Transcript Objective - City University of Hong Kong

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.
Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
What ethical principles have been violated in this
situation?
What response would you as Student C give to
this situation?
As the lecturer, what response will you give?
What information do you think may prevent you
from reacting as you have dictated in (2).
Professional Ethics
What is Ethics

Dictionary Definition
– Study of what is right and what is wrong

Often not a useful definition
– We will try to make it more useful to you
Definition of Ethics

Sometimes it is crystal clear what is right
and what is wrong
– Should you steal a diamond from Tiffany’s?
Definition of Ethics

Sometimes it is not so clear
– Should you steal a loaf of bread to feed your
starving child?
– Should you kill your enemy as being a soldier
during the war?
Ethical Issues are Seldom
Black and White
Conflicting demands:
Loyalty to company and colleagues
Concern for public welfare
Personal gain, ambition
Ethical standards are usually
relative and personal, there is
seldom an absolute standard
Why do we have codes of ethics?
“a convention between professionals”
 “a guide to what engineers may reasonably
expect of one another”
 “a guide to what engineers may expect
other members of profession to help each
other do”

Why obey one’s code?
Protects professionals from certain pressures
Such as cutting corners
By making it more likely that good
conduct will not be punished
Protects professionals from certain
consequences of competition
Legitimizes the profession
Code of Ethics for Engineers
(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineer)
Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in fulfilment of their professional duties, shall:
1.
Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the
public in the performance of their professional duties
2.
Perform services only in areas of their competence
3.
Issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful manner
4.
Act in professional matters for each employer or client
as faithful agents or trustees
5.
Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional
employment
Code of Ethics for Engineers
(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineers)
Professional Obligations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Engineers shall be guided in all their professional relations
by the highest standards of integrity
Engineer shall at all times strive to serve the public interest
Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely
to discredit the profession or deceive the public
Engineers shall not disclose confidential information
concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any
present or former client or employer without his consent
Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties
by conflicting interests
Code of Ethics for Engineers
(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineers)
6.
7.
8.
Engineers shall uphold the principle of appropriate and
adequate compensation for those engaged in engineering
work
Engineer shall not attempt to obtain employment or
advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully
criticising other engineers, or by other improper or
questionable methods
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely,
directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects,
practice or employment of other engineers, nor untruthfully
criticise other engineers' work. Engineers who believe others
are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such
information to the proper authority for action
Code of Ethics for Engineers
(Ref. National Society of Professional Engineers)
9.
10.
11.
Engineers shall accept responsibility for their professional
activities; provided, however, that Engineers may seek
indemnification for professional services arising out of their
practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer's
interests cannot otherwise be protected
Engineer shall give credit for engineering work to those to
whom credit is due and will recognise the proprietary interests
of others
Engineers shall co-operate in extending the effectiveness of the
profession by interchanging information and experience with
other engineers and students, and will endeavour to provide
opportunity for the professional development and advancement
of engineers under their supervision
Case Study
The Challenger disaster is the
foundation of the discussion.
Case Study: The Challenger
Disaster 28 January1986
 Engineers who had built the Challenger knew it
had not been tested in freezing conditions and
might not work correctly, thus endangering the
lives of the astronauts.
It had been tested down to 53 degrees (oF)
The forecast for the morning of the launch was
for 29 degrees
 The engineers recommended it not be launched
 They were overruled by their bosses, who gave
approval to NASA for the Challenger to be
launched
The Challenger disaster is the
foundation of the discussion.
 Robert Lund (VP for Engineering at Morton
Thiokol)
Recommends against the launch
Because of faulty O-rings
 Jerald Mason (Lund’s boss)
Asks him to reconsider
Asks him to think like a manager, not an
engineer
The O-rings
Discussion




Engineering team indicates launches below 53
degrees may have O-ring failure.
“Prove it.” Managers ask for offline discussion.
“Take off your engineering hat.”
Decide to launch anyway, temp predicted 29.
NASA asks for further comments. Engineers stay
silent
Lund changes his recommendation
Day of Launch
Right O-ring at 29 degrees, ice on shuttle
 Puffs of smoke at launch pad
 Good luck: Blow-by causes oxidation
glaze to fill gaps in O-ring seal
 Bad luck: Worst wind sheer hits shuttle.
Flex breaks glaze apart
 Flames escape SRB and hit External Tank

The shuttle crashes seconds after
take-off
The shuttle crashes seconds after
take-off
The shuttle crashes seconds after
take-off
Ethical Implications
Why isn’t conscience enough?





It is important for the engineers to realize the
engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety
of the public.
The all seven crew members in the crew
compartment were not aware of the design flaw in
the cold effects on the O-rings.
The engineers had some knowledge of the flaw
and the ability to foresee the potential dangers.
They had informed their superiors of the possible
dangers, but they failed to insist in cancelling the
flight.
They could have referred to the Code of Ethics
before making a decision.
What’s the difference in thinking like
a manager and thinking like an
engineer?
“Managers, it might be said, are
trained to handle people; engineers, to
handle things. To think like a manager
rather than an engineer is to focus on
people rather than on technical things.”
What is “thinking like an
engineer”?
“to use one’s technical knowledge of
things”
Asking Lund to think like a manager was
asking him to ignore his technical
knowledge.
What were Lund’s two
ethical options?

“To either refuse to authorize the
launch”

“To insist that the astronauts be briefed
in order to get their informed consent”
What were Lund’s last resort?



If getting no satisfactory response from his
immediate superiors, they should exhaust the
channels available within the corporation.
If they notified the directors about the
captioned concerns but neither received any
response, “Whistle-Blowing” is always the
LAST RESORT for their action.
“Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or
woman who, believing that the public interest
overrides the interest of the organization
he[she] serves, publicly “blows the whistle”
Whistle-Blowing
Always the LAST RESORT, it indicates
serious corporate culture problems
Can be internal as well as external
Definition depends on one’s point of view:
“Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who,
believing that the public interest overrides the interest
of the organization he[sic] serves, publicly “blows the
whistle” if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal,
fraudulent, or harmful activity.
Examples of problems that
might warrant whistle-blowing
•
•
•
•
•
Incompetence
Criminal Behavior
Unethical Policies
Threat to Public
Safety
Injustices to
Workers
Moral Guidelines to
Whistle-Blowing
It is morally permissible for engineers
to engage in external whistle-blowing
concerning safety:
1. If the harm that will be done by the product to the public
is serious and considerable
2. If they make their concerns known to their superiors
3. If getting no satisfaction from their immediate superiors,
they exhaust the channels available within the
corporation, including going to the board of directors.
Whistle-Blowing (cont)
In order for whistle-blowing to be morally
obligatory however, two further conditions
are given:
4. He [or she] must have documented evidence that would
convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his [or her]
view of the situation is correct and the company policy
wrong.
5. There must be strong evidence that making the
information public will in fact prevent the threatened
serious harm.
Summary
NASA knew about Oring issue
 Management ignored
the advice of
professional
engineers
 Space program set
back several years
 Some good changes
at NASA resulted

If the “Ethics Rope” Breaks,
We all lose !
A Case Study in Engineering Ethics
We ask you to consider Sara’s
situation from 3 viewpoints:
1. A “personal” viewpoint -- consider that
“you” are the engineer facing the ethical issue.
2. An “impersonal” viewpoint -- assume you
are aware of the situation, but not directly
involved.
3. A “responsible” viewpoint -- assume that
you are directly responsible for future decisions.
Sara… by the Lake

Sara has been reported to her HKIE
Engineer’s Board for a possible ethics
violation.

She reflects on how she got to this
point.
Sara… the early years

Graduated from a HKIE-accredited
program

Worked under the supervision of a
chartered engineer for almost 4 years

Just before she took the Chartered
Engineer Exam...
Sara and
The Apartment Complex
Sara’s firm was retained to
investigate the structural integrity
of an apartment complex.
 STRICT confidentiality required.
 Noticed no structural problems
 BUT, she did observe some
apparent electrical deficiencies

To Report, or NOT to Report...

Sara knew these electrical deficiencies
might pose a hazard to the occupants

She knew the client didn’t want to hear
bad news
To Report, or NOT to Report...

She felt the strain of the strict
confidentiality requirement

She did not want to damage the client
relationship...
The Decision...
She verbally informed the client about
the problem
 She made an “oblique” reference to the
problem in her report

Those Nagging Doubts...
Later Sara learned the client did not
disclose any of her concerns about the
electrical deficiencies
 She struggled with whether she should
have been more persistent in making
her concerns known.
 She eventually put it out of her mind.

Questions for Discussion


As she felt the strain of the strict
confidentiality and neither to damage the
client relationship, she struggled with
whether she should have been more
persistent in making her concerns known.
Based on the “Code of Ethics for
Engineers”, how did Sara resolve the
conflict in ethical standards with the
client?
How can an Engineer resolve a conflict
in ethical standards with his client?



For instance, engineers are expected to
investigate products for safety even if the client
does not explicitly demand it.
The public expects that engineers will do what is
necessary to protect them, than what is merrily
required by the client, even if that may cause
conflicts with their clients. (Rule 3 of the Code)
However, when disagreements over ethical
standards arise between engineers and their
clients, it is the decision of the engineer to either
quit or continue work on the project
Time Passes……..
Sara had became a chartered engineer
The Apartment Complex,
Again...

Sara’s investigation of the apartment
complex so many years ago resurfaced.
The Apartment Complex,
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 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 Ethics

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 Ethics

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).
Questions for Discussion

List some options whereby Sara
might have resolved this basic
conflict.

Should Sara be responsible for
what happened? Justify your
verdict.
The Verdict





It is important for Sara, or any chartered engineer,
to realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility is
for the safety of the public.
The occupants of the apartment complex were not
aware of the electrical deficiencies.
Sara had some knowledge of city building codes
and the ability to foresee the potential dangers.
Sara had informed her client of the possible
electrical deficiencies, but she failed to mention
possible consequences of ignoring her concerns.
Sara could have referred to the HKIE Code of Ethics
before making a decision.
Sara Before the BOARD

The meeting with the Charter Board
began early the following morning.
The BOARD Finds...
 It
is important for Sara, or any chartered
engineer, to realize the engineer’s
paramount responsibility is for the safety of
the public.
 The
occupants of the apartment complex
were not aware of the electrical deficiencies.
 Although
not a chartered engineer, Sara had
some knowledge of city building codes and
the ability to foresee the potential dangers.
The BOARD Finds… continued
Sara had informed her client of the
possible electrical deficiencies, but she
failed to mention possible consequences
of ignoring her concerns.
Sara could have referred to the Code
of Ethics before making a decision.
From the Code of Ethics
 Canon
1. Engineers shall hold
paramount the safety, health
and welfare of the public….
Questions for Discussion

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 passengers,
after reaching 12,000 ft, the cargo door blew off, collapsing
floor and disrupting all hydraulic controls to tail section.
Only the pilot’s skill and the light load prevented a disaster.
June 27, 1972 Daniel Applegate, Director of Product
Engineering for Convair, the fuselage contractor, wrote a
memo to his supervisors detailing potential problems of
cargo door. The problem was first recognized in Aug 69.
The same thing had also happened in a ground test in
1970.
Recognized design flaws - floor, latch
DC10 Cargo Door
•
•
After the Detroit near-disaster, NTSB (National
Transportation Safety Board) investigation revealed
several problems and recommended immediate
design changes. FAA did not follow NTSB
recommendations. FAA director John Shaffer and
Douglas President Jackson McGowan reached a
gentleman’s agreement to voluntarily fix problem,
but no further official action was taken.
In July 1972, Three inspectors at Long Beach plant
certified that Cargo Door had been modified (but it
was not). Two years later, after leaving Paris, DC 10
Turkish jet’s cargo door blew off at 13,000 feet,
killing 346 people
.
1974: DC 10 Turkish jet crashes near Paris,
killing 345
Why Did This Accident Happen?
•
•
•
McDonnell Douglas was in precarious financial
condition - trying to beat Lockheed L1011 to
market
Convair did not push too hard, since by
contract, they may have been held liable for the
costs of all design changes
Engineers pressed the matter through normal
channels to the highest levels within both
companies, but did not take it any further
Further action Daniel Applegate
should take for Prevention
1.
2.
3.
If getting no satisfaction from his immediate
superiors, Dan should exhaust the channels
available within the corporation, including going to
the board of directors.
If Dan notified the directors about the captioned
concerns but neither received any response,
“Whistle-Blowing” is always the LAST RESORT for
his action.
“Whistle-blowing” - the act of a man or woman who,
believing that the public interest overrides the
interest of the organization he[she] serves, publicly
“blows the whistle” if the organization is involved in
corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity.
Daniel Applegate should be
responsible for the incident
–
–
–
–
It is important for Dan, or any engineer, to realize the
engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety of
the public.
The passengers the DC-10 were not aware of the
design flaws, they rely their safety on the professional
ethics of engineers.
Dan had the knowledge and the ability to foresee the
potential dangers caused by the design flaws, but he
failed to mention possible consequences of ignoring his
concerns to the highest levels of management.
Neither “Whistle-Blowing” to the public if the top
management did not respond.
A code of ethics does not
make a person ethical nor
is it the mechanism by
which we solve ethical
problems.
Ethical decision-making involves
a commitment to applying the
ethics code to construct rather
than simply to discover
solutions to ethical quandaries.
The decision-making process begins with
the question,
“Am I facing an ethical dilemma?”
If the situation is one in which personal
and professional integrity are being
challenged, the answer will likely be
‘Yes.’
Ethical Decision Making Model
Am I
facing an
ethical
dilemma
here?
What are the
relevant facts,
values & beliefs?
Who are the key
people involved?
Ethical Decision Making Model
State the
dilemma clearly
Analysis
Ethical Decision Making Model
What are the
possible courses
of action
one could take?
What are the
conflicts
that arise from
each action?
PROPOSED
COURSE OF
ACTION
Ethical Decision Making Model
Evaluate:
1) Ethical Principles
2) Code of Ethics
3) Social Roles
4) Self-Interests
Does your proposed
course of action
lead to
CONSENSUS?
If YES –
then proceed …
Ethical Decision Making Model
Am I
facing an
Ethical
dilemma
here?
What are the
relevant facts,
values & beliefs?
State the
dilemma clearly.
Who are the key
people involved?
Evaluate:
1) Ethical Principles
2) Code of Ethics
3) Social Roles
4) Self-Interests
PROPOSED
COURSE OF
ACTION
Does your proposed
course of action
lead to
CONSENSUS?
If YES –
then proceed …
What are the
conflicts
that arise from
each action?
Analysis
If NO
What are the
possible courses
of action
one could take?
Summary
•
•
•
•
Where you draw the line is your choice
Corporate ethics begins with each person
You can be held personally and legally
responsible for your professional actions
It is important to understand your
company’s attitude toward ethics - it should
be a factor in your choice of employer