ENG 410: Professional and Ethical Practice

Lecture 3

Dr. Adel Ben Mnaouer

Office: B3-05

Email: adel@cud.ac.ae Phone : (04) 709 6146

 Outline:

• From Codes to Cases

• Moral Considerations

• Moral Reasoning & Case Analysis

 Today’s News – Washington Post
Caltrans fires tech accused of falsifying tests on:
 Los Angeles underpass on Interstate 405
 a bridge in San Bernardino
 an overhead freeway sign in Oakland
Says his work on SF-Oakland Bay bridge is safe

(Ben Margot, File/Associated Press)

 Today’s News – SJ Mercury
• “In 2006 and 2007 [the technician] tested the
structural integrity of 13 buried concrete and steel
pilings that hold up the tower for the eastern span
of the Bay Bridge …”

• “In six of the cases, [the technician’s] test results

showed no significant problems, even though his
colleagues found numerous sections of
questionable concrete density that needed more
scrutiny or repair. Caltrans said no safety tests
were fabricated on the Bay Bridge.”
Technician with history of falsifying safety tests fired from Bay Bridge project, San Jose Mercury
News, 11/14/2011
Part 1 (cont.):
From Codes to Cases
 Case 3: Acknowledging
mistakes
You are part of a team that has built a device. One of
your customers, who has bought one, maintains that
the device no longer works.

As part of the team that designed it you are uncertain

why the device doesn’t work, but after a conversation
with some of your colleagues you realize that the
problem must be on the side of your company. In fact,
you are sure that someone on your team must have
made a design mistake.
outlooksetting.com/2011/0x800ccc16-error-one-of-the-menacing-outlook-express-errors-out-there/#
 Case 3: Acknowledging Mistakes
You approach your boss and tell him that you are sure
that your team is responsible for the failure in the device.

Your boss says, “Well we will just replace it with a fixed

design. We don’t need to tell them we had to modify the
design. It could undermine our relationship with the
company; they might not come back for business.”

Should you go ahead and tell the client?

 Clicker Question
Suppose you quickly replace the defective device with a
redesigned model but don’t tell the client about the
design flaw. Are you violating the Code of Ethics?

A. Yes
B. I am not sure
C. No
 Understanding Your Obligation
• The code of ethics for engineers requires:
– You to avoid deceptive acts.

• Your boss is asking you to not reveal something

to the client because by not revealing it you
can maintain their confidence while at the
same time replacing the device.

• Are you violating the code of ethics?

 Deception by Commission vs.
Omission
• There are two kinds of deceptive practices.

• Deception by commission occurs when a person

tells a lie, such as when one reports data that one
knows to be false.

• Deception by omission occurs when one omits

something that another party has a right and
interest in knowing.
 What is the conflict?
• Your boss wants you to omit something because
doing so will help the company.
• Your client however has an interest in knowing
about the functionality of the product that you sell
them, since they use it.
• So, although your boss is not asking you to lie to
them and tell them that the product is fine. He is
asking you to omit the truth, which is in clear
violation of avoiding deceptive acts.
 What is more important?
• It is true that a company that makes too many
products that are faulty will go under.
• It is also important to recognize that a company that is
known to be unreliable in terms of owning up to its
mistakes is subject to being ostracized.
• Telling your boss that your team made a mistake is a
good thing. It shows integrity.
integrity Letting the client know
about that mistake shows courage.
courage It also brings
goodwill into the relationship between company and
client.
 Summing up
Being an ethical engineer requires:

• Knowing your obligations and duties as

specified by the code of ethics.

• Recognizing what your obligations require of

you.

• Being able to reason to a conclusion about

what to do by employing moral considerations.
considerations
 Part 2:
Moral Considerations
 What Are moral Considerations?
• Moral considerations come from moral theories.
theories

• They are considerations that moral theorists have

argued to be important in evaluating whether an
action or a way of being is morally right/good or
wrong.
wrong

• There are many different moral theories. Some overlap

in various ways. Others are completely distinct.
distinct
 Basic Categories for moral
considerations:
 Action-based theories maintain that the unit of moral
evaluation is action.
action
 On this account when we say that something is morally right
or wrong, we are saying an action is morally right or
wrong.

 Agent-based theories maintain that the unit of

moral evaluation is not action, but the agent.
agent
 On this account when we say that something is morally
right or wrong, we are talking fundamentally about a
way of being, and not specific actions.
 The Components of Action

Action
Intention Consequence

Intention = what you aim to accomplish by

performing the action.

Consequence = what actually happens as a result of

your action.
 An Action
 You and Bill are on the platform at the train station
in Zurich.

 You push Bill.

Is this a wrong thing to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_Zurich_main_train_station_platform_2.jpg
 The Matrix of Action

Action Intention Consequence

Pushing Bill To save Killed
Pushing Bill To harm Saved
Pushing Bill To save Saved
Pushing Bill To harm Killed

Action, intention, and consequence can vary

in a number of ways.
 Consequences Matter
 The consequences of what you do matter.
matter

 Consequences should always be part of what

you consider prior to acting.

 If your action has the potential to harm

someone or something (such as the
environment), that is something you must
take into consideration,
consideration when deciding what
to do.
Two Dimensions of Consequences
All actions have costs.
costs All actions have benefits.
benefits
Costs are the negative Benefits are the positive
consequences of your consequences of your
action. action

When thinking about consequences one must think:

(a)About both costs and benefits.

benefits
(b)About costs and benefits for all parties involved.
 Intentions Matter
• The intentions under which you act matter.
matter

• They should always be part of what you

consider prior to acting.

• Paying attention to your intentions and those

of others is important to assessing the moral
dimensions of performing an action.
 Two Dimensions of Intentions
• On the one hand,  On the other hand,
intentions matter in the intentions matter in
following sense: that when we are
choosing to act we
should consider:
• Intentions are valenced.
valenced
Some are positive,
positive such a) How we would feel, if
as the intention to save; we were acted upon in
and others are negative the same way.
such as the intention to b) If we are treating
harm. others with respect.
SOME NEW VOCABULARY
 Prima Facie Duty
Theory of W. D. Ross (1877-1971)
Definition: Duty that is binding (obligatory) -
unless overridden or trumped by another duty or
duties
Where there is a prima facie duty to do something,
there is at least a fairly strong presumption in favor
of doing it.
Example:
Example the duty to keep promises. - "Unless
stronger moral considerations override, one ought
to keep a promise made."
 Prima Facie Duties Matter
Consider when making moral decisions

Fidelity - keep one’s contracts and duties, and not

lie

Reparation – duty to make up for the injuries

one has done to others

Gratitude - duty to be grateful for benefits that

have been given to you
 Prima Facie Duties Matter

Non-maleficence - duty not to harm others physically

or psychologically.

Harm-prevention - duty to prevent harm to others.

Beneficence - duty to do good to others. To foster

their good will, wisdom, health and security.
 Prima Facie Duties Matter
Justice - duty to prevent an unjust distribution of
burdens and benefits. To be just is to prevent unfair
distributions of burdens and benefits in all areas of
life.

Non-parasitism - duty to not free-ride on society

either professionally or personally. It involves taking
only the appropriate benefits from the burdens one
has undergone.
 Applying Prima Facie Duties
• When reasoning with prima facie duties there
are two kinds of cases:

• Cases where duties do not conflict.

conflict

• Cases where duties do conflict.

conflict

• In cases where duties do conflict, we use rules

about priority in order to settle the conflict.
 Rules of priority
Non-injury overrides all other prima facie duties.

You can’t harm a person to save another.

Fidelity overrides beneficence.

You cannot forgo a contract in order to be kind

to someone else.
Part 3:
Moral Reasoning & Case
Analysis
What is required in Moral Reasoning ?
• Identifying the situation.
– What is being asked of you or your company?
• Recognizing the relevant factors.
– Who are the parties?
parties What are their rights?
rights What
are your companies obligations and their rights.
• Applying moral considerations.
– What are the consequences?
consequences What are the
intentions of the actors?
actors What prima facie duties
are at play?
play What virtues are at play?
play
 Cont’ed
• Proposing a position-of-action.
– What do you think should be done in the
situation? Why do you propose what you propose?
propose
Defending what you propose.

Introduction to Database Systems G51DBS

 What is not required in Moral
reasoning
• Having a defensible and thought out position-of-action
does not require that there are no other defensible
alternative positions of action.

• Having a defensible and thought out position of action

does not mean that you don’t have to listen to and
reason with others who are relevant parties.

• Having a defensible and thought out position of action

does not mean you should not seek advice also.
 Case Analysis I
 We learn to reason morally and come up with a
position-of-action by doing case analysis.

 Studying cases gives us an environment in which we

can practice reasoning about morality and what to do
in problematic situations without causing harm.

 Some cases are hypothetical, in that they never

actually occurred, but they could occur. Some cases are
actual, in that they actually occurred.

 In case analysis it is important to study both

hypothetical and actual cases.
 Case Analysis II
The steps for case analysis:

1.Read the case carefully.

2.Identify all the parties involved.

3.Identify all the obligations and rights involved.

4.Apply moral considerations.

5.Come up with a position-of-action.

 The Table Technique I
Step 1: make a table charting the relevant factors.

Party Intention: Consequences: Rights /

Involved Positive or Cost and Duties
Negative Benefit
 The Table Technique II
• Using the information in your table:

• Choose some combination of relevant factors to come

up with a position-of-action.

• Write out your position-of-action as an argument that

uses the factors you have chosen as reasons for your
position-of-action.

• Attempt to defend your position of action against

responses a person may have to your position.
 Reasoning from all sides
 A person that is good at moral reasoning can
often perform the following task:

 Defend a position, regardless of whether they

believe it.

 Reason for the opposing position, regardless of

whether they believe it.

 Identify possible positions that further

discussion.