 2 (21 & 23 Aug. 2012)25
2/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Coverage1. Introduction to course (and administrative details)2. Overview of course – Definitions and scope3. Evolution/history of professional ethics4. Various ethics theories5. Codes of professional ethics6. Identification of ethics problems 7. Resolution of ethics problems8. Computer ethics9. Ethical responsibilities of engineers
Case studies will be woven into various topics as and when occasion or need arises
3/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Four Ethics Violation Examples
4/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
TV Antenna Tower Collapse, 1982 – a Months-long construction and 17-second destruction of 1975 ft (602m) Senior Road TV & FM tower near Houston in 1982 7 people lost their lives during this accident.Watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqygUApfnZg
Tower completed and put into operation – Top-mount panel antenna arrives and is raised in two sectionsCamera rides first section – Second section is midway up when two lifting U-bolts break dropping the antenna and workers onto guy wires below – One of the guy wires being severed which dooms the tower Camera falls to ground and records reflections in pool of water of remaining guy wires falling just before main body of tower strikes ground at 17 sec causing video break-up Audio is the camerman's reaction to the event beginning Segment repeated in slow motion showing section of 4-in guy wire nearly decapitating cameraman who drops camera When he resumes, huge tower base is on the ground.
A similar TV Tower (KATV-7) of almost the same height (61m) at Redfield, AK, USA, also fell, on 11 Jan 2008
VID
EO
seq
uenc
e
1.5m
5/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yTV Tower Collapse, 1982 –b
Tower fabricators wanted approval of lifting contractors for a change in lifiting lugs – showed their current designContractors refused to review (for fear of unknown legal problems of change)Fabricators did not have competent designer, so they used the earlier lug design, which was only good for removal of section from truck What was design engineer's responsi-bility to ensure safety on construction site? What about product liability? This is Case 42 in Harris’s Book.For more details and questions, see:http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/tvtower/tv3.htm#issues
Just
bef
ore
fall
During fall 6/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Intel Pentium-5 Chip Case, 1994Pentium FDIV bug in Intel P5 Pentium floating po-int unit, caused certain division operations to pro-duce incorrect results, about once in 9 billion times. The flawed Pentium will give:
3,145,727 × 4,195,835 / 3,145,727 = 4,195,579The flaw was discovered and publicly disclosed by Math Prof Thomas Nicely, of Lynchburg College, in Oct. 1994.Intel acknowledged the flaw but claimed it was not serious, offering to replace processors to users who could prove that they were affected. Intel later admitted it had been aware of it from May 1994On 20 Dec 1994 Intel offered to replace all flawed Penti-um processors on request, due to mounting public pres.Only a small fraction of Pentium owners bothered to get their chips replaced, but Intel lost $475 million by this.Discussed in Fleddermann, Chapters 2 and 4
7/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
DC-10 Case (March 1974) – a DC-10 was designed with cargo doors opening outward instead of inward (“plug”), to allow full use of cargo area.Turkish Airlines Flight 981 ‘Ankara’, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10, registered TC-JAV, crashed just outside Senlis, France, on 3 March 1974, killing all 346 aboard. Problems with latching system and potential failure mode that led to the crash were known to Convair, the fuselage builder. The information was passed on to McDonnell Douglas several years prior to the accident.
8/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
DC-10 Case – bChanges to correct the problem had been found, but not applied to TC-JAV, nor any other aircraft in DC-10 fleet. Convair Engineer Dan Applegate expressed concern at the “Band-Aid” fixes proposed, but managers rejected them as better alternatives would have been too costly, and did not inform McDonnell Douglas.
Applegate did not continue his protest.McDonnell Douglas instead chose a procedural solution less disruptive to schedules, but failed to ensure appropriate training for the personnel closing the door.
Instructions were in languages not familiar to the Turkish technicians!
Conservative corporate policies, poor maintenance, and failure to disclose correct information led to the disaster.Ref. Harris et al (p.129-130), Fleddermann (p. 84-86)
9/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yEthics of Human Experimentation
Engineering experimentation enters the unknown and the uncertain.
Monitoring to extend to use beyond experimentationWhen human subjects are used for experimentation, ‘informed consent’ is necessaryE.g. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972)
Penicillin, standard treatment for syphilis from 1947, both medicine and information, were withheld from subjects, 399 poor negro farm workers, by U.S. Pub-lic Health Service, while study was being conducted.“For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of Science.” — Dr John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases.
10/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Various Ethical Theories
11/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
11/54
Ethical Theories (17th Cent onwards)
1. Rights Ethics2.Universalist Ethics 3. Virtue Ethics
Universalizability – Principle that an act is good if everyone should (may), in similar circumstances, do the same act without exception. (i) Duty Ethics & Respect for persons (Immanuel Kant)
Deontologism [‘Deon’: Duty], prescriptivism(ii)Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill),
Teleologism [‘Teleo’:End result], consequentialism
Normative Theories [How things ought to be]
1.Rights Ethics
3.Virtue Ethics
2. Universalist Ethics
2.i. Duty Ethics(Deontologism)
2.ii. Utilitarianism(Teleologism)
12/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
1. Rights EthicsJohn Locke, British Philosopher (1632-1704) believed human beings were born with certain (divine) rights, right to life (and good health), liberty, and property.
He argued that these"natural rights" alone are solely capable of maintaining a harmonious society.
Every one has the same rights – even to harm!
No one can deprive moral agency from any one.Must consider conflict of rights, and hiearchy of rights.
The fundamental rights, to life, liberty, and property, with the addition of right to “pursuit of happiness” became the basis of American Declaration of Independence, 1776.
13/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y2. Universalist Ethics
Universalizability: “Whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation"The only relevant feature of moral law is its generality, the fact that it has formal property of universalizability.In making a moral judgment, you commit yourself to its universalizability.
Refusing one is to refuse both.Universalist ethics may be viewed from two approaches:1. Duty and respect for persons – right actions by
individuals or entities2. Utilitarianism – right consequences for groups and
communitiesIf an action could be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it), it is morally acceptable. Otherwise, not.
14/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
2.i. Duty Ethics & Respect for Persons – a Proposed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)Moral obligations are categorical imperatives – unconditional commands that are binding on everyone at all times. [Often, duty is reverence for law.]Actions are morally right because of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination or preference. There are duties that should be performed (e.g. Duty to treat others fairly or not to injure others) regardless of whether these acts do the most good or not.One has duty to respect rights of others, just as a person would expect others to respect his rights as their duty.
15/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
2.i. Duty Ethics & Respect for Persons – bMaxim of your ethical action could –should – be one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances – or applied to everything alike.Each person is worthy of respect as a moral agent.
Justice demands that all moral agents be respected equally – hence ethics of respect for persons
One’s own self to be included in respect for persons.Hence the need for self-respect
Protecting individuals is more vital than majority welfareDuty ethics and rights ethics are two sides of same coin.
Classification of ethics theories may vary from author to author.
But overall, most scholars will cover roughly the same ground.
16/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Two Approaches for Universizability:1. Self-Defeating Approach:
If everyone does same (wrong) act, (i) nobody can act, or (ii) the purpose will be foiled.
2. Golden Rule ApproachAsk: “What if everyone did that?”,
“Why should ‘x’ alone be exempt?”Depends heavily on values and beliefs of decider
May be alleviated by adopting the role of othersNeed to develop perspectives of both sides
Reversibility Principle: “Turn-around is fair play!”Red Indian saying (12,000 yrs ago?): “Don’t judge a man until you have walked for two moons in his moccasins.”
2.i. Duty Ethics & Respect for Persons – c
Doing harm would rebound on oneself
17/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yThe Golden Rule (Respect for Individuals)
Hindu: "Let not any man do unto another any act that he wisheth not done to himself by others, knowing it to be painful to himself." (Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, cclx.21)Jewish: "What is hateful to yourself do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 31a) Buddhist: "Hurt not others with that which pains yourself." (Udanavarga, v.18)Confucian: "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you." (Analects, Book xii, #2)Christian: "Treat others as you would like them to treat you." (Luke 6:31, New English Bible)Muslim: "No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." (Hadith, Muslim, imam 71-72) 18/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
18/54
2.ii. Utilitarianism – a Postulated by British Philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) [after J.Bentham]Considers evaluation of good and bad consequences for all affected
Higher level individual pleasure (e.g. friendship, intellectual satisfaction), or benefit to society.
Consideration of most benefit to most people outweighs the needs of a few.Actions promoting human well-being are good.J.S. Mill: “It is better to be a human dissatis-fied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”Negative utilitarianism: Elimination of unhappiness ra-ther than the promotion of happiness. [Rather defeatist!]
Univ. College, London
19/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
2.ii. Utilitarianism – bThree approaches:1. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Three steps: Assess the options Assess costs and benefits (both in dollars) Choose option with least cost/benefit ratio
Three difficulties: Uncertainty of outcome Limiting the ‘audience’ Harm to the vulnerable minority
Three problems:Difficulty of placing dollar value on life, and environmentDifficult to estimate consequencesCan often be unfair to one side
2. Act Utilitarian Approach3. Rule Utilitarian Approach
20/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
The Ford Pinto DebacleThis will be discussed in detail later.Ford Pinto was marketed beginning 11 Sep., 1970. Very popular at first.
Until the rear-end collision-fire problem surfaced, and started killing people.
Pinto was developed to beat competition from foreign & other US small cars, rushed to production, despite crash tests showing petrol tank broke & caught fire at 20mph.Decision to proceed was made on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, recognised and approved at the time:
Expected Costs of producing the Pinto with fuel tank modifications = $137 millionExpected Costs of producing Pinto without fuel tank modifications = $49.5 million
So, Ford did not modify the car! [Recalled cars in 1978.]
21/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y2.ii. Utilitarianism – c
Three approaches (Contd.):2. Act Utilitarian Approach [Case by case basis]
When faced with a choice, we must consider likely consequences of all potential actions and choose what we believe will generate most pleasure, regardless of personal feelings or social constraints.Procedure:
Identify optionsDetermine audience, i.e. people affectedEvaluate ALL likely consequencesNote that you will set a precedentChoose option yielding the most good
If all consequences can be reduced to dollars, then this method is the same as Cost-Benefit Analysis approach.Act utilitarianism is risky due to its subjective nature.
22/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
2.ii. Utilitarianism – dThree approaches (Contd.):3. Rule Utilitarian Approach [Blanket rule basis]
Following rules justified by their utility, well understood, and generally observed, to benefit the most people through the fairest and most just means available.
Consider what would happen if a potential rule of action were constantly followed and adopt it always if adherence produces more happiness.Easier and clearer than Act Utilitarian ApproachMay run counter to indivdual (or minority) rights
Rules reduce moral skillsMust ask: “What if everybody followed this rule?”
Strong Rule U. – Absolutist, never to be brokenWeak Rule U. – Exceptions allowed in special cases
With more weak-rule exceptions, Rule Utilitarianism tends towards Act Utilitarianism.
23/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
3. Virtue EthicsDating back to Greek Philosopher Plato (c.428-c.348 B.C.) and his disciple Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), the character of the moral agent was considered the hallmark of ethics.Actions are considered right if they support good character traits (virtues) and wrong if they support bad charac-ter traits (vices) – hence ‘virtue ethics’
In the 20th century, these ideas were revived in two different directions by:
Samuel Florman: Loyalty to employer, competence Alasdair MacIntyre: Product excellence, social benefit
Aspects: Public-spirited virtues – Proficiency virtues –Teamwork virtues – Self-governance virtues
Author: “The Civilized Engineer”
24/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Self-Realization Ethics
In all of the above, ‘ourselves’, ‘self-interest’, etc. does not mean ‘selfish’, but refers to “self-realization”. i.e.,
“True to one’s ideals against the influence of others”.Two modes of Self-Realization Ethics:
Community-oriented – caring social relationshipsPersonal fulfillment through professional achievementMotives: Proficiency, compensation, moral (spiritual?)
Individualistic – Ethical egoism [‘Fountainhead’] RISKY!Long-term enlightened well-being rather than a nar-row, short-sighted pursuit of immediate pleasures
1. Rights ethics – we have a right to pursue our interests2a. Duty ethics – we have a duty to ourselves2b. Utilitarianism – overall good must include self-interest 3. Virtue ethics – personal good linked with social good
25/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yRelativist Ethics
Relativist ethics may be of two kinds:1. Ethical Relativism: Prescriptive view:
Different groups of people may have different ethicalstandards for evaluating acts as right or wrong,These different beliefs are true in their respective societies, and These different beliefs are not instances of a basic moral principle.
E.g.: Decision on the Bhopal tragedy, where safety standards in Union Carbide’s Indian plant were much lower than their similar plant in USA –and compensation paid much smaller.
2. Cultural (or Sociological) Relativism: Descriptive view:Different groups of people have different moralstandards to evaluate acts as right or wrong.
E.g.: Dress code for women in certain countries 26/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Bhopal TragedyWill be discussed in detail later.1969: Union Carbide Corp. of USA set up a small plant in Bhopal, capital of Madhya Pradesh, India, to make pesticides, near an existing residential neighborhood.
On the night of 23 Dec 1984, a dangerous chemical reaction occurred in the factory when a large amount of water got into the Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) storage tank. About 40 tons of MIC poured out for nearly two hours and escaped, spreading over the city of nearly 900,000.
4,000 (to15000?) people – mostly poor – killed in sleep or as they fled; about 400,000 injured/ affectedNewborn deaths have doubled after the accident.Indian government settled for a paltry sum.
The case has been reopened last year with large claimsIn June 2010, 7 former senior employees convicted
27/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Codes of Professional Ethics
28/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Importance of Codes1. Serving and protecting the Public2. Guidance3. Inspiration4. Shared standards5. Support for responsible professionals6. Education and understanding7. Deterrence and discipline8. Promoting the profession’s image
Characteristics of Codes1. Clear and coherent;2. Embody basic moral values applicable to the profession
in a systematic and comprehensible way; 3. Provide helpful, reasonable guidance for concrete cases4. Widely accepted within the profession
29/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yIndividuals vs. Organisations
Physical causes of harm are different from who (person or organisation) was responsible!Inanimate and non-human (physical) causes cannot be morally responsible for harm.Law generally treats organisations as “artificial persons” which can sue or be sued. (Cannot be jailed!)
‘Morally’ responsible or not, organisations can be:Criticised for harmAsked to make reparations for wrong doneBe be made to institute reform
In 1990-91, to prevent Virgin Atlantic Airways breaking British Airways (BA) monopoly, BA did “disreputable business practices” or “Dirty tricks”, e.g. passenger poa-ching & planting hostile stories. Fined £610,000 + costs
30/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Can Codes be Wrong?Yes, they can, occasionally – and when they are proved so, they modify their code accordinglyFamous example: ASME vs. Hydrolevel Case
Harris et al, p.253-255http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/categoryId/7/ASME-vs-Hydrolevel.aspxhttp://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/asme/asme1.htm
Conflict of interest arose thus:James, official of McDon-nell & Miller competing with Hydrolevel was also ASME Committee Member, when ASME recommended against HydrolevelHardin, another official, was V.P. of Insurance Co.
ASME settled for $4.75m, & modified the Code of Ethics
31/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Similarities between Design & Ethics – aAn engineer usually ends up managing the unknown.
Starts with a need to meet, comes up with a design
Ethics analysis is similar to engineering design:No unique or ‘correct’ solutionChoice between two or more ways of handling, some acceptable, some neutral, and others clearly wrong or otherwise unacceptable.Involve a large body of knowledge from divese fieldsDemand good analytical skillsSome solutions may involve uncertainties and ambiguities, including fresh problems arising from the solutionsSolutions are dynamic, evolutionary
32/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Similarities between Design & Ethics – bIs there a unique and perfect design?
No. Likewise, there may be no uniquely correct and final solution for ethics problems.
Ethical considerations must be included in design processes, especially when changes are introduced after the formal design is over.Is ‘Absolutely safe’ an attainable goal?How far do we go in the “Duty of Care?”BS 5950, Steel Design Code states (Clause 2.1.1.2):
“The designer who is responsible for overall stability … should ensure the compatibility of the structural design and detailing … for overall stability, even if some or all of the structural design and detailing of those structural parts and components is carried out by another designer.” [Emphasis mine – NK]
33/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Resolution of Ethical Dilemmas
34/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Keep It Short – Stupid !Special Points in Ethics Analysis – a
Follow current regulations in your industry in your region.Conform to applicable Code of Ethics to the letter.
If you have to deviate, inform and get your boss (or client) to approve it in writing.
Either: have a successful precedent, namely the solution to a similar problem, solution for which was accepted as right in law, and by peers (and society); And/or: Have strong, documented, logical grounds for your proposed action, before you do anything.
If one is not courageous enough to take a chance on the last, he/she would have to get out of the business!
Inaction may be worse than wrong action! Unless one is highly experienced, better to:(a) consult others in relevant specialities, and/or (b) team up with others, competent and concerned
Keep It Short and Sweet!
35/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Special Points in Ethics Analysis – bApply common theories of ethics and determine which have been adopted, which violated, by various parties.In universalist ethics, both duty ethics and utilitarianapproaches may often converge to the same outcome.While evaluating various theories, maintain consistency and pragmatism in thinking rather than going into absolute (abstract) concepts, from the viewpoint of the individiual or group you are evaluating.
E.g. Omitting some data that do not fit our notions is itself unethical.
Treat the ethics problem as a design problem with alternative solutionsIf : (a) problem is too old or too complex,
(b) decision is not clear, or, (c) consequences are too harsh or far-reaching,
– then look for a ‘Creative Middle Way’ 36/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Characteristics of Ethics SolutionsAnlyses for and solutions to ethical dilemmas must be:
Factually clear – well informed with professionally and ethically relevant facts about all realistic options
Factual issues may be proved with proper evidenceConceptually clear – on key ethics-related concepts
Conceptual issues may be matters of opinion or attitude, involve subjective definitions & evaluationsE.g. Loyalty to employer, or, concern for good of the corporation in the long run?
Ethically (morally) clear – identify relevant moral issuesEthical issues may arise from facts and conceptsE.g. Responsibility to oneself (honesty), to employer, and to the public and environment; how various theories may apply to various actions
Based on all above, use well-reasoned integration of facts and values to arrive at morally acceptable solution.
37/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yResolution of Ethical Dilemmas
1. Definition of problemBy definition of terms, and clarification of factual, conceptual, and moral/ethical issuesApplication of ethical theories to the problem
2. Identification of ethical impact pointsBy Flow Chart
3. Assessment of ethical violationsBy Line Drawing method between positive and negative paradigms
4. Formalisation of ethical violationsBy application of ethics theories, precedents, gove-rnment laws and/or professional codes of conduct
5. Resolution of problemThrough arbitration, professional societies and boards, and finally through government courts
ITERATE
38/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
1. Definition of ProblemTo identify and define ethical problem, we must clarify:
(a) Factual issues:Data and information that can be validated fullyIsolate those facts relevant to the ethical problemDetermine and resolve any controversies on facts
(b) Conceptual issues:Data and information based on value judgements and assumptions – opinions, cannot be proven as factsDefinitions of concepts and terms used, E.g. ‘Conflict of interest’, ‘Confidentiality’, ‘Negligence’, etc.
(c) Ethical and Moral issues:Relevance to be decided by common morality, professional code of ethics, and personal valuesIdentify situations where ethical dilemmas may arise
(d) Apply ethical theories to the problem
39/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Example of Problem DefinitionParadyne Case, 1980 – a
In 1980 US Government’s Social Security Administration let out bids for 1800 off-the-shelf computer systemsIn 1981Paradyne won the contract for $115 millionComputers failed acceptance testing, users complained of numerous & frequent malfunctions, requiring rebootingSystem met the 98% uptime criterion only after two yearsIn 1983, Paradyne was formally charged with fraud in winning the contract.
Conducting a demo in which it represented an empty box with blinking lights as an encryption deviceRepresented a DEC computer with the labels switched as a Paradyne P-8400 computing unit. 40/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Paradyne Case, 1980 – bOther charges included:
Supplied system was one still under developmentParadyne employed an SSA employee as a consultant
In Dec. 1985, a federal grand jury in Tampa returned a 14-count indictment Thursday against computer maker Paradyne Corp., eight current and former employees, and a former official in the Social Security Administration.SSA was faulted for:
Paradyne was the only bidder assessed for capabilities by SSA with no site visit.Approving SSA employee being hired by Paradyne
In 1987, Paradyne pled guilty and settled with SSA.This case is treated in detail by Fleddermann, Chap. 2,4.
41/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yParadyne Case, 1980 – c
(a) Factual issues:Proposal request stated that only existing systems will be considered – Paradyne did not have one suchParadyne employed a SSA official, and SSA approved it … No factual controversies
(b) Conceptual issues:Is bidding to provide off-the-shelf product without actually having one cheating or business practice?Is lobbying of former employer SSA on behalf of current employer Paradyne conflict of interest?
(c) Moral and Ethical issues:Lying to get business as against lying in social or personal lifeCheating in business, even with good intentions
42/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Paradyne Case, 1980 – d(d) Application of Ethics Theories
Both SSA and Paradyne violated many virtues: Respect for others, Honesty, Duty & Commitment, Loyalty & Fidelity, Productivity, Public good, etc.
3. Virtue
Both SSA and Paradyne could justify its actions by cost-benefit analysis and Act Utilitarian ethics.
But both violated Rule Utilitarian ethics as in 2(i)
2(ii) Utilitarian(Cost-Benefit,
Act U., Rule U.)
Paradyne failed in duty to (a) abide by bid conditions, (b) be honest in its dealings with SSA
SSA failed in duty of (a) site visit to assess Paradyne, (b) preventing conflict of interest in approving their employee to work for Paradyne
2.(i) Duty(Respect for
persons, Golden Rule)
SSA’s rights for fair trade & transparency violated.Public’s right for efficient service denied
1. Rights
Compliance or ViolationEthics Theory
43/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Two Ethics Violation Examples
from NASA
44/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
44/54
Challenger Disaster (28 Jan 1986) – a In earlier 24 successful shuttle missions, other flights had faced lesser ver-sions of same problem that caused the explosion Manufacturer of solid roc-ket booster (SRB) and solid rocket motor (SRM) knew.
So did some of NASA management officials.
Roger Boisjoly (Morton Thiokol engineer) did his best to warn both his employer and NASA.
But they did not listen.People making final deci-sions at NASA weren't told.
2m
45/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
yChallenger Disaster – b
Many Ways Challenger Data could be presented –
all predicted adverse consequences under cold
temperatures
High risk at cold temperatures was known, but was
ignored.46/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
Challenger Disaster – cThe Whistle Blower: Roger Boisjoly
Roger Boisjoly, engineer who had warned about the effect of cold weather on the O-rings, left his job at Morton Thiokol and became a speaker on workplace ethics. He argues that the meeting called by Morton Thiokol managers, which resulted in a recom-mendation to launch, "constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation.“For his honesty and integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttle disaster, Roger Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
47/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
47/54
The Columbia Disaster (16 Jan 2003) – a
(Above) Columbia lifting off on final mission. The light-colored triangle visible at the base of the strut near the nose of the orbiter is the Left Bipod Foam Ramp shown enlarged
48/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
The Columbia Disaster – bA piece of foam broke off, hit the left wing at 530mph (850km/h), and made a hole.On reentry, hot gases (5000ºF, 2760ºC) entered through the hole, burnt up the wing from inside, and broke it off.Crew lost all control at a little before 9 am, EST, Saturday, February 1, 2003, when over Texas, at speed of Mach 19.5* (24,000 km/h) and altitude 209,800 feet (i.e. 39.7 mi, or 63.9 km).
The shuttle disintegrated into pieces and debris hit the ground.
* 1 mach = 1225 km/hour3m
49/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
49/54
The Columbia Disaster – c28 Aug 2003: Politics, budgets, schedule pressure and managerial complacency all played roles in causing the Feb. 1 Columbia tragedy, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) said in its final report released today. Report details 8 separate "missed opportunities" during the 16-day flight, to investigate and correct the problem.
E.g. Refusal of high-res imaging of damaged wingCost reduction led top NASA leaders over the past decade to downsize the Shuttle workforce, outsource various Shuttle Program responsibilities – including safety oversight – and consider eventual privatization of the Space Shuttle Program. Foam loss became a habitual situation [“normalization of deviance“], ignored instead of being promptly addressed. 50/50
Nat
iona
l Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gapo
re ::
EG
2401
:: C
opyr
ight
, Pro
f. N
. Kris
hnam
urth
y
THE END(Lecture 2)