Lecture 09 – Ethical Problem-Solving Techniques

Objectives of Lecture 09

  • Ability-oriented goals
    • Put ethical problems in proper perspective and choose the best solution via specialised techniques.
    • Examine, apply and compare alternative analytical methods for ethical problems.
    • Learn diagnostic skills for recognising and resolving ethical dilemmas as they occur in practice.
    • Demonstrate the usefulness of flow-charting and other structured tools in ethical decision making.

Purpose & Motivation

  • Engineering analysis often enjoys a clear formula→numbers→answer\text{formula}\rightarrow\text{numbers}\rightarrow\text{answer} approach; ethics does not.
  • Ethical circumstances are frequently ambiguous, multi-valued and conflicting.
  • Simple cases (e.g.
    • Need money → cheat employer = obviously stealing → wrong) are rare in practice.
  • Engineers design artefacts that inherently carry health & safety risks; hence disciplined ethical analysis is indispensable.

Introductory Scenario (Early 1990s – Power-Line EM Fields)

  • Media reports: living near power distribution lines correlates with higher cancer incidence.
  • Causal hypothesis: weak, low-frequency magnetic fields.
  • Public also worries about EM fields from electric blankets, clock radios.
  • Engineering response:
    • Utilities investigated ways to reduce field strengths.
    • Product designers sought lower-emission alternatives.
  • Illustrates the engineer’s recurring question: Should I work on, redesign or abandon a potentially harmful technology?

Six Foundational Ethical Theories

  1. Utilitarianism (Consequentialism)
  2. Deontology (Duty-based ethics)
  3. Virtue Ethics
  4. Rights Ethics
  5. Casuistry
  6. Natural Law

1. Utilitarianism

  • Core principle: “greatest good for the greatest number.”
  • Decision rule: maximise aggregate happiness / minimise aggregate harm.
  • Eminent figures: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill.
  • Practical steps
    • List every feasible action.
    • Map all positive & negative consequences for every stakeholder.
    • Choose the consequence set with highest net utility.
  • Illustrative cases
    1. Hospital triage – one ventilator.
    • Patient-A survival probability > Patient-B.
    • Utilitarian solution→allocate to A\text{Utilitarian solution} \rightarrow \text{allocate to A}.
    1. Bankruptcy vs lay-offs – 200 jobs at risk.
    • Lay-off 50 → 150 still employed.
    • 150>0⇒150>0\Rightarrow net benefit.
  • Two sub-branches
    • Act Utilitarianism
    • Situation-by-situation calculus. Laws & rules are dispensable if breaking them maximises utility.
    • Example: lying once to avert harm.
    • Rule Utilitarianism
    • Focus on general rules which, if universally followed, yield maximum utility in the long run.
    • Upholds fairness, legality, predictability. Example: a universal rule against lying despite single exceptions seeming beneficial.

2. Deontology

  • Canon: Certain acts are intrinsically right or wrong, independent of results.
  • Champion: Immanuel Kant.
  • Ethical compass: duties, rights, rules, promises.
  • Case illustrations
    1. Wallet with ID → moral duty of honesty → return it.
    2. Promise-keeping vs helpful disclosure → promise overrides consequence.
  • Limitation: Lacks built-in mechanism for resolving duty conflicts.

3. Virtue Ethics

  • Guiding question: What would a good (virtuous) person do?
  • Founder: Aristotle.
  • Emphasises cultivation of stable character traits (honesty, courage, temperance…).
  • Cases
    1. Manager admits project error → integrity & accountability.
    2. Found wallet → return it → honesty & respect.
  • Weakness: Underestimates changing or situational character.

4. Rights Ethics

  • Premise: Actions are ethical when they respect legitimate rights endorsed by the polity or culture.
  • Example: Loaning a car conveys the right of use to the borrower for that period.
  • Limitation: Ambiguity in interpreting what counts as a right; needs supplementation by other theories.

5. Casuistry (Case-based Reasoning)

  • Begins with specific facts, compares with paradigm precedents, draws analogical conclusions.
  • Pharmacist example:
    • Similar precedent: doctor kept prescribing opioids → overdose → condemnation.
    • Analogous reasoning: pharmacist should intervene (refuse/referral).
  • Limitation: May lack comparable precedents; presumes similar outcomes.

6. Natural Law

  • Rooted in Aristotle; later Aquinas.
  • Humans should act in accord with inherent human nature & rationality.
  • Distinguished from positive (man-made) law; both can evolve.

Four-Step Ethical Problem-Solving Framework

  1. Analyse Issues
  2. Determine Possible Solutions
  3. Execute / Decide
  4. Take Feedback (evaluate outcomes, iterate)

Step 1 – Three Types of Issues

  • Factual issues – empirical data, technical facts, probabilities (often uncertain). Example: CO2\text{CO}_2 levels & global warming.
  • Conceptual issues – meaning & applicability of terms. Example: gift vs bribe; proprietary vs public information.
  • Moral issues – which ethical principle applies once facts & concepts clarified. Example: accepting a bribe clearly violates integrity once defined as bribe.
  • Difficulties
    • Future consequences can be hard to predict.
    • Disagreements over definitions (e.g., "proprietary").
    • Competing moral intuitions.

Step 2 – Ways to Solve

  • Relevance Problems (uncertainty which principle applies)
    1. Build series of comparable cases.
    2. Identify morally relevant similarities/differences.
    3. Locate demarcation line (information that ought to stay proprietary).
  • Conflict Problems (two sound principles clash)
    1. Lower-level prioritisation – one principle may dominate.
    2. Creative middle way – imaginative compromise satisfying both sides.
    3. Hard choice – when compromise fails, choose & justify.
  • Aerospace whistle-blowing illustration
    • Low-probability failure vs public safety.
    • Company loyalty vs professional responsibility.
    • Career risks.
  • Autonomous-car "trolley" dilemma
    • Option A →\to one jaywalker dies.
    • Option B →\to two rule-abiding pedestrians die.
    • Utilitarian vs deontological conflict.

Analytical Techniques

1. Line Drawing

  • Draw spectrum between Positive Paradigm (PP) and Negative Paradigm (NP).
  • Place real & hypothetical examples along the line → visual clarity of moral distance.
  • Hazardous-waste example
    • PP: Town water clean & safe.
    • NP: Dump toxic levels.
    • Proposed action: dump to obtain 5 ppm5\,\text{ppm}, EPA limit 10 ppm10\,\text{ppm}.
    • Additional hypotheticals: unusual taste, treatable by existing plant, company funds treatment, taxpayer funds treatment, transient illness, 1 ppm1\,\text{ppm} after on-site controls.
  • Insights
    • Reveals knowledge gaps (seasonal variation, pollutant interactions).
    • Placement guides ethical acceptability.
    • Caveat: Susceptible to biased paradigm choice or dishonest placement.

2. Flow-Charting

  • Widely used for programming; equally useful for event-sequence ethics.
  • Elements: problem statement → decision diamonds (yes/no) → consequences.
  • Strengths
    • Visual depiction of branching outcomes.
    • Encourages thorough exploration of scenarios.
  • Bhopal disaster (Dec 3 1984; >4040 tons methyl isocyanate; ≈3,800\approx 3{,}800 immediate deaths) can be modelled to highlight safety checkpoints, failure nodes.
  • Essential to remain objective & creative; terminate project if negative path outweighs.

Everyday Gift / Bribe Scenarios (Practice Examples)

  • Coffee mug worth $5\$5 – generally acceptable promotional item.
  • $350\$350 crystal bowl w/ engraving – likely bribe; without engraving questionable.
  • Working lunch
    • Fast-food, self-paid – acceptable.
    • Expensive French restaurant, paid by rep – borderline/unethical.
  • Recreational tennis invitation – may be acceptable if no business strings; context matters.
  • Conferences / Seminars
    • One-day sales seminar in Cleveland, employer-funded – usually acceptable.
    • Maui resort, vendor-funded & family invited – looks like undue influence.

Case Study – Matz, Childs & Associates vs Spiro T. Agnew

  • Timeline
    1. Matz unable to secure Maryland public-works contracts.
    2. Begins funding county executive campaign → access to Agnew.
    3. After election wins, Matz secures contracts → pays 5%5\% kickback.
    4. Pattern continues as Agnew becomes Maryland Governor, then U.S. Vice President (1972).
    5. 1973: investigation triggered by U.S. Attorney George Beale.
    6. Agnew pleads nolo contendere, fined $10,000\$10{,}000, 3 years probation.
    7. Matz firm not prosecuted (cooperated).
  • Ethical Issues
    • Systemic corruption in government procurement.
    • Bribery & kickbacks.
    • Inequitable judiciary outcomes.
  • Discussion Q&A
    1. Common-practice justification? → No; normative relativism rejected.
    2. Competing against bribery? → Report, refuse participation, push reforms.
    3. Campaign contributions for business? → Counts as bribery.
  • Line-Drawing exercise (condensed)
    • PP: Contract awarded purely on merit, no money exchanged.
    • NP: Direct 5%5\% kickback per contract.
    • Intermediate: one-off campaign contribution with no further demands; repeated contributions; Agnew declines further payments.
    • Conclusion: sequence sits near NP → unethical.
  • Bribery vs Kickback
    • Bribery: Value offered to induce dishonest act.
    • Kickback: Fraction of contract payment returned to official; special subset of bribery.

Numerical / Statistical References (in LaTeX)

  • Ventilator triage: 2 patients, 1 ventilator2 \text{ patients},\ 1 \text{ ventilator}.
  • Company layoffs: 200→150200 \rightarrow 150 jobs retained if 5050 laid off.
  • Hazardous waste: Proposed 5 ppm5\,\text{ppm} vs EPA limit 10 ppm10\,\text{ppm}.
  • Bhopal leak: >40 tons>40\,\text{tons} MIC, ≈3,800\approx3{,}800 immediate fatalities.
  • Kickback rate: 5%5\% of contract value.
  • Agnew fine: $10,000\$10{,}000.

Practical, Philosophical & Professional Implications

  • Public trust in engineering hinges on transparent, principled decisions.
  • Unethical shortcuts (bribery, concealment) erode societal welfare & professional integrity.
  • Structured methods (line drawing, flow-charting, casuistry) help move debates from intuition to transparent rationale.
  • Ethical literacy empowers engineers to foresee legal liabilities and reputational damage (e.g., Bhopal, kickback scandal).

Key Takeaways

  • No single theory suffices; triangulate using multiple perspectives.
  • Rigorously isolate facts, clarify concepts, then apply moral principles.
  • Use visual/analogical tools to expose hidden consequences and biases.
  • Uphold safety, honesty, fairness – the cornerstone obligations of the engineering profession.