\ s A MODEL FOR MORAL DECISION MAKE A Case for Discu on ~ “On Whistleblowing: Profit vs. the Common Good”! You are the manager of a toxic waste dump that is located outside of the Sacramento, California, The parent Company is located in downtown Los Angeles. Some years ago, a cement “pond” was built in supposedly impermeable soil. It was built to house toxic waste from the firm’s operations throughout northern California. When the toxic waste was combined with other chemicals, the waste was broken down, thereby rendering it considerably less toxic and therefore safe to be contained in the pond. This is worked well for a number of years. A few months ago, you noticed a change in the taste of the drinking water in your office and home. As a result, you ordered some tests to be run, and to your dismay the tests revealed some leakage that was moving toward the water table. The engineers who conducted the tests were not able to determine for sure if the waste was leaking into the water table, since the soil ot nd acts as a partial filtering agent. Being a responsible manager and concerned about the community, you report this to your boss in L.A. He consults with the top management of the company and their response isthe same as his, Because the faiity had passed the state inspection only a few months earlier, they chose to Gor the problem because of both the cost mvolvec in cleanup and their continuin lnanegwith the standards of the state. ~~ You maintain that the state’s standards clearly are not adequate, but the company is adamant. They will do nothing about the problem unless they are found to be in violation of state standards. You protest the decision, and they warn you to keep managing the facility and leave these other decisions to the appropriate people. Your dilemma, is compounded by the fact that whistle-blowers almost always lose their jobs (which you can ill afford to have happen, since you have a wife and three school-age children dependent on your income) and frequently are blackballed from the industry As the manager of the facility, what would you do in this situation? How would you justify your actions? What are the various options that you have as the manager? Perhaps as good a question as “What would you do?” in this situation is the question “How would you decide what (0 do?” The process of making a moral decision can be as important as the decision itself, and many ethical decisions that people encounter are so " See Case 12.3: "Profit Versus Environmental Concern” (pp. 301-502)Ubu ole L spt? | complex that it is easy to exhaust oneself talking around the problem without actually \a making any progress toward resolving it, The response to many moral dilemmas is “Where doIsiart?” and the person who is faced with these decisions often needs Lion, that will enable him or her to move constructively toward resolution and see the di forest as well as the trees, Not A prea” pub a Goiveune Jn order to adequately address the ethical dilemmas that people encounter regularly, the following is a model that can be used to insure that all the necessary bases are covered. This is nots formuja that will automatically generate the “right” answer to every ethical problem. Rather, itis a@uideling-that is designed to make sure that all the.tight questions are. being asked in the process of ethical deliberation. Given the ethnic and religious diversity of our society, it is important that the model used for making ethical decisions has “room” in it to accommodate a whole host of different moral and ethical perspectives. This model is not tied to any one particular perspective, but can be wwed-vomfortably with a variety of cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. This is not a distinctively Judeo-Christian model, though it is consistent with the Scripture, and anyone can use biblical principles is utilizing this model. What makes many moral dilemmas so difficult us that the Scripture does not speak to the issue as clearly as one would wish, because Scripture has not directly addressed the issue. More general principles can be brought to bear on the issue at hand. However, in these instances, there is often disagreement about which biblical principles are applicable to the specific issue under discussion. For example, in the case used in this chapter, the manager can appeal to a number of different principles to justify a wide range of options. He can invoke the principles of loyalty to one’s family a strong biblical imperative to justify not saying anything that will jeopardize his job and his ongoing ability to Support his family. He can also invoke the principle of “do no harm” to justify his responsibility to blow the whistle to keep the company from bringing harm to the community’s water supply. It is not clear that appeal to principles alone will conclusively resolve this case. Thus to insist that all ethical dilemmas are resolved simply by appeal to biblical principles seems to oversimplify the matter. Certainly many moral questions are resolved conclusively by appeal to Scripture, but there are other cases in which that does not happen. That is not to say that Scripture is not sufficient for the believer's spiritual life but that the special revelation of Scripture is often supplemented by the general revelation of God outside of Scripture. This model makes room for both general and special revelation and gives each a place in helping to resolve the difficult moral dilemmas facing, people today. Here are the elements of a model for making moral decisions:? ve ou hertines © fini? culluré of “Furtiness pares L. Gather the Faets Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying the facts of the case in question. In those cases that prove to be more difficult, gathering the facts is the 2 This model is adopted from the seven-step model of Dr. William W. May, School af Religion, University of Southern California; he used this model in his course “Normative Analysis of Isste eee 29 ~ pvalathe fic ~ tohat Bo we fora = ft Ce’ need fo bx Arcertatt = What ly me wetel fo duno? sential first step prior to any ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analyzing a case, we want to know the available facts at hand as well as any facts currently not known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one is asking not only “What do we know?” but also “What do we need to know?” in order to make an intelligent ethical decision. one estes eae peed wet Loe cyelaes / 1 the Ethical Issues ores bef The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests or goods. It’s these conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical dilemma. The issues should be presented in a versus format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding in a particular ethical dilemma. For example, in business ethics there is often a ht of a firm to make a fair profit ap its obligation to the .its_obligation to the 2. Deter conflict between the community/fin this case, that obligation pertains to the environmen 3. What Principles Have a Bearing on the Case? In any ethical dilemma, there are certair| moral values or principl9that are central to the conflicting positions being taken. It is critical to identify these principles, and in some cases, 1o determine whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily than others. Clearly, biblical principles will be weighted the most heavily. There may be other principles that speak to the case that come from the sources. There may be constitutional Va principles or principles drawn from natural Jaw that supplement the biblical principles that come into play here. The principles that come out of your sense of mission and calling are also important to consider. 4, List the Alternatives Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical dilemma involves coming up with various alternative courses of action. Although there will be some alternatives that you will rule out without much Thought, i general the more alternatives that are listed, the better the chance that your list will include some high-quality ones. in addition, you may come up with some very creative alternatives that you had not considered before. 5. Compare the Alternatives With the Principles this point, the task is one of eliminating alte Hrinciples that have a bearing on the case. In many instances, THe case. will be resolved at this“point, since the principles will eliminate all ateratve excep one, Tn fact, the purpose of this comparison is to see if there is a clear decision that can be made without further deliberation. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next part in the modelmust be considered. At the least, some of the alternatives may be eliminated by the step of comparison. 6. Weigh the Consequences If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration of the consequences of the semaining available altematives is in order. Both positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They should be informally weighed, since some positive consequences are more beneficial than others and some negative consequences are more detrimental than others. 7. Make a Decision Deliberation cannot gaan forever/At some point, a decision must be made. Realize that ome common element in ethical dilemmas is that there are_no easy and_painless solutions to them /Frequety the decision that is made is one that involves the least number of problerhs or negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them. CASE ANALYSIS “On Whistleblowing: Profit vs. the Common Good” 1. Gather the Facts Although you are in a management position at the facility, you do not have final authority over how the unit is run. * You believe that there is a leak of toxic materials into the ground water of your community, endangering the water supply. This belief comes from the experience as an engineer and a noticeable difference in the taste of the community's drinking, water. * Tests to determine whether or not the waste has reached the water table are inconclusive so far. + ‘The facility has met all tests and guidelines is with state environmental regulations. * You have a secure job with the company, and it supports your wife and your three schools-age children. * You are aware that people who blow the whistle on their employer are most often fired from their job and frequently are blackballed from the industry. * You have lodged complaints with upper management, and their response has been that they will not do anything about the site until the state orders the, to do so. * Upper management still holds you in high regard but is getting tired of your raising the issue of this leak with them. * You have started buying bottled water for your family and are discre encouraging your ftiends to do likewise. sued by the state. It is in compliance tlyPropit VO Certam Grok 2, Determine the Ethical Issues ethical issue in this ease resolve around the conflict vetoeen(rofit yd the Camoni Conpanis have a right to make a fair profit, and the profit provides jobs T food living to those in the community. On the other hand, companies also have a responsibility to avoid endangering the community in which they operate. Thus one ethical issue in this caseis the conflict between profit and the public good, namely, environmental protection. (b) A second ethical issue concerns the manager himself. He has a responsibility to family — to support them and not to do anything that would endanger that support. Yet he has an obligation as manager of the facility to do what he can to insure that it sis operated safely and does not harm the water supply of the community. ‘This issue can be stated as responsibility to one’s family.vs. responsibility to tl unity. Another way to state it is as conflict between the manager’ the truth (and thus protect the community) and his duty to take care of his family (by not jeopardizing his job). 3. What Principles Have a Bearing on the Case? ‘Asis often the case, here the ethical issues involve chiefly a conflict of principles. (a) For the manager, there are the principles of taking care of one’s family; the importance of truth-telling, especially in disclosing information that will prevent harm to the community; and the duty to prevent harm when one has the power to do so. (b) For the company, there is the interest in maximizing profit and in not unnecessarily making expenditures that decrease the bottom line. This is balanced by its, obligation to pursue profit in a morally responsible way. An additional principle that speaks to the case is that of employee loyalty to the company that supports him or her, thus not unnecessarily subjecting the company to risk and negative publicity. Here the weighting of the principles depends on the degree of risk that is known at this time. Should the chances of the waste leaking into the water table be great, that would cast more weight in the principles of truth-telling and one’s duty to prevent harm to the community. If the manager simply suspects that there is a leak and does not know how far it has proceeded, then the principles of loyalty to one’s company and family carry more weight. At this point, the manager does not have clear data indicating that the wasie is leaking into the water table of the community. But if he waits until the data are more conclusive, it may be too late to clean up the damage without major expenses being incurred, The fact that the facility has passed all state inspections to date is significant too, but frequently ethics involves responsibilities that go beyond mere compliance with the law. a4, List the Alternatives The pfanager has a number of options at his disposal. They can be summarized by two main-alteratives ~ make the information public, or keep quiet. (a) First, fre can somehow make public the information about the leak in the facility. In an effort keep the discussion within the company, he can run his own tests, perhaps at his own expense or 6n his own time to determine further if any leakage into the community’s water table has occurred. He can then take that hard data to upper management and request again, on the basis of new information, that they do something to fix the leak and clean up the damage. This is a prudent and moral first step that, should it prove effective, would satisfy all the principles that have a bearing on this case. However, ethical dilemmas do not frequently resolve themselves quite so easily. Let’ assume that the manager undertakes additional testing of the area and management still tells him to keep quiet until the state forces the company to take action. ‘Then his option for disclosing the information about the leak involve “whistle-blowing,” a term used in business ethics to describe the efforts of someone in the company to make public certain information about the co company’s moral or legal violations in order to attract attention to these violations in the hope that the company will be forced to comply either with the law or with what_an employee thinks are applicable moral principles. The manager has Various avenues open to him to blow the whistle, all of which involve a risk that he will lose his job. The first of these is also the most direct. He can take his concerns directly to the state environmental regulations and request that they schedule an inspection of the facility immediately, He can do this anonymously, but it is unlikely that his involvement can remain a secret for a long, given his past record of complaints to upper management about this matter. Thus whether it is done anonymously or directly, the result will likely be the same. Another avenue available to him is to take his concerns to the press., There he is assured of wide coverage, and perhaps-«-pyblic outory will be sufficient to persuade the company to remedy the problem. (However | the risk of losing his job_and_being blackballed from the industry are even greater rr if he uses this option, ) ive is to Keep the information to himself. He can continue to discreetly encourage his friends and others in the community to avoid the community’s drinking water, but even this suggestion to anyone beyond his close friends carries a risk that the information will get out of his control. Perhaps this is what he wants to accomplish, so that the burden of disclosing the information is on someone else and cannot be traced back to him, thus keeping his job safe. ‘Another approach under the second option is to clean up the waste and fix the leak himself, using his budget for the facility to fund the eléan-up and repair. This way he can safeguard his job as well as insure that the community’s water supply is safe. If this does not involve a substantial amount of money, it is a feasible alternative, clearly the best one. But for a problem of this magnitude, it is unlikely that it can be resolved withoutmaking a significant dent in his budget, if it can be afforded at all. A substantial amount of money, even if it is within his budget, will likely be noticed by upper management, ‘and he will risk his censure. But that is less of a risk than blowing the whistle on the company. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that the amount of money needed to fix the problem is more than the manager can obtain. 5. Compare the Alternatives With the Principles ‘The only way to get a decision at this point is to decisively weight one of the principles more heavily than the others, The principles of truth-telling and the duty to prevent harm suggest that the manager should make the information about the leak public. His obligation to the company and to his family suggest that he ought to keep the information to himself, at least until he can be sure whether the material has leaked into the water table. Knowing how far if at all the leak has progressed into the water table would help, but given the uncertainty of that important fact, let’s assume that no clear a 6. Weigh the Consequences The remaining alternatives are for the manager to somehow disclose the-infermatian or keep ito himself wt a eae ‘The consequences of fhe two alternatives form mirror images of each other. Phat is for the most part positive consequences of one option are the reverse of the negative consequences of the other. Thus the weight of the decision makers give to the various consequences is important to determining which set of consequences is the most beneficial or least harmful. ee! ‘The likely consequences of disclosing the information include the following: (a) The company will either be tested immediately by the state or it will be the object of much negative publicity. But remember, the facility is in Sacramento and the company’s headquarters are in Los Angeles, more than four hundred miles away. But if the water is tested and found to be substandard, the burden will be on the company to fix the problem. However, the facility may still pass the state tests. (b) The manager will likely lose his job for defying direct orders from upper management. He may be blacklisted from the industry and have to ployment in —, another field. His family may have to move. He may suffer significant financial dists@ss-—— But remember, if one is a religious person, he can depend on God’s sovereignty in situation like these and trust God to provide for the family when one stands up for principles like the good of the community. If the manager does not disclose the information, the likely consequences are the following:AG) The leak will continue unabated, perhaps heading toward community's water table. 4 1H The manager will have to live with the knowledge that he had the opportunity to save the community from harm and did not. eft s job will remain secure, as well his income and family stability Should the facility be investigated at a later point, he may be blamed for harm to the community and may be held liable. However, in his defense, he could refer to the correspondence that he initiated with the head office to alert them to this problem, thereby possibly taking himself off the hook. If the problem gets worse, at the least he will be held responsible by his friends and peers in the community. 7. Make a Decision ‘The decision in this case is difficult. What would you do in the manager's place? Is there sufficient evidence to justify going “out on a limb” and making the information public, either to the press of to the state? Does the biblical principle of self-sacrifice for the good of the community tilt the decision toward disclasing the information? Or does the community also include one’s family, giving the manager_a responsibility ta them f002, Where does the sovereignty of God enter into the decision? If the manager does not have religious faith, will his decision likely be different than if he does? Given the uncertainty about the exeprof tol, one could argue that it is best not to disclose the information at present. “by disclosing it, the manager has the chance_to-prevent-what_could_he substantial harm. Given that God Will care for his family that tilts the decision in favor of going public. ——