Resolving Ethical Dilemma

Making Moral choice

• 1.Utilitarian approach
• 2.Rights approach
• 3.Fairness approach/Justice approach
• 4.Common good approach
• 5.Virtue approach
 Utilitarian Approach
• The Utilitarian Approach assesses an action in terms of its
consequences or outcomes; i.e., the net benefits and costs to all
stakeholders on an individual level. It strives to achieve the greatest
good for the greatest number while creating the least amount of
harm or preventing the greatest amount of suffering
• So for any set of options it would view the most ethical option as the
one which produces the best balance of benefits over harm for the
most stakeholders. Outcomes may be quantified in such terms as
contentment and suffering, the relative value of individual
preferences, monetary gain or loss, or the short-term and long-
term effects of an action.
• In a business context, this approach might rely on a statistical
analysis of probable outcomes, a classic costs/benefits assessment,
and/or a consideration of the marginal utility of a consequence for
various stakeholders in the group.
Rights Approach
What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best
represents those rights?
The rights approach follows the belief that individuals have the ability to make their
decisions freely. It believes that if it does not respect everyone’s moral rights, it is wrong
to act.
Fairness/Justice Approach
Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable
reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?
This approach gives the individual the opportunity to reflect if the action is fair to the
people.
The Fairness Approach focuses on the fair and equitable distribution of good and harm,
and/or the social benefits and social costs, across the spectrum of society. It starts with the
premise that all equals should be treated equally, and those who are unequal due to
relevant differences, should be treated differently in a manner that is fair and proportionate
to, or commensurate with, their difference. A classic example would be the payment of a
group of employees at different salary levels based on the contribution their work effort
makes to the corporation’s profitability.
 Common Good Approach
Which course of action advances the common good?
This question helps drive our choice to decide if the action taken will be good for
ourselves and the community. It opens the door to other questions related to the type of
society we want to become and how to achieve that. The Common Good Approach
regards all individuals as part of a larger community. As such, we share certain common
conditions and institutions upon which our welfare depends. For society to thrive, we
need to safeguard the sustainability of our community for the good of all, including our
weakest and most vulnerable members. Some things that nurture a healthy,
functioning community are: stable family life; good schools; affordable nourishment
and health care; effective public safety; a just legal system; fair trade and commerce; a
safe, well-managed ecosystem; an accessible technological environment; a well-
maintained infrastructure; and a peaceful society.
Virtue Approach
Which course of action develops moral virtues? Each of us hold internal values and
morals that we strive to maintain and hold on to. This question reflects on what kind of
person you should be and what it will do to your character

Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the
quest to understand and live a life of moral character.
This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through
practice. By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person
develops an honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous
habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced with ethical challenges.
, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. And,
it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical
dilemmas.
•
Engineering Ethics Cases
• Whistleblowing City Engineer --adapted from NSPE Case No. 88-6 , (edited by Pilat, 11/5/03)
• http://www.onlineethics.org/cases/nspe/ec88-6.html
•
• Mario, the City Engineer/Director of Public Works for a medium-sized city, is the only licensed professional engineer
(and also a civil engineer) in a position of responsibility within the city government. This city has several large food-
processing plants that discharge large amounts of waste into the wastewater system during canning season. Mario
is responsible for the wastewater treatment plant and reports to James about its operation.
•
• Mario tells James that the wastewater treatment plant is not capable of handling potential overflow during the
rainy season and offers several possible solutions. James replies that they will face the problem when it happens.
•
• Engineer Mario privately notifies other city officials about the wastewater treatment plant problem, but James
removes the responsibility for the sanitation system from Mario and gives it to Chris, a technician who is normally
under Mario's supervision. James instructs technician Chris to report directly to him and confirms this arrangement
with a memo, which is copied to engineer Mario. Mario is also placed on probation. He is warned that if he
discusses the matter further, he will be terminated.
•
• Mario continues to work for the government as City Engineer/Director of Public Works; he assumes no
responsibility for the wastewater treatment plant, but continues to advise technician Chris without James's
knowledge. During the winter, heavy storms occur in the city. It becomes clear to those involved that if the
wastewater treatment plant's waste water is not released into the local river, the ponds will overflow and dump all
of the waste into the river. Under state law, this condition must be reported to the State Water Pollution Control
Authority.
•
• How would you respond to this situation? How do you assess engineer Mario's actions? What about James's
actions? What about technician Chris? What are engineer Mario's obligations1 to either James or the Public
Works Department? What are Mario's responsibilities2 for the environmental health of city residents? How
might these responsibilities be fulfilled simultaneously? Which takes precedence in case of conflict? What
additional information would you like to have, and what difference would it make to your assessment?
• Engineer A is employed as the City Engineer / Director of Public Works for a medium-sized city and is the
only licensed professional engineer in a position of responsibility in the city government. The city has
several large food processing plants that discharge very large amounts of vegetable wastes into the city's
sanitary sewer (wastewater) system during the canning season. Part of the canning season coincides with
the rainy season.
•
• Engineer A has the responsibility for the wastewater treatment plant and is directly responsible to City
Administrator C. Technician B answers to Engineer A.
•
• During the course of employment, Engineer A notifies Administrator C of the inadequate capacity of the
wastewater treatment plant to handle the potential overflow during the rainy season and offers possible
solutions. Engineer A has also discussed the problem privately with certain members of the city council
without the permission of City Administrator C. City Administrator C has told Engineer A that "we will face
the problem when it comes." City Administrator C orders Engineer A to discuss the problems only with him
and warns Engineer A that his job is in danger if Engineer A disobeys.
•
• Engineer A again privately brings the problem up to other city officials. City Administrator C removes
Engineer A from responsibility of the entire sanitary system and the chain of command by a letter
instructing Technician B that he is to take responsible charge of the wastewater system and report directly
to City Administrator C. Technician B asks for a clarification and is again instructed via memo by City
Administrator C that he, Technician B, is completely responsible and is to report any interference by a third
party to City Administrator C. Engineer A receives a copy of the memo. In addition, Engineer A is placed
on probation and ordered not to discuss this matter further and that if he does he will be terminated.
•
• Engineer A continues in his capacity as City Engineer/Director of Public Works, assumes no responsibility
for the disposal plant and beds, but continues to advise Technician B without the knowledge of City
• Idaho Falls City Engineer Refuses to Sign & Seal Project Designs
•
• A very important legal case has unfolded in Idaho Falls, Idaho. This case involves the issue of responsible charge, which goes to the heart of the
Engineering Profession. Ed Turner, PE, a member of NSPE, has been engaged in a protracted legal battle with the City of Idaho Falls over the past
three years. Ed was the City Engineer until he was forced to resign for refusing to sign and seal projects over which he did
not have responsible charge. The projects included land development plats or plans by private firms that Ed as City Engineer was required by
law to review and approve for the city (but not required to seal) and design documents done by city staff. He acted ethically and morally. His
conduct was exemplary and highly professional. Ed Turner, PE, the former City Engineer of Idaho Falls, Idaho has been waging a valiant battle on
behalf of the Engineering Profession. Ed sacrificed his career and economic well being as well as his peace of mind to uphold the highest
principles of the Engineering Profession and to defend the public’s health, safety and welfare.
•
• Ed had been a highly regarded and efficient City Engineer for Idaho Falls for over 27 years when he was forced to resign for refusing to sign and
seal projects over which he did not have responsible charge. A new city administration demoted him to make room for a non-Engineer, but still
required him to sign and seal plans over which he no longer had responsible charge. He refused because it was a clear violation of the Idaho
Professional Engineer Licensure Law. A non-engineer demanded that Ed perform actions that would violate his code of ethics and
the Idaho Engineering Licensure Statue in order to satisfy some special interests. To his credit, Ed stuck to his principles and upheld the
Engineer’s Credo which mandates that a Professional Engineer “live and work according to the laws of man and the highest standards of
professional conduct…” and “place….the public welfare above all other considerations.”
•
• The AEA (American Engineering Alliance) has concentrated its public relations effort on publicizing the Ed Turner legal case in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
As many of you know, Ed Turner has been engaged in a protracted legal battle with the City of Idaho Falls. Ed was forced to resign because he
refused to sign and seal projects over which he did not have responsible charge. He acted ethically and professionally. His conduct is a shining
example of true professionalism which all engineers should strive to emulate.
•
• The issues at stake in this case are so critical to the very survival of the engineering profession that AEA has committed considerable resources to
seeing that Ed Turner prevails in his lawsuit. AEA has taken the lead in mobilizing support for Ed Turner within the engineering community. We
intend to intensify our public relations effort until the mass media picks up this story and starts covering this very important case which has
major implications not only for the engineering community but also to the public at large