ethics case#1

8/18/2019 Ethics Case#1

1/19

Assignment #1Assignment #1

An Airplane Manufacturing CaseAn Airplane Manufacturing Case

moral and ethics in engineering professionmoral and ethics in engineering profession


2/19

Case #1 : An Airplane Manufacturing Case

An air plane manufacturer has spent a great deal of moneydeveloping new airplane. The company badly needs cash because

it is financially overextended. f it does not get some large orderssoon! it will have to close down part of its operation. "oing thatwill put several thousand worers out of $obs. The result will bedisastrous not only for the worers but also for the town in whichthey live. The president of the company has been trying to

interest the government of a foreign country in a large purchase.%e learns that one of the ey government ministers in charge of maing the final decision is heavily in debt because of gambling.%e &uietly contacts that minister and offers him 'M1( million inCash if he awards the contract for ) planes to his firm. TheMoney is paid and the contract is awarded. The president arguesthat his action is $ustifiable because the business! the worers* $ob!and the town were all saved+ the minister was able to pay hisdebts+ and the foreign country received the planes it needed. The,ood produced! he argues! is greater than any harm doneby the payment to the minister. s he correct-


3/19

Discussion Questions

1. Did the airplane manufacturer use a utilitarian analysisto justify his action. Apply act-utilitarianism andrule –utilitarianism in resolving the moral problem.

2. Do you find utilitarianism a plausible approach indeciding the morality of an action? hy or !hy not?


4/19

1. Accurately state the action to be evaluated.

. dentify all those who are directly and indirectly affectedby the action.

/. Consider whether there is some dominant! obviousconsideration that carries such importance as tooutweigh other considerations.

0. pecify all the pertinent good and bad conse&uences ofthe action for those directly affected! as far as into thefuture as appears appropriate! and imaginativelyconsider various possible outcomes and the lielihood oftheir occurring.

). 2eigh the total good results against the total badresults! considering &uantity! duration! propin&uity orremoteness! fecundity! and purity for each value! andthe relative importance of these values.

T34 56 A 7T8TA'A9 A98


5/19

;. Carry out a similar analysis! if necessary! for thoseindirectly affected! as well as for society as a whole.

. Compare the results of the various actions. The action

that produces the most good among those available isthe morally proper action to perform.

T34 56 A 7T8TA'A9 A98


6/19

2hat is the moral ssue-

? 2hat we wish to evaluate-

T34 56 A 7T8TA'A9 A98

? 2hat the statements in this case try to implicitlyadvocating

@ s it that all firms should be allowed to bribegovernment 5fficials when they have theopportunity to do so-

@ or perhaps the rule is that only firms infinancially difficulty should be allowed to bribegovt. officials.

ribery from a utilitarian point of view

The 4resident used a truncated act utilitarian approach.


7/19

T34 56 A 7T8TA'A9 A98

1. An important ,ovt. official. The foreign govt. that

purchased planes/. The air plane company

0. 2orers at the plant). The town

Those affected by the action:

1. etter off financially. ,ood design and

wormanship/. ,ot the contract and

stayed in business0. "id not lose the $obs). enefited

The argument appears to be utilitarian asit evaluates the results of the action,weigh the good against the bad , andargues that the good outweighs the bad.


8/19

T34 56 A 7T8TA'A9 A98

1. An important ,ovt. official. The foreign govt. thatpurchased planes

/. The air plane company

0. 2orers at the plant). The town;. The competitors

The argument appears to be utilitarian asit evaluates the results of the action,weigh the good against the bad , andargues that the good outweighs the bad.


9/19

T34 56 A 7T8TA'A9 A98

? Act utilitarianism holds that each individual action!in all its correctness and in all its details! is what shouldsub$ected to the utilitarian test.

? Act utilitarianism demands that we guess allconse&uences of a particular act B something wecannot possibly do with any degree of accuracy.

? 'ule utilitarianism maintains that the proper principlesof right and wrong are those that would maximie

happiness if society adopted them.

? 'ule utilitarianism ass us to consider the generalconse"uences of the ind of act in &uestion

Characteriing the action-


10/19

Analysis

contract might not have been awarded all of the bad conse&uences indicated would have

taen place

no good would have been achieved

2hat would be the conse&uences of the alternative action@ not to give the bribe -

The president used a truncated actutilitarian approach. The argumentmay sound plausible . Nevertheless,our moral standard tell us thatbribery is immoral.


11/19

Analysis

s it that utilitarian does not wor in this case-

Must broaden the picture!

IT WORKS! But it has not been properly used here.

? one sided version of the situation

? it describes the thining of the president of the company

? and are not the same as a moral point of view

? #he moral point of vie! is objective and considersall conse"uences of an action for all the peopleaffected by it.


12/19

Analysis

s it that utilitarian does not wor in this case-

Must broaden the picture!

IT WORKS! But it has not been properly used here.

one sided version of the situation

it describes the thining of the president of the company

and are not the same as a moral point of view

#he moral point of vie! is objective and considersall conse"uences of an action for all the peopleaffected by it.


13/19

3valuation

The dominant consideration in evaluating all of them is theharm done to the system of doing businessD

? to the notion of fair competition? to the e&uality of opportunity assumed in business

? to the other competing firms and their employees? to the integrity of govt. officials

6ull examination of the conse&uences of the president*saction will show the action to be morally un$ustifiable.

what are the conse&uences of the bribe for the public official- consider the effects on the general public. consider the effect on the general system of bidding .. 5n the practice of competition! D on the integrity of those engaged in these practices


14/19

3valuation

The use of utilitarian calculation does not provide anautomatic guarantee of morality.

To produce a morally $ustifiable result! it must beimpartial taes into account the immediate and future

conse&uences for all concerned.


15/19

Conse&uentialist moral theories see the moralrightness of actions as a function of their results. f theconse&uences are good! the action is right+ if they arebad! the action is wrong.

9onconse&uentialist moral theories see other factors as also relevant to the determination of right and wrong.

7tilitarianism maintains that the morality right action isthe one that provides the greatest happiness for all those

affected .

n an engineering and other organiational context!utilitarianism provides an ob$ective way to resolveconflicts of self@interest and encourages realistic andresult@oriented approach to moral decision maing.


16/19

Critics contend that EaF utilitarianism is not really worable EbF some actions are wrong even if they produce good

results! andEcF utilitarianism incorrectly overloos considerations of

$ustice and distribution of happiness.

Gant*s theory is an important example of a purelynonconse&uentialist approach to ethics. Gant held thatonly when we act from duty does our action have moral

worth. ,ood will is the only thing that is good in itself.

Gant*s categorical imperative states that an action ismorally right if and only if we can will that maximrepresented by the action be a universal law.


17/19

Gant*s categorical imperative is binding on all rationalcreatures! regardless of their specific goals or desiresand regardless of the conse&uences.

Two alternative formulations of the categorical

imperative :1. An act is right only if the actor would be willing to be so treated if the positions of the parties were

reversed.. 5ne must always act so as to treat other people

as ends! never merely as means.

Gant*s ethics in$ects a humanistic element into moraldecision maing and stresses the importance of acting

on principle and from a sense of duty.


18/19

Gant*s critics worry that :EaF Gant*s view of moral worth is too restrictiveEbF the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test

of right and wrongEcF the distinction between testing people as means

and respecting them as end in themselves maybe difficult to identify in practice.

9onconse&uentialists typically emphasie moral rights Bentitlements to act in a certain way or to have othersact in a certain way.

'ights can be negative! protecting us from outsideinterference! or they can be positive ! re&uiring othersto provide us with certain benefits or opportunities.


19/19

Hohn 'awl*s theory provides one approach to distributive $ustice.

The principles of distributive $ustice:1. each person has an e&ual right to the most

extensive basic liberties compatible with similarliberties for all! and. social and economic ine&ualities are arranged so

that they are both a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged

persons! and

b. attached to offices and positions open to allunder conditions of fair e&uality ofopportunity.

ethics case#1

Documents