2.
Chapter 4 OutlineChapter 4 Outline pAnalysis of Issues in Ethical Problems nFactual Issues nConceptual Issues nMoral Issues pEthical Problem Solving Techniques nLine Drawing Technique nFlow Chart Technique nCases pProblem Solving Model in Engineering Ethics 4-2
3.
Analysis of Issues in Ethical ProblemsAnalysis of Issues in Ethical Problems pFirst step in solving any ethical problem is to completely understand all of the issues involved and list them pOnce these issues are determined, frequently a solution to the problem becomes more apparent 4-3
4.
Analysis of Issues in Ethical ProblemsAnalysis of Issues in Ethical Problems pThe issues involved in understanding ethical problems can be split into three categories: 1.Factual Issues (based on facts) 2.Conceptual Issues (meaning of ideas) 3.Moral Issues (which moral issue applies) Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, 2000 4-4
5.
Factual IssuesFactual Issues pFactual issues involve what is actually known about a case ni.e., what the facts are pThough seem easy, but are not always clear and may be open to questioning ni.e., unclear facts 4-5
6.
Conceptual IssuesConceptual Issues pConceptual issues have to do with the meaning or applicability of an idea nWhat constitutes a bribe, as opposed to an acceptable gift pIn case of bribe the value of the gift is probably a well-known fact pWhat is not known is whether accepting it will lead to unfair influence on a business decision nHow to determine whether certain business information is confidential pNot clear cut and open to questioning 4-6
7.
Conceptual Issues – Bribe and GiftConceptual Issues – Bribe and Gift pBy definition, a bribe is something, such as money (cash or anything of value) or a favor, offered or given to someone in a position of trust in order to influence or persuade him/her to act dishonestly pBribery is illegal everywhere in the world pBribery corrupts free-market economic system and is anticompetitive 4-7
8.
Conceptual Issues – Bribe and GiftConceptual Issues – Bribe and Gift pFrequently, engineers find themselves in the position of; neither dealing with vendors who wish to sell them products for incorporation into the engineer’s work, nor acting as vendors themselves and working on sales to other engineers or companies 4-8
9.
Conceptual Issues – Bribe and GiftConceptual Issues – Bribe and Gift pOne of the many gray areas of engineering ethics is the acceptance of gifts from vendors or the offering of gifts to customers to secure business pThe difficulty here comes because of the potential for gifts to become bribes or to be perceived of as bribes 4-9
10.
Conceptual Issues – Bribe and GiftConceptual Issues – Bribe and Gift pWhen is a gift a bribe? nFrequently, the boundary between a legitimate gift and a bribe is very subtle nGifts of nominal value, such as coffee mugs or calendars with a vendor’s logo and phone number on it, are really just an advertising tool nGenerally, there is no problem with accepting these types of items 4-10
11.
Conceptual Issues – Bribe and GiftConceptual Issues – Bribe and Gift pWhen is a gift a bribe? nDining with a customer or a supplier is also an acceptable practice pEspecially, if everyone pays his or her own way nHowever, when meals or gifts are no longer of low cost and the expense of these items is not shared equally, the possibility for abuse becomes large 4-11
12.
Moral IssuesMoral Issues pOnce the factual and conceptual issues have been resolved at least to the extent possible, all that remains is to determine which moral principle is applicable to the situation pResolution of moral issues is often more clear pOnce the problem is defined, it is usually clear which moral concept applies, and the correct decision becomes obvious 4-12
13.
Moral IssuesMoral Issues pIn our example of a “gift” offered by a sales representative, once it is determined whether it is simply a gift or is really a bribe, then the appropriate action is obvious pIf we determine that it is indeed a bribe, then it cannot ethically be accepted 4-13
14.
What to Do…?pFactual Issues nCan be resolved through research to establish the truth nIt is not always possible to achieve a final determination of the truth that everyone can agree on nBut generally further research pHelps clarify the situation pCan increase the areas of an agreement pCan sometimes achieve consensus on the facts 4-14 What to Do…?
15.
What to Do…?What to Do…? pConceptual Issues nAre resolved by agreeing on the meaning of terms and concepts nSometimes agreement isn't possible nBut as with factual issues further analysis of the concepts at least clarifies some of the issues and helps to facilitate agreement pMoral Issues nAre resolved by agreement as to which moral principles are relevant and how they should be applied 4-15
17.
Paradyne ComputerspIn 1980 the Social Security Administration (SSA) published a request for proposals for computer systems to replace the older equipment in its field offices pSSA wanted to purchase an off-the-shelf (standard) system already in the vendor’s product line rather than a custom system pParadyne bid to supply the SSA with new computer systems 4-17 Paradyne Computers
18.
Paradyne ComputerspProblems occurred immediately when the Paradyne computers failed the acceptance testing pThe product supplied by Paradyne was not an off-the-shelf system 4-18 Paradyne Computers
19.
Paradyne ComputerspIn preparing their bid, Paradyne wrote in the present tense as if the computer they proposed currently existed, rather than in the future tense, which would have indicated that the product was still under development pParadyne claimed that the use of the present tense in their bid was acceptable, since it is common business practice to advertise products under development this way 4-19 Paradyne Computers
20.
Paradyne ComputerspFactual issues: nThe request for proposals clearly specified that only existing systems would be considered nParadyne didn’t have any such system running and have never tested the operating system on the product they actually proposed to sell to the SSA pIn this case, the factual issues do not appear to be questionable 4-20 Paradyne Computers
21.
Paradyne ComputerspConceptual issues: nWhether bidding to provide an off-the-shelf product when the actual product is only in the planning stages is lying or is an acceptable business practice? nIs placing a Paradyne label over the real manufacturer’s label deceptive (dishonest)? pIndeed, Paradyne asserted that it had done nothing wrong and was simply engaging in common business practices 4-21 Paradyne Computers
22.
Paradyne ComputerspMoral issues: nIs lying an acceptable business practice? nIs it alright to be deceptive, if doing so allows your company to get a contract? nThe answer to these questions are obvious: Lying and dishonesty are no more acceptable in your business life than in your personal life pSo, if conceptually we decide that Paradyne’s practices were dishonest, then our analysis indicates that their actions were unethical Paradyne Computers 4-22
24.
Line Drawing TechniquepEvaluate alternatives with respect to where they fall on the line pUseful for situations in which the applicable moral principles are clear but there seems to be great deal of ‘gray area’ about which ethical principle applies pIt is performed by drawing a line along which various examples “paradigms” and hypothetical situations are placed 4-24 Line Drawing Technique
25.
Line Drawing TechniqueNegative Paradigm Positive Paradigm (NP) (PP) 4-25 Line Drawing Technique
26.
Line Drawing TechniquepAt one end of the line the positive paradigm “PP” is placed nExamples and hypothetical situations that are definitely morally acceptable pAt the other end the negative paradigm “NP” nExamples and hypothetical situations that are definitely morally unacceptable 4-26 Line Drawing Technique
27.
Line Drawing TechniquepThose examples that more closely conform to the positive paradigm are placed near it and examples closer to the negative paradigm are placed near that paradigm pIn between, the problem “P” is placed, where you believe the problem fits relative to entries 4-27 Line Drawing Technique
28.
Line Drawing TechniquepBy carefully examining this continuum/field and placing the moral problem “P” under consideration in the appropriate place along the line, it is possible to determine whether the problem is near the positive or negative paradigm, and therefore whether it is acceptable or unacceptable 4-28 Line Drawing Technique
30.
Dispose of Slightly Toxic WastepA company would like to dispose of slightly hazardous (toxic) waste by dumping it into a local lake from which a nearby town gets its drinking water pHow can we determine if this practice is acceptable? pLet us start by defining the problem and the positive and negative paradigm 4-30 Dispose of Slightly Toxic Waste
31.
ProblemProblem pA company dumps waste in a lake pThe lake supply water for a village pEnvironmental Protecting Agency (EPA) limit 10 ppm chemical concentration pAverage concentration of disposal is 5 ppm pAt 5 ppm nExpect no health problems nExpect consumers would not be able to detect (taste) compound in their drinking water 4-31
32.
Dispose of Slightly Toxic WasteDispose of Slightly Toxic Waste pPositive Paradigm nThe water supply for the town should be clean and safe pNegative Paradigm nToxic levels of waste are put into the lake 4-32
33.
Elementary Line Drawing TechniqueElementary Line Drawing Technique Negative Paradigm Positive Paradigm (NP) (PP) Dump toxic levels of waste in lake Water should be clean and safe 4-33
34.
Hypothetical Considerations1.The company dumps the chemical into the lake; at 5 ppm (limit 10 ppm) the chemical will be harmless, but the town water will have an unusual taste 2.The chemical can be effectively removed by the towns existing water treatment system 4-34 Hypothetical Considerations
35.
Hypothetical Considerations3.The chemical can be removed by the town with new equipment that will be purchased by the company 4.The chemical can be removed by the town with new equipment for which the taxpayer will pay 4-35 Hypothetical Considerations
36.
Hypothetical Considerations5.Occasionally exposure to the chemical can make people feel it, but this only lasts for an hour and is rare 6.At 5 ppm, some people can get fairly sick, but the sickness only lasts a week and there is no long term harm 7.Equipment can be installed at the plant to further reduce the waste level to 1 ppm 4-36 Hypothetical Considerations
37.
Hypothetical ConsiderationsHypothetical Considerations pOne could go on for a long time creating more and more examples pGenerally where your problem fits along the line is obvious with only a few examples, but the exercise should be continued with more examples until it is clear what the proper resolution is 4-37
38.
Hypothetical Considerations Summarized1.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” 4-38 Hypothetical Considerations Summarized
40.
Hypotheticals Drawn on Line TechniquepIt may be clear that there is a gap in the knowledge pIn this case the organization might need more information on seasonal variations in waste concentration and water usage of the town pInformation on potential interactions of the chemical with other pollutants such as runoff of pesticides from local farms pNote that there is some subjectivity in determining exactly where along the line each of the examples fit 4-40 Hypotheticals Drawn on Line Technique
41.
Hypotheticals and Problem “P” Estimate on Line Technique Hypotheticals and Problem “P” Estimate on Line Technique Negative Paradigm Positive Paradigm (NP) (PP) 6 5 4 1 P 7 2,3 4-41 pOur problem “P” can be inserted in between 1 and 7 along the line
42.
Hypotheticals and Problem “P” Estimate on Line Technique pIt is clear that dumping the toxic waste is probably a morally acceptable choice since no humans will be harmed and the waste levels will be well below those that could cause any harm pSince it is somewhat far from the positive paradigm there are probably better choices that can be made and the company should investigate these alternatives 4-42 Hypotheticals and Problem “P” Estimate on Line Technique
43.
Hypotheticals and Problem “P” Estimate on Line Technique pThis example illustrates that line drawing can help solve the ethical aspects of a problem, but there are many other considerations; for example, nPolitical aspects that should also be considered nMany people in the community are likely to regard the dumping of a toxin at any level as unacceptable nGood community relations might dictate that another solution should be pursued instead 4-43 Hypotheticals and Problem “P” Estimate on Line Technique
44.
Flow Charting TechniqueFlow Charting Technique pFlow charts; nmost often used in developing computer programs nalso find application in other engineering disciplines noften used to describe business processes and procedures nin engineering ethics, helpful for analyzing a variety of cases pespecially those in which there is a sequence of events to be considered or a series of consequences that flows from each decision 4-44
45.
Flow Charting TechniqueFlow Charting Technique pGives a visual picture and readily allows one to see results of each decision pOne has to be as objective as possible, otherwise it will be possible to draw any conclusion one wants, even one that is clearly wrong pFor further info: http://asq.org/learn-about- quality/process-analysis-tools/overview/flowchart.html 4-45
51.
pThe flow chart should be much larger and more complex to thoroughly cover the entire problem pThe key to effective use of flow charts for solving ethical problems is to be creative in determining possible outcomes and scenarios and also not to be shy about getting a negative answer and deciding to stop the project 4-51 Flow Chart
53.
Airbus 330-300Incident SummaryAirbus 330-300 Incident Summary pAirbus A330-300 departed Vancouver pSubstantial amount of smoke and vapor seen emitting from Engine 2 pEngine 2 shut down pEmergency landing in Vancouver pInspection showed fuel was leaking 4-53
54.
Causal FactorsCausal Factors 1.Incorrect entry on maintenance office duty board nDid not follow Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM) nUnnecessarily removed LP fuel line from fuel/oil heat exchanger 2.Unfamiliarity with equipment nRetainer hidden from view nDid not use Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 3.Engine vibration caused detachment of fuel/oil heat exchanger LP fuel line nSubstantial leak from Engine 2 4-54
55.
Line DrawingCausal Factor 1, 2Line Drawing Causal Factor 1, 2 Negative Paradigm Positive 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 4-55
56.
Flow ChartCausal Factor 3Flow Chart 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 Yes Yes No No No 4-56
58.
Bell’s Amusement ParkAccident SummaryBell’s Amusement Park Accident Summary pMechanical failures on the roller coaster caused a car near the top of a chain hill to disengage and roll backwards, colliding with another car pOne person was killed and five others were injured 4-58 pApril 20, 1997 – Two roller coaster cars collided on the Wildcat Roller Coaster
59.
Bell’s Amusement ParkCausal FactorsBell’s Amusement Park Causal Factors 1.The “chain dog”, which prevents cars from rolling backward failed to keep the first car on the track and it slipped back and crashed into the car behind 2.Maintenance records/maintenance of the roller coaster nThere was no documentation for scheduled or nonscheduled maintenance of the Wildcat, or for operating procedures 4-59
60.
Line Drawing – MaintenanceLine Drawing – Maintenance Negative Paradigm Positive 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 4-60 1 2 3 5 4
61.
Flowchart – The “Chain Dog” FactorFlowchart – The “Chain Dog” Factor 4-61 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 dog” at the proper height? Fix the height of the “chain dog” and inspect again. The Wildcat can operate properly. No Yes Yes
63.
Airplane Engine Failure Accident SummaryAirplane Engine Failure Accident Summary pAirplane departed Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba without incident pAfter plane was leveled in air, large backfire heard and loss of engine power pPilot landed plane in swampy area with minor and severe injuries to passengers 4-63
64.
Airplane Engine Failure Casual FactorsAirplane Engine Failure Casual Factors pIncorrect installation of airplane parts nCylinder push rod tube nValve adjustment screw protrusion beyond limits nCaused damage to valve train – exhaust valve would not open overtime pFailure to properly inspect airplane nField Barometric Power Reference Check nValve clearance checks on 400-hr schedule 4-64
65.
Line Drawing – Incorrect Installation of PartsLine Drawing – Incorrect Installation of Parts NP PP 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 1 2 3 P 4-65
66.
Flow Chart – Failure to Properly Inspect PlaneFlow 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 No Yes 4-66
67.
Problem Solving Model in Engineering EthicsProblem Solving Model in Engineering Ethics pAnalyze a problem using different methods/techniques pIf answers are different using different methods then careful analysis and weighting is needed pIndividual rights often take precedence nEven one death is “one too many” 4-67
68.
Slide148pA sample problem solving model on the next slide has five steps pIt is a systematic approach to moral deliberation that is designed for groups of individuals, but can be used by individuals with some minor adjustments What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics", Kenneth K. Humphreys 4-68 Problem Solving Model in Engineering Ethics
69.
Slide1421-State the Problem 2-Get the Facts 3-Defend Viewpoints 4-Formulate Opinion 5-Qualify Recommendation What Every Engineer Should Know About Ethics", Kenneth K. Humphreys. 4-69 Problem Solving Model in Engineering Ethics
70.
1 - State the Problem1 - State the Problem pClearly define exact nature of ethical problem or dilemma pNeed to be clear so that the kind of solution that is required can be anticipated pWant to provide an answer that is relevant to the interests at risk 4-70
71.
2 - Get the Facts2 - Get the Facts pWant to make an knowledgeable decision pMust have and understand the relevant facts pMust make clear any interpretations of factual matters or the values, than bring about conflicting moral viewpoints 4-71
72.
3 - Identify & Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints3 - Identify & Defend Competing Moral Viewpoints pCritically assess the strengths and weaknesses of competing moral viewpoints pBegin by identifying what we believe to be the most convincing reason for the course of action pWe must be able to justify the course of action 4-72
73.
4 - Formulate an Opinion4 - Formulate an Opinion pAs engineers we do not have the luxury of postponing questions or leaving a question unresolved pDecide which of the convincing viewpoints is the most influential pCommittee approach (voting) is advantageous because the decision is representative of the general public 4-73
74.
5 - Qualify the Recommendations 5 - Qualify the Recommendations pCommittees must qualify the recommendations they make by describing the level of consensus that was received pShould include the voting distribution and any different opinions 4-74
BİLGİ-ENGR 400 FALL 2015 P4 Ethical Problem-Solving Techniques
Thank you for your comment.