general ethical case study in a test/exam situation, you (student a) noticed student b cheating. 1....

GENERAL ETHICAL CASE STUDY

In a test/exam situation, you (Student A) noticed Student B cheating.

1. Student B, justify your cheating.2. Student A, what would you do?3. What response are you likely to get

from the class given your action in (2) above?

4. If you were caught (Student B), what do you RECOMMEND to happen to you?

GENERAL ETHICAL CASE STUDY

Suppose a project was given to each one of you last week. Each of you are expected to work on the project and submit your reports individually. This project is assumed to comprise about 30% of your final course score.

Many of you have noticed the unseriousness of a

member of your class (Student A) in coming to lectures, submitting assignments and projects. Unfortunately, this behavior is also seen in this student in the work expected for the project. Incidentally, in the computer lab, one day before submission, you (Student C) saw this unserious student copying the entire text, formulas and graphs of another student B.

QuestionsQuestions

1. What ethical principles have been violated in this situation?

2. What response would you as Student C give to this situation?

3. As the lecturer, what response will you give?

4. What information do you think may prevent you from reacting as you have dictated in (2).

Professional Professional EthicsEthics

What is EthicsWhat is Ethics

Dictionary DefinitionDictionary Definition– Study of what is Study of what is rightright and what is and what is

wrongwrong Often not a useful definitionOften not a useful definition

– We will try to make it more useful to We will try to make it more useful to youyou

Definition of EthicsDefinition of Ethics

Sometimes it is crystal clear what is Sometimes it is crystal clear what is right and what is wrongright and what is wrong– Should you steal a diamond from Should you steal a diamond from

Tiffany’s?Tiffany’s?

Definition of EthicsDefinition of Ethics

Sometimes it is not so clearSometimes it is not so clear– Should you steal a loaf of bread to feed Should you steal a loaf of bread to feed

your starving child?your starving child?– Should you kill your enemy as being a Should you kill your enemy as being a

soldier during the war?soldier during the war?

Ethical Issues are Seldom Ethical Issues are Seldom BlackBlack and and WhiteWhite

Conflicting demands:Conflicting demands:Loyalty to company and colleaguesLoyalty to company and colleaguesConcern for public welfareConcern for public welfarePersonal gain, ambitionPersonal gain, ambition

Ethical standardsEthical standards are usually are usually relative and personal, there is relative and personal, there is seldom an absolute standardseldom an absolute standard

Why do we have codes of Why do we have codes of ethics?ethics?

““ a convention between professionals”a convention between professionals” ““a guide to what engineers may a guide to what engineers may

reasonably expect of one another”reasonably expect of one another” ““a guide to what engineers may expect a guide to what engineers may expect

other members of profession to help other members of profession to help each other do”each other do”

Why obey one’s code?Why obey one’s code?

Protects professionals from certain Protects professionals from certain pressurespressuresSuch as cutting cornersSuch as cutting cornersBy making it more likely that good By making it more likely that good

conduct will not be punishedconduct will not be punished Protects professionals from certain Protects professionals from certain

consequences of competitionconsequences of competition Legitimizes the profession Legitimizes the profession

Code of Ethics for Code of Ethics for EngineersEngineers(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineer)(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineer)

Fundamental CanonsFundamental CanonsEngineers, in fulfilment of their professional duties, shall:Engineers, in fulfilment of their professional duties, shall:

1.1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional dutiespublic in the performance of their professional duties

2.2. Perform services only in areas of their competencePerform services only in areas of their competence

3.3. Issue public statements only in an objective and Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful mannertruthful manner

4.4. Act in professional matters for each employer or client Act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trusteesas faithful agents or trustees

5.5. Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employmentemployment

Professional ObligationsProfessional Obligations1.1. Engineers shall be guided in all their professional relations Engineers shall be guided in all their professional relations

by the highest standards of integrityby the highest standards of integrity

2.2. Engineer shall at all times strive to serve the public interestEngineer shall at all times strive to serve the public interest

3.3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely to discredit the profession or deceive the publicto discredit the profession or deceive the public

4.4. Engineers shall not disclose confidential information Engineers shall not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consentpresent or former client or employer without his consent

5.5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interestsby conflicting interests

Code of Ethics for Code of Ethics for EngineersEngineers(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineers)(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineers)


6.6. Engineers shall uphold the principle of appropriate and Engineers shall uphold the principle of appropriate and adequate compensation for those engaged in engineering adequate compensation for those engaged in engineering workwork

7.7. Engineer shall not attempt to obtain employment or Engineer shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticising other engineers, or by other improper or criticising other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methodsquestionable methods

8.8. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of other engineers, nor untruthfully practice or employment of other engineers, nor untruthfully criticise other engineers' work. Engineers who believe criticise other engineers' work. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for actionpresent such information to the proper authority for action


9.9. Engineers shall accept responsibility for their professional Engineers shall accept responsibility for their professional activities; provided, however, that Engineers may seek activities; provided, however, that Engineers may seek indemnification for professional services arising out of their indemnification for professional services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protectedEngineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected

10.10. Engineer shall give credit for engineering work to those to Engineer shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due and will recognise the proprietary whom credit is due and will recognise the proprietary interests of othersinterests of others

11.11. Engineers shall co-operate in extending the effectiveness of Engineers shall co-operate in extending the effectiveness of the profession by interchanging information and experience the profession by interchanging information and experience with other engineers and students, and will endeavour to with other engineers and students, and will endeavour to provide opportunity for the professional development and provide opportunity for the professional development and advancement of engineers under their supervisionadvancement of engineers under their supervision

Case Study

The Challenger disaster is The Challenger disaster is the foundation of the the foundation of the

discussion.discussion.

Case Study: The Case Study: The Challenger Disaster Challenger Disaster 28 28

January1986January1986 Engineers who had built the Challenger knew it Engineers who had built the Challenger knew it

had not been tested in freezing conditions and had not been tested in freezing conditions and might not work correctly, thus endangering the might not work correctly, thus endangering the lives of the astronauts.lives of the astronauts.It had been tested down to 53 degrees (It had been tested down to 53 degrees (ooF)F)The forecast for the morning of the launch was The forecast for the morning of the launch was

for 29 degrees for 29 degrees The engineers recommended it not be launched The engineers recommended it not be launched They were overruled by their bosses, who gave They were overruled by their bosses, who gave

approval to NASA for the Challenger to be approval to NASA for the Challenger to be launchedlaunched

The Challenger disaster is The Challenger disaster is the foundation of the the foundation of the

discussion.discussion.

Robert Lund (VP for Engineering at Morton Robert Lund (VP for Engineering at Morton Thiokol)Thiokol)Recommends against the launchRecommends against the launchBecause of faulty O-ringsBecause of faulty O-rings

Jerald Mason (Lund’s boss)Jerald Mason (Lund’s boss)Asks him to reconsiderAsks him to reconsiderAsks him to think like a manager, not an Asks him to think like a manager, not an

engineerengineer

The O-ringsThe O-rings

DiscussionDiscussion

Engineering team indicates launches below Engineering team indicates launches below 53 degrees may have O-ring failure. 53 degrees may have O-ring failure.

““Prove it.” Managers ask for offline Prove it.” Managers ask for offline discussion. “Take off your engineering hat.” discussion. “Take off your engineering hat.”

Decide to launch anyway, temp predicted 29.Decide to launch anyway, temp predicted 29. NASA asks for further comments. Engineers NASA asks for further comments. Engineers

stay silentstay silent

Lund changes his Lund changes his recommendationrecommendation

Day of Day of LaunchLaunch

Right O-ring at 29 degrees, ice on shuttleRight O-ring at 29 degrees, ice on shuttle Puffs of smoke at launch padPuffs of smoke at launch pad Good luck: Blow-by causes oxidation Good luck: Blow-by causes oxidation

glaze to fill gaps in O-ring sealglaze to fill gaps in O-ring seal Bad luck: Worst wind sheer hits shuttle. Bad luck: Worst wind sheer hits shuttle.

Flex breaks glaze apartFlex breaks glaze apart Flames escape SRB and hit External Flames escape SRB and hit External

TankTank

The shuttle crashes seconds The shuttle crashes seconds after take-offafter take-off

Ethical ImplicationsEthical Implications

Why isn’t conscience Why isn’t conscience enough?enough?

It is important for the engineers to realize the It is important for the engineers to realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety of the public. of the public.

The The all seven crew members in the crew all seven crew members in the crew compartment compartment were not aware of were not aware of the design flaw in the design flaw in the cold effects on the O-ringsthe cold effects on the O-rings. .

The engineers had some knowledge of the flaw and The engineers had some knowledge of the flaw and the ability to foresee the potential dangers. the ability to foresee the potential dangers.

They had informed their superiors of the possible They had informed their superiors of the possible dangers, but they failed to insist in cancelling the dangers, but they failed to insist in cancelling the flight. flight.

They could have referred to the Code of Ethics before They could have referred to the Code of Ethics before making a decision.making a decision.

What’s the difference in thinking What’s the difference in thinking like a manager and thinking like like a manager and thinking like

an engineer?an engineer?

““ Managers, it might be said, are Managers, it might be said, are trained to handle people; trained to handle people; engineers, to handle things. To engineers, to handle things. To think like a manager rather than think like a manager rather than an engineer is to focus on people an engineer is to focus on people rather than on technical things.”rather than on technical things.”

What is “thinking like an What is “thinking like an engineer”?engineer”?

“ “to use one’s technical knowledge of to use one’s technical knowledge of things”things”

Asking Lund to think like a manager Asking Lund to think like a manager was asking him to ignore his technical was asking him to ignore his technical knowledge.knowledge.

What were Lund’s two What were Lund’s two ethical options?ethical options?

““ To either refuse to authorize the To either refuse to authorize the launch”launch”

““To insist that the astronauts be To insist that the astronauts be briefed in order to get their briefed in order to get their informed consent”informed consent”

What were Lund’s last What were Lund’s last resort?resort?

If getting no satisfactory response from his If getting no satisfactory response from his immediate superiors, they should exhaust immediate superiors, they should exhaust the channels available within the the channels available within the corporation.corporation.

If they notified the directors about the If they notified the directors about the captioned concerns but neither received any captioned concerns but neither received any response, “Whistle-Blowing” is always the response, “Whistle-Blowing” is always the LAST RESORT for their action.LAST RESORT for their action.

““Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who, believing that the public woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the interest overrides the interest of the organization he[she] serves, publicly “blows organization he[she] serves, publicly “blows the whistle”the whistle”

Whistle-BlowingWhistle-Blowing

Always the LAST RESORT, it indicates Always the LAST RESORT, it indicates serious corporate culture problemsserious corporate culture problems

Can be internal as well as externalCan be internal as well as externalDefinition depends on one’s point of Definition depends on one’s point of

view: view:

““Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who, Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he[sic] serves, publicly interest of the organization he[sic] serves, publicly “blows the whistle” if the organization is involved “blows the whistle” if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity.in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity.

Examples of problems that Examples of problems that might warrant whistle-might warrant whistle-

blowingblowing

• IncompetenceIncompetence• Criminal BehaviorCriminal Behavior• Unethical PoliciesUnethical Policies• Threat to Public Threat to Public

SafetySafety• Injustices to Injustices to

WorkersWorkers

Moral Guidelines to Moral Guidelines to Whistle-BlowingWhistle-Blowing

It is morally permissible for It is morally permissible for engineers to engage in external engineers to engage in external whistle-blowing concerning safety:whistle-blowing concerning safety:

1. If the harm that will be done by the product to the 1. If the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerablepublic is serious and considerable

2. If they make their concerns known to their superiors2. If they make their concerns known to their superiors3. If getting no satisfaction from their immediate 3. If getting no satisfaction from their immediate

superiors, they exhaust the channels available within superiors, they exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of the corporation, including going to the board of directors.directors.

Whistle-Blowing Whistle-Blowing (cont)(cont)

In order for whistle-blowing to be morally In order for whistle-blowing to be morally obligatory however, two further conditions obligatory however, two further conditions are given:are given:

4. He [or she] must have documented evidence that 4. He [or she] must have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his [or her] view of the situation is correct and the his [or her] view of the situation is correct and the company policy wrong.company policy wrong.

5. There must be strong evidence that making the 5. There must be strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm.serious harm.

SummarySummary

NASA knew about NASA knew about O-ring issueO-ring issue

Management Management ignored the advice ignored the advice of professional of professional engineersengineers

Space program set Space program set back several yearsback several years

Some good Some good changes at NASA changes at NASA resultedresulted

We all lose !We all lose !We all lose !We all lose !

If the “Ethics Rope” If the “Ethics Rope” Breaks,Breaks,If the “Ethics Rope” If the “Ethics Rope” Breaks,Breaks,

A Case Study in Engineering EthicsA Case Study in Engineering Ethics

1. A “1. A “personalpersonal” viewpoint -- consider ” viewpoint -- consider that “you” are the engineer facing the that “you” are the engineer facing the ethical issue.ethical issue.

2. An “2. An “impersonalimpersonal” viewpoint -- assume ” viewpoint -- assume you are aware of the situation, but not you are aware of the situation, but not directly involved.directly involved.

3. A “3. A “responsibleresponsible” viewpoint -- assume ” viewpoint -- assume that you are directly responsible for future that you are directly responsible for future decisions.decisions.

1. A “1. A “personalpersonal” viewpoint -- consider ” viewpoint -- consider that “you” are the engineer facing the that “you” are the engineer facing the ethical issue.ethical issue.

2. An “2. An “impersonalimpersonal” viewpoint -- assume ” viewpoint -- assume you are aware of the situation, but not you are aware of the situation, but not directly involved.directly involved.

3. A “3. A “responsibleresponsible” viewpoint -- assume ” viewpoint -- assume that you are directly responsible for future that you are directly responsible for future decisions.decisions.

We ask you to consider Sara’s ask you to consider Sara’s situation from situation from 3 viewpoints viewpoints::We ask you to consider Sara’s ask you to consider Sara’s situation from situation from 3 viewpoints viewpoints::

Sara… by the LakeSara… by the Lake

Sara has been reported to her HKIE Sara has been reported to her HKIE Engineer’s Board for a possible Engineer’s Board for a possible ethics violation.ethics violation.

She reflects on how she got to this She reflects on how she got to this point.point.

Sara… the early yearsSara… the early years

Graduated from a HKIE-accredited Graduated from a HKIE-accredited programprogram

Worked under the supervision of a Worked under the supervision of a chartered engineer for almost 4 chartered engineer for almost 4 yearsyears

Just before she took the Chartered Just before she took the Chartered Engineer Exam...Engineer Exam...

Sara and Sara and The Apartment The Apartment

ComplexComplex

Sara’s firm was retained to Sara’s firm was retained to investigate the structural investigate the structural integrity of an apartment integrity of an apartment complex.complex.

STRICTSTRICT confidentiality required. confidentiality required. Noticed no structural problemsNoticed no structural problems BUT, she did observe some BUT, she did observe some

apparent electrical deficienciesapparent electrical deficiencies

To Report, or NOT to To Report, or NOT to Report...Report...

Sara knew these electrical Sara knew these electrical deficiencies might pose a hazard deficiencies might pose a hazard to the occupantsto the occupants

She knew the client didn’t want to She knew the client didn’t want to hear bad newshear bad news

To Report, or NOT to To Report, or NOT to Report...Report...

She felt the strain of the strict She felt the strain of the strict confidentiality requirementconfidentiality requirement

She did not want to damage the She did not want to damage the client relationship...client relationship...

The Decision...The Decision...

She verbally informed the client She verbally informed the client about the problemabout the problem

She made an “oblique” reference She made an “oblique” reference to the problem in her reportto the problem in her report

Those Nagging Doubts...Those Nagging Doubts...

Later Sara learned the client did Later Sara learned the client did not disclose any of her concerns not disclose any of her concerns about the electrical deficienciesabout the electrical deficiencies

She struggled with whether she She struggled with whether she should have been more persistent should have been more persistent in making her concerns known.in making her concerns known.

She eventually put it out of her She eventually put it out of her mind.mind.

Questions for Questions for DiscussionDiscussion

As she felt the strain of the strict As she felt the strain of the strict confidentiality and neither to damage the confidentiality and neither to damage the client relationship, she struggled with client relationship, she struggled with whether she should have been more whether she should have been more persistent in making her concerns known.persistent in making her concerns known.

Based on the “Code of Ethics for Based on the “Code of Ethics for Engineers”, how did Sara resolve the Engineers”, how did Sara resolve the conflict in ethical standards with the conflict in ethical standards with the client?client?

How can an Engineer resolve a How can an Engineer resolve a conflict in ethical standards with conflict in ethical standards with

his client?his client?

For instance, engineers are expected to For instance, engineers are expected to investigate products for safety even if the investigate products for safety even if the client does not explicitly demand it.client does not explicitly demand it.

The public expects that engineers will do what The public expects that engineers will do what is necessary to protect them, than what is is necessary to protect them, than what is merrily required by the client, even if that may merrily required by the client, even if that may cause conflicts with their clients. (Rule 3 of the cause conflicts with their clients. (Rule 3 of the Code)Code)

However, when disagreements over ethical However, when disagreements over ethical standards arise between engineers and their standards arise between engineers and their clients, it is the decision of the engineer to clients, it is the decision of the engineer to either quit or continue work on the project either quit or continue work on the project

Time Passes……..Time Passes……..

Sara had became a chartered engineer

The Apartment Complex, The Apartment Complex, Again...Again...

Sara’s investigation of the apartment complex so many years ago resurfaced.

The Apartment Complex, The Apartment Complex, Again...Again...

Sara learned that the apartment complex caught on fire, and people had been seriously injured.

During the investigation, Sara’s report was reviewed, and somehow the cause of the fire was traced to the electrical deficiencies.

Thinking it OverThinking it Over

Sara pondered her situation.

Legally, she felt she might claim some immunity since she was not a chartered engineer at the time of her work

Professionally, she keenly felt she had let the public down.

Input from the Code of Input from the Code of EthicsEthics

Having carefully studied the HKIE Code of Ethics, Sara now realized that occasionally some elements of the code may be in conflict with other elements.

Input from the Code of Input from the Code of EthicsEthics

In her case, this was Canon 1 (her obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public) versus Canon 4 (her obligation to her client).


List some options whereby List some options whereby Sara might have resolved this Sara might have resolved this basic conflict.basic conflict.

Should Sara be responsible Should Sara be responsible for what happened? Justify for what happened? Justify your verdict.your verdict.

The VerdictThe Verdict

It is important for Sara, or any chartered It is important for Sara, or any chartered engineer, to realize the engineer’s paramount engineer, to realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety of the public. responsibility is for the safety of the public.

The occupants of the apartment complex were The occupants of the apartment complex were not aware of the electrical deficiencies. not aware of the electrical deficiencies.

Sara had some knowledge of city building codes Sara had some knowledge of city building codes and the ability to foresee the potential dangers. and the ability to foresee the potential dangers.

Sara had informed her client of the possible Sara had informed her client of the possible electrical deficiencies, but she failed to mention electrical deficiencies, but she failed to mention possible consequences of ignoring her concerns. possible consequences of ignoring her concerns.

Sara could have referred to the HKIE Code of Sara could have referred to the HKIE Code of Ethics before making a decision.Ethics before making a decision.

Sara Before the BOARDSara Before the BOARD

The meeting with the Charter The meeting with the Charter Board began early the following Board began early the following morning. morning.

The BOARD Finds...The BOARD Finds...

It is important for Sara, or any chartered It is important for Sara, or any chartered engineer, to realize the engineer’s engineer, to realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety paramount responsibility is for the safety of the public. of the public.

The occupants of the apartment complex The occupants of the apartment complex were not aware of the electrical were not aware of the electrical deficiencies. deficiencies.

Although not a chartered engineer, Sara Although not a chartered engineer, Sara had some knowledge of city building codes had some knowledge of city building codes and the ability to foresee the potential and the ability to foresee the potential dangers. dangers.

Sara had informed her client of Sara had informed her client of the possible electrical deficiencies, the possible electrical deficiencies, but she failed to mention possible but she failed to mention possible consequences of ignoring her consequences of ignoring her concerns. concerns.

Sara could have referred to the Sara could have referred to the Code of Ethics before making a Code of Ethics before making a decision.decision.

The BOARD Finds… continued

Canon 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public….

From the Code of EthicsFrom the Code of Ethics

If in the first place, Sara had notified her supervisor and even the board of directors about the captioned concerns but received no response. What was the last resort she could take?


Case Study of Engineering Error

• On June 12, 1972 A DC-10 left Detroit with 67 On June 12, 1972 A DC-10 left Detroit with 67 passengers, after reaching 12,000 ft, the cargo door blew passengers, after reaching 12,000 ft, the cargo door blew off, collapsing floor and disrupting all hydraulic controls off, collapsing floor and disrupting all hydraulic controls to tail section. Only the pilot’s skill and the light load to tail section. Only the pilot’s skill and the light load prevented a disaster.prevented a disaster.

• June 27, 1972 Daniel Applegate, Director of Product June 27, 1972 Daniel Applegate, Director of Product Engineering for Convair, the fuselage contractor, wrote a Engineering for Convair, the fuselage contractor, wrote a memo to his supervisors detailing potential problems of memo to his supervisors detailing potential problems of cargo door. The problem was first recognized in Aug 69. cargo door. The problem was first recognized in Aug 69. The same thing had also happened in a ground test in The same thing had also happened in a ground test in 1970.1970.

• Recognized design flaws - floor, latchRecognized design flaws - floor, latch

DC10 Cargo DoorDC10 Cargo Door • After the Detroit near-disaster, NTSB (National After the Detroit near-disaster, NTSB (National

Transportation Safety Board) investigation revealed Transportation Safety Board) investigation revealed several problems and recommended immediate several problems and recommended immediate design changes. FAA did not follow NTSB design changes. FAA did not follow NTSB recommendations. FAA director John Shaffer and recommendations. FAA director John Shaffer and Douglas President Jackson McGowan reached a Douglas President Jackson McGowan reached a gentleman’s agreement to voluntarily fix problem, but gentleman’s agreement to voluntarily fix problem, but no further official action was taken.no further official action was taken.

• In July 1972, Three inspectors at Long Beach plant In July 1972, Three inspectors at Long Beach plant certified that Cargo Door had been modified (but it certified that Cargo Door had been modified (but it was not). Two years later, after leaving Paris, was not). Two years later, after leaving Paris, DC 10 DC 10 Turkish jet’s Turkish jet’s cargo door blew off at 13,000 feet, killing cargo door blew off at 13,000 feet, killing 346 people346 people..

1974: DC 10 Turkish jet crashes near 1974: DC 10 Turkish jet crashes near Paris, killing 345Paris, killing 345

Why Did This Accident Why Did This Accident Happen?Happen?

• McDonnell Douglas was in precarious McDonnell Douglas was in precarious financial condition - trying to beat financial condition - trying to beat Lockheed L1011 to marketLockheed L1011 to market

• Convair did not push too hard, since by Convair did not push too hard, since by contract, they may have been held liable contract, they may have been held liable for the costs of all design changesfor the costs of all design changes

• Engineers pressed the matter through Engineers pressed the matter through normal channels to the highest levels normal channels to the highest levels within both companies, but did not take it within both companies, but did not take it any furtherany further

Further action Further action Daniel Daniel ApplegateApplegate should take should take

for Preventionfor Prevention1.1. If getting no satisfaction from his immediate If getting no satisfaction from his immediate

superiors, Dan should exhaust the channels superiors, Dan should exhaust the channels available within the corporation, including going available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors.to the board of directors.

2.2. If Dan notified the directors about the captioned If Dan notified the directors about the captioned concerns but neither received any response, concerns but neither received any response, “Whistle-Blowing” is always the LAST RESORT for “Whistle-Blowing” is always the LAST RESORT for his action.his action.

3.3. ““Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he[she] serves, the interest of the organization he[she] serves, publicly “blows the whistle” if the organization is publicly “blows the whistle” if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity.activity.

Daniel ApplegateDaniel Applegate should be should be responsible for the responsible for the

incidentincident

– It is important for Dan, or any engineer, to It is important for Dan, or any engineer, to realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety of the public.is for the safety of the public.

– The passengers the DC-10 were not aware of the The passengers the DC-10 were not aware of the design flaws, they rely their safety on the design flaws, they rely their safety on the professional ethics of engineers. professional ethics of engineers.

– Dan had the knowledge and the ability to Dan had the knowledge and the ability to foresee the potential dangers caused by the foresee the potential dangers caused by the design flaws, but he failed to mention possible design flaws, but he failed to mention possible consequences of ignoring his concerns to the consequences of ignoring his concerns to the highest levels of management.highest levels of management.

– Neither “Whistle-Blowing” to the public if the top Neither “Whistle-Blowing” to the public if the top management did not respond.management did not respond.

A code of ethics does not A code of ethics does not make a person ethical make a person ethical

nor is it the mechanism nor is it the mechanism by which we solve by which we solve ethical problems. ethical problems.

Ethical decision-making Ethical decision-making involves a commitment to involves a commitment to

applying the ethics code to applying the ethics code to construct rather than simply construct rather than simply

to discover solutions to ethical to discover solutions to ethical quandaries.quandaries.

The decision-making process begins The decision-making process begins

with the question,with the question,

““Am I facing an ethical dilemma?”Am I facing an ethical dilemma?”

If the situation is one in which If the situation is one in which

personal and professional integrity personal and professional integrity

are being challenged, the answer are being challenged, the answer

will likely be will likely be

‘‘Yes.’ Yes.’

Ethical Decision Making Model

Am Ifacing an

ethicaldilemma

here?

What are therelevant facts,

values & beliefs?

Who are the keypeople involved?

State thedilemma clearly Analysis


What are thepossible courses

of actionone could take?

What are theconflicts

that arise fromeach action?

PROPOSEDCOURSE OF

ACTION


Evaluate:

1) Ethical Principles 2) Code of Ethics 3) Social Roles 4) Self-Interests

Does your proposedcourse of action

lead toCONSENSUS?

If YES – then proceed …


Am Ifacing anEthical

dilemmahere?

If NO

What are therelevant facts,

values & beliefs?

Who are the keypeople involved?

State thedilemma clearly.

Analysis

What are thepossible courses

of actionone could take?

What are theconflicts

that arise fromeach action?

PROPOSEDCOURSE OF

ACTION

Does your proposedcourse of action

lead toCONSENSUS?

If YES – then proceed …

Evaluate:

1) Ethical Principles 2) Code of Ethics 3) Social Roles 4) Self-Interests


SummarySummary

• Where you draw the line is your choiceWhere you draw the line is your choice• Corporate ethics begins with each Corporate ethics begins with each

personperson• You can be held personally and legally You can be held personally and legally

responsible for your professional responsible for your professional actionsactions

• It is important to understand your It is important to understand your company’s attitude toward ethics - it company’s attitude toward ethics - it should be a factor in your choice of should be a factor in your choice of employer employer

general ethical case study in a test/exam situation, you (student a) noticed student b cheating. 1....

Documents

professional ethics

profession slide

student c

class student

unserious student

professional duties

definition of ethics

absolute standard slide