Line Drawing Professional Ethics (Week4)

Ethical Problem-Solving

  • Ethical problem-solving is complex, and there is rarely a clear solution.

  • It's crucial to engage with ethical problems, even without clear solutions.

  • Strive to understand problems from all sides to make informed decisions.

  • This approach may reveal overlooked solutions or aspects, prompting thinking beyond initial intuitions.

  • It provides "insurance" by ensuring you've done your best to find the optimal solution.

General Approach

  • When facing a complex issue, break it down into levels:

    • Factual Level: Gather objective information like timelines and data.

      • This can be controversial (e.g., when does life begin? How do CO2CO_2 emissions contribute to global warming?).

    • Conceptual Level: Identify and define key terms (technical and moral) and their application to the situation.

    • Ethical Level: Determine applicable ethical principles, often following clarity on facts and concepts; consider the four ethical theories.

Bhopal 1984

  • The Bhopal Gas Tragedy occurred on the night of December 2–3, 1984, when a highly toxic gas called methyl isocyanate (MIC) leaked from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Due to poor maintenance, inadequate safety systems, and negligence, the gas spread over nearby densely populated areas, killing thousands within hours and exposing over 500,000 people. The disaster caused long-term health issues, including respiratory problems, birth defects, and cancer, with effects still felt decades later. Although Union Carbide settled with the Indian government for $470 million, the compensation was widely seen as insufficient, and the tragedy remains a symbol of industrial negligence and environmental injustice.

  • Utilitarisms- provide medical care, cleaning up, prevention

  • Duty ethics-neglecting safety protocals

  • Rights-victims rights to have a safe environment

  • Union Carbide (Company): Showed vices like greed, irresponsibility, and dishonesty by prioritizing profit over safety

    1. Problem Solving Techniques

  • Cost-Benefit-Analysis: Decision-making from a utilitarian perspective.

  • Flow Charting: Clear paths of action for specific circumstances (compatible with duty ethics).

    • No "one true" flow chart exists; preparing multiple charts may be useful.

    • Flow charts can thoroughly explore potentially dangerous scenarios.

    • Thinking through good behavior beforehand allows for more efficient action in critical situations.

  • Line Drawing: Useful when there's no clear direction (compatible with multiple approaches).

Line Drawing

  • The situation is not always clear: Sometimes the criteria to identify danger are within a certain range, or other factors need to be considered

  • Line drawing helps identify specific problematic cases.

  • Classify other cases as more or less problematic.

Procedure

  1. Identify a positive ("best case") and a negative ("worst case") scenario to form the spectrum's ends.

  2. Start from both sides and think of scenarios that are incrementally worse than the “best case”, and scenarios that are incrementally better than the worst case

  3. Think about range of scenarios that seem more or less problematic

  4. Place these scenarios on the spectrum

  5. Finally, place yourself on the spectrum to “draw your line”

Example

  • Problem Statement (P):

    • A company proposes dumping slightly hazardous waste into a lake, a town's drinking water source.

    • The waste concentration is expected to be 5 parts per million (ppm).

    • The EPA limit is 10 ppm.

    • No health problems are expected at 5 ppm, and consumers won't detect the compound.

  • Positive paradigm (PP):

    • The water supply for the town stays completely clean and safe

  • Negative paradigm (NP):

    • Toxic levels of waste are put into the lake.

  • Step 2: Develop scenarios and place them on the spectrum between NP and PP:

    1. The company dumps the chemical into the lake. At 5 ppm, the chemical will be harmless, but the water will have an unusual taste.

    2. The chemical can be effectively removed by the existing water-treatment system.

    3. 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.

    5. Occasionally, exposure to the chemical can make people feel ill, 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.

  • Step 3: Place yourself on the spectrum to "draw your line."

Challenger Disaster 1986

The Challenger Disaster occurred on January 28, 1986, when the NASA Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch, killing all seven crew members, including teacher Christa McAuliffe. The cause was a failed O-ring sealin a solid rocket booster, worsened by cold weather. Engineers warned against launching, but NASA proceeded under pressure. An investigation revealed poor decision-making and ignored safety concerns. The tragedy highlighted the importance of ethical responsibility, communication, and safety in high-risk missions.