Engineering Ethics

Ethical Theories and Application

Emeritus Prof. G.P. Rangaiah

Department of Chemical & Biomolecular
Engineering @ NUS

Dr. GP Rangaiah
 Ethical Theories and Application
Contents
➢ Disaster at Bhopal
➢ Introduction
➢ Ethical Theories
✓ Utilitarianism
✓ Cost-Benefit Analysis
✓ Duty Ethics
✓ Rights Ethics
✓ Virtue Ethics
✓ Golden Rule and Universalizability
✓ Application of Ethical Theories
✓ Personal versus Corporate Morality
➢ Ethical Theories versus Code of Ethics
➢ Case Study
Dr. GP Rangaiah 2
 Ethical Theories and Application
Learning Outcomes
✓ Describe several ethical theories

✓ Apply ethical theories to engineering situations

Reference: Chapter 3 in "Engineering

Ethics", C.B. Fleddermann, 4th Edition,
Prentice-Hall.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 3
 Disaster at Bhopal in Late 1984
➢ In a chemical plant, pressure-relief valve on a tank for storing
MIC (methyl isocyanate) opened accidentally.
➢ MIC released from the tank and formed a cloud of toxic gas.
➢ More than 2,000 people were killed and thousands more were
injured, many of whom were permanently disabled.
➢ Accidental release due to several factors: misconnected pipes
in the plant, safety systems broken or under maintenance, etc.
➢ Effects of toxic release were intensified by many people living
in the proximity of the plant.
➢ Many ethical questions on technology used, design,
maintenance, safety procedures etc.
➢ Generally, questions on balancing risk to the local community
and economic benefits to the larger community.
➢ How to assess and decide on economic benefit of an
engineering system and associated safety risk?
Dr. GP Rangaiah 4
 Introduction
❑ Engineering problem solving: learn relevant basics
and apply them to solve engineering problems
❑ Ethical problem solving: learn ethical theories and
apply them to solve ethical problems

❑ Ethical theory provides a framework for analysing

ethical problems
❑ Many ethical theories – only some are presented

❑ Ethical theory: organizes ideas, defines terms and

facilitates ethical problem solving in a consistent and
justifiable way
❑ Engineering/Scientific theory: similar or different?

Dr. GP Rangaiah 5
 Introduction

❑ Development/History of Ethical Thought

❑ Ancient philosophers
▪ Socrates and Aristotle of Greece
▪ Kongzi/Confucius of China

❑ Religious thinking: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism,

Christianity, Islam etc.

❑ Ethical ideas refined over time: Philosophers such

as Locke, Kant and Mill wrote about moral/ethical
issues (without relying on religion for their moral
thinking).

Dr. GP Rangaiah 6
 Introduction

❑ Do key moral principles depend on philosopher

and/or religion?

❑ Ethical theory descriptive and/or prescriptive?

▪ Descriptive: serving to describe
▪ Prescriptive: relating to the imposition of a rule or method

Dr. GP Rangaiah 7
 Ethical Theories

✓ Utilitarianism

✓ Cost-Benefit Analysis

✓ Duty Ethics

✓ Rights Ethics

✓ Virtue Ethics

✓ Golden Rule and Universalizability

✓ Which Ethical Theory to Use?

✓ Personal versus Corporate Morality

Dr. GP Rangaiah 8
 Ethical Theories - Utilitarianism

❑ Right/good actions are those that maximize human

well-being (i.e., benefit to the society)

❑ Fundamental to many types of engineering analysis

❑ Focus is on society and not on individual(s)

❑ Building of dams: benefits (e.g., water and power)

to society versus displacement of people living in
areas that will be flooded by the building of a dam

Dr. GP Rangaiah 9
 Ethical Theories - Utilitarianism
❑ Any limitations or objections to Utilitarianism?
▪ Easy to find who benefits and who bears costs?
▪ Possible to correctly quantify benefits and/or costs?
▪ Possible to anticipate all consequences over project’s life?
▪ Possible to assess environmental impact over project’s life?
▪ Easy to estimate benefits and costs in the future
▪ Lot of uncertainty in assessing benefits and costs

▪ Benefits are for society whereas harm (e.g., to health and

livelihood) is borne by some individuals
▪ OK to ignore harm caused to some individuals?

❑ Building of dams: benefits to the society versus displacement

of people living in areas that will be flooded by the dam

Dr. GP Rangaiah 10
 Ethical Theories – Cost-Benefit Analysis

❑ Cost-benefit analysis is an application of Utilitarianism.

❑ Its limitations and objections are similar to those of

Utilitarianism.

❑ Goal of Cost-Benefit Analysis: determine feasibility

of a project based on costs/benefits

❑ Goal of Ethical Analysis: determine ethical/right path

❑ Ethical Problem solving: find all possible actions and

then determine the ethical path

Dr. GP Rangaiah 11
 Ethical Theories – Duty Ethics

❑ Focus on Duties of Individuals (and not on Society)

❑ Moral duties are fundamental, universal and express

respect for others
▪ Be Honest
▪ Don’t Cause Suffering to Other People
▪ Be Fair to Others
▪ Golden Rule (discussed later)
▪ Etc.

❑ According to Duty Ethics, ethical actions should be as

per moral duties.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 12
 Ethical Theories – Rights Ethics

❑ Duty Ethics and Rights Ethics are two sides of the

same coin (complementary)

❑ Both Duty Ethics and Rights Ethics respect individual

persons

❑ Humans have the right to life, liberty and property,

and other people have a duty to respect these rights

Dr. GP Rangaiah 13
 Rights and (Corresponding) Duties

Rights Duties
Don has a right life. Others have a duty not kill Don.
Don has a right to bodily Others have a duty not to cause bodily harm to
integrity. Don.
Don has a right to free action. Others have a duty not to coerce Don.
Don has a right to free Others have a duty not to prevent Don from
speech. speaking freely.
Don has a right not to be Others have a duty not to cheat or deceive or
cheated or deceived or stolen. steal from Don.
Don has a right not to be Others have a duty not to disrespect Don.
disrespected.
Don has a right to privacy. Others have a duty not to invade Don’s privacy.
Don has a right to non- Others have a duty not to deny Don based on
discrimination. race, religion, gender etc.
Don has a right to property. Others have a duty not bar Don opportunities for
free and fair competition for property and its use.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 14
 Ethical Theories – Duty and Rights Ethics

❑ Limitations of Both Duty and Rights Ethics

❑ Rights of one person/group may conflict with those of

another group. Then, whose rights have priority?

❑ Building of dams: benefits to the society versus

displacement of people living in areas that will be
flooded by the dam
▪ People likely to be displaced have a right to their property
whereas others have a right to benefits from the dam.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 15
 Ethical Theories – Duty and Rights Ethics

❑ Both Duty and Rights Ethics do not resolve this

conflict between duties/rights of one group against
those of another group

❑ Both Duty and Rights Ethics do not always account

for the overall good of society.

❑ In Duty/Rights Ethics, good of a single individual is

paramount compared to that for society as a whole.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 16
 Ethical Theories – Virtue Ethics
❑ Actions are right if they support virtues

❑ Virtues: good character traits

▪ Honesty, Responsibility, Competence, Loyalty,
Trustworthiness, Fairness, Caring, Respect etc.
❑ Vices: opposite of Virtues

❑ Personal Ethics – applicable

to Professional Situations?

Dr. GP Rangaiah 17
 Golden Rule and Universalizability

❑ Golden Rule
▪ Appears in both religious and ethical writings

• “Do not do to others what you would not want others to

do to you” (Confucian version).

• “Hurt not others with that which pains yourself” (Buddhist

version).

• “Treat others as you would like them to treat you”

(Christian version).

• “No man is a true believer unless he desires for his

brother that which he desires himself” (Islamic version).

Dr. GP Rangaiah 18
 Golden Rule and Universalizability

❑ Application of Golden Rule

▪ Step 1: Analyze the situation to determine all
actions available.
▪ Step 2: Determine the consequences of each of the
alternative actions.
▪ Step 3:
A. Place yourself in the position of those who would be
affected by consequences of each alternative action.
B. Ask whether you would be willing to accept those
consequences.
C. A morally acceptable action is that you would be willing
to accept those consequences.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 19
 Golden Rule and Universalizability

❑ Golden Rule
▪ It is related to ‘Reversibility’ (i.e., roles are reversed).
▪ It is a specific application of ‘Universalizability’.

❑ Universalizability
▪ What is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or
wrong) in all similar situations.
▪ For example, a morally correct act is acceptable for
others to do similar acts in similar circumstances.

❑ Golden Rule and Universalizability can be used in

resolving ethical problems.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 20
 Application of Ethical Theories
❑ Application of Ethical Theories to resolve Ethical/Moral
dilemmas in Engineering: ethical or right action is
based on answers to questions such as
▪ Is this action honest?
▪ Is this a responsible action?
▪ Does this action demonstrate loyalty to my community and/or
employer?

❑ Exercise caution in using virtues such as Honor

▪ Honor meaning: dignity, integrity and pride
▪ Is ‘Honor’ a positive or negative trait?
▪ Wars and atrocities committed to preserve ‘honor’ of an
individual, family or a nation (honor or shame killing)

Dr. GP Rangaiah 21
 Application of Ethical Theories

❑ Ethical Theories
✓ Utilitarianism
✓ Cost-Benefit Analysis Use one or all these
✓ Duty Ethics ethical theories?
✓ Rights Ethics
✓ Virtue Ethics
✓ Golden Rule and Universalizability

Do different ethical
theories give same
conclusion?

Dr. GP Rangaiah 22
 Application of Ethical Theories
❑ A plant discharges hazardous waste into groundwater,
thus polluting water supply to people.

❑ Virtue Ethics: discharging hazardous waste into groundwater

is irresponsible.
❑ Rights Ethics: action of the plant can cause health problems
to people, who have the right to clean water.
❑ Duty Ethics: action of the plant causes harm to people.
❑ Golden Rule: is this acceptable if the roles are reversed?
❑ Universalizability: ok for all plants in a similar situation?

❑ Utilitarianism: economic benefits of the plant versus costs to

ensure clean water supply – conclusion same as above?
Dr. GP Rangaiah 23
 Personal versus Corporate Morality
❑ Corporates are entities and not individuals although
they are managed by a group of individuals

❑ Should Corporate Ethics be similar to or different from

Personal Ethics?

❑ Virtues are traits of individuals. Are they applicable to

corporates?
▪ Virtues: Honesty, Responsibility, Competence, Loyalty,
Trustworthiness, Fairness, Caring, Respect etc.

❑ Corporates often deal with individuals.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 24
 Personal versus Corporate Morality

❑ Should Corporates be honest and responsible in their

dealings with individuals or society?

❑ Corporates can be considered as pseudo moral

agents (individuals). This may or may not be
according to local law.

❑ Personal morality and Corporate morality are similar.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 25
 Ethical Theories versus Code of Ethics
Are Ethical Theories
similar or different from Code of Ethics?

❑ NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canons

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 26
 Case Study
Aberdeen Three is a classic case in books on engineering
ethics to illustrate the importance of environmental protection and
safety of workers exposed to hazardous and toxic chemicals.
The Aberdeen Proving Ground is a U.S. Army weapons
development and test center at a military base in Maryland with no
access to civilian non-employees. Since World War II, it has been
used to develop and test chemical weapons, and also for the
storage and disposal of some of these chemicals.
This case involves three civilian managers at the pilot plant at the
Aberdeen (Proving Grounds):
1. Carl Gepp, manager of the pilot plant;
2. William Dee, who headed the chemical weapons development
team; and
3. Robert Lentz, who was in charge of developing manufacturing
processes for the chemical weapons.
Dr. GP Rangaiah 27
 Case Study
Between 1983 and 1986, inspections at the Pilot Plant indicated
that there were serious safety hazards. These hazards included:
1) carcinogenic and flammable substances left in open containers,
2) chemicals that can become lethal when mixed together being
stored in the same room,
3) barrels of toxic chemicals that were leaking, and
4) unlabelled containers of chemicals.

There was also an external tank used to store

sulfuric acid that had leaked  750 litres of
acid into a local river. This incident triggered
state and federal safety investigations that
revealed: (a) inadequate chemical retaining
dikes and (b) corroded/leaking system for
containing/treating chemical hazards.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 28
 Case Study

In June of 1988, the three engineers/managers were indicted for

violation of RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act).
This act was passed by US Congress in 1976 and was intended
to provide incentives for recovery of important resources from
wastes, conservation of resources and control of disposal of
hazardous wastes. RCRA banned dumping of solid hazardous
wastes and included criminal penalties for violations of
hazardous-waste disposal guidelines.

The three managers claimed that they were not aware that the
plant’s storage practices were illegal and that they did things
according to accepted practices at the Pilot Plant. Since this was
a criminal prosecution, the Army could not help defray the costs of
the managers’ defense, and each of them incurred great costs
defending themselves.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 29
 Case Study

In 1989, the three engineers/managers were tried and convicted

of illegally storing, treating and disposing of hazardous wastes.
There was no indication that these three were the ones who
actually handled chemicals in an unsafe manner. But, as
managers of the plant, the three were ultimately responsible for
how the chemicals were stored and for the maintenance of the
safety equipment.

The potential penalty for these crimes was up to 15 years in

prison and a fine of up to $750,000 (in the year 1989). Gepp, Dee,
and Lentz were each found guilty and sentenced to 3 years
probation and 1,000 hours of community service. The relative
leniency of the sentences was based partly on the large court
costs each had already incurred.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 30
 Case Study
Problem 3.14: What does utilitarianism tell us about the
behavior of the Aberdeen Three? What do duty and rights
ethics tell us? In analyzing this, start by determining who
is harmed or potentially harmed by these activities and
who benefits or potentially benefits from them.

Problem 3.15: Can the actions of these engineers/

managers be classified as engineering or management
decisions, or both? Ethically, does it matter whether these
decisions were engineering or management decisions?

Dr. GP Rangaiah 31
 Case Study
Problem 3.16: Do you think that the Aberdeen Three
knew about RCRA? If not, should they have? Does it
really matter if they knew about RCRA or not?

Problem 3.20: What should the Aberdeen Three have

done differently? Should the lower level workers at the
plant have done anything to solve this problem?

Problem 3.22: Apply NSPE Code of Ethics to this

situation. Were the managers guilty of ethical violations
according to the code?

Dr. GP Rangaiah 32
 Ethical Theories and Application
Contents
➢ Disaster at Bhopal
➢ Introduction
➢ Ethical Theories
✓ Utilitarianism
✓ Cost-Benefit Analysis
✓ Duty Ethics
✓ Rights Ethics
✓ Virtue Ethics
✓ Golden Rule and Universalizability
✓ Application of Ethical Theories
✓ Personal versus Corporate Morality
➢ Ethical Theories versus Code of Ethics
➢ Case Study
Dr. GP Rangaiah 33
 Ethical Theories and Application
Learning Outcomes
✓ Describe several ethical theories

✓ Apply ethical theories to engineering situations

Reference: Chapter 3 in "Engineering

Ethics", C.B. Fleddermann, 4th Edition,
Prentice-Hall.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 34
 Ethical Theories and Application
❑ Suggestions for Self-Study

1. Read the Case: The Disaster at Bhopal (pages 50 to

51, Fleddermann)

2. Attempt Problems 3.6, 3.7, 3.10 and 3.13.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 35
 Case Study
Problem 3.14: What does utilitarianism tell us about the behavior of the
Aberdeen Three? What do duty and rights ethics tell us? In analyzing this, start
by determining who is harmed or potentially harmed by these activities and who
benefits or potentially benefits from them.

Who is (potentially) harmed:

▪ People working in the Pilot Plant and Aberdeen Proving Ground
▪ Aquatic life in the river and animals dependent on the river
▪ People living in nearby towns in case of major accident and
toxic releases
Who (potentially) benefits:
✓ US Army/Government from savings of costs/expenses for
proper storage (treatment and/or disposal) of chemicals
✓ Three engineers/managers by showing that they are keeping
operating costs low

Dr. GP Rangaiah 36
 Case Study
Problem 3.14: What does utilitarianism tell us about the behavior of
the Aberdeen Three? What do duty and rights ethics tell us? In analyzing
this, start by determining who is harmed or potentially harmed by these activities
and who benefits or potentially benefits from them.

It is not clear whether utilitarianism theory was used or not. From

the point of this theory, the three engineers/managers gave higher
priority to potential benefit to the larger society over potential harm
(from accidents and discharge of toxic chemicals) to some people.
More details are required for quantitative analysis.

The three engineers/managers were working in chemical weapons

development. So, they should be aware of chemicals, their effects
and RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) of 1976.
Hence, their claim that they were not aware that the plant’s storage
practices were illegal and that they did things according to accepted
practices at the Pilot Plant, is questionable.
Dr. GP Rangaiah 37
 Case Study
Problem 3.14: What does utilitarianism tell us about the behavior of the
Aberdeen Three? What do duty and rights ethics tell us? In analyzing this,
start by determining who is harmed or potentially harmed by these activities and
who benefits or potentially benefits from them.

Duty Ethics:
▪ Three managers have a duty not to cause bodily harm to people
working in the Pilot Plant and Aberdeen Proving Ground.
▪ Three managers have a duty not to cause bodily harm to people
living in nearby towns.
▪ Any duty to protect the environment?
Rights Ethics:
✓ People working in the Pilot Plant and Aberdeen Proving Ground
have a right to life and bodily integrity.
✓ People living in nearby towns have a right to life and bodily
integrity.
Dr. GP Rangaiah 38
 Case Study
Problem 3.14: What does utilitarianism tell us about the behavior of the
Aberdeen Three? What do duty and rights ethics tell us? In analyzing this,
start by determining who is harmed or potentially harmed by these activities and
who benefits or potentially benefits from them.

How about Virtue Ethics?

▪ Honesty, Responsibility, Competence, Loyalty, Trustworthiness,
Fairness, Caring, Respect etc.

▪ Three managers have a duty not to cause bodily harm to people

working in the Pilot Plant and Aberdeen Proving Ground.
▪ Three managers have a duty not to cause bodily harm to people
living in nearby towns.
▪ Loyalty/Responsibility towards their employer (in regards to
costs/profits, work quality, reputation/image …)

Dr. GP Rangaiah 39
 Case Study
Problem 3.15: Can the actions of these engineers/managers be
classified as engineering or management decisions, or both?
Ethically, does it matter whether these decisions were
engineering or management decisions?

▪ The three engineers/managers probably had technical

qualifications and/or experience.
▪ They were supervising/leading technical departments.
▪ Hence, their actions can be classified as engineering
decisions.
▪ In any case, it does not matter whether their actions are
engineering or management decisions.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 40
 Case Study

Problem 3.22: Apply NSPE Code of Ethics to this situation. Were

the managers guilty of ethical violations according to the code?

❑ NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canons

1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 41
 Case Study

Problem 3.16: Do you think that the Aberdeen Three knew about
RCRA? If not, should they have? Does it really matter if they knew
about RCRA or not?

❑ From the description, it is not clear whether the Aberdeen

Three knew about RCRA.
❑ RCRA was passed around 10 years earlier in 1976. Aberdeen
Three are dealing with chemical weapons development.
Hence, I think that Aberdeen Three knew about RCRA. If not,
they should have learnt about it.
❑ Actions of Aberdeen Three endanger people and
environment. So, it does not matter whether they knew about
RCRA or not.

Dr. GP Rangaiah 42
 Case Study
Problem 3.20: What should the Aberdeen Three have done
differently? Should the lower level workers at the plant have done
anything to solve this problem?

❑ Aberdeen Three should have learnt about RCRA, and

implemented better equipment, maintenance and monitoring
practices for handling hazardous chemicals, in consultation
with the workers/engineers under their supervision. They
should have taken the initiative to develop safety culture in
their plant.
❑ The given description does not cover what the lower level
workers at the plant have done. In any case, all handling
hazardous chemicals have responsibility to identify and bring
safety issues to the attention of their supervisors. The workers
can discuss among themselves and, in the extreme case, can
whistle blow.
Dr. GP Rangaiah 43