Engineering Ethics essay
It is possible to analyze Marvin’s response from the utilitarian perspective. Utilitarian ethics relies on the evaluation of positive and negative consequences for all stakeholders (Frederick, 2008). Immediate stakeholders in this case are Marvin Johnson, Edgar Owens and plant employees. Other stakeholders are people in the area and tourists. Ignoring the problem would lead to positive consequences for Edgar Owens and plant employees since the plant will not lose money and will be able to remain competitive. However, there will be minor negative consequences for the tourists and for the people living in the area due to the excess pollution. In the short-term perspective, however, the positive consequences from ignoring the increased level of pollution would overweigh potential negative consequences.
At the same time, in the long-term perspective ignoring the problem would be unethical from the perspective of utilitarianism. Indeed, any external check of pollution would indicate that the plant exceeded legal limitations. The plant would have to pay expensive fines and remodel its equipment. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of the pollution on people is not known, and there is a high risk of adverse health consequences for the tourists and for the people living in the area. The harm done to the fish might destroy the ecosystem and lead to larger environmental issues. Therefore, considering the long-term consequences, Marvin should refuse to ignore the problem and report the real data.
The stakeholders related to the considered case are: Marvin and Edgar, other employees of Wolfog, senior management of Wolfog, the plant’s shareholders or investors, local government, people living in the area and tourists. According to Kantian theory, it is important to treat all these people as “ends in themselves” and respect their interests (Crane & Matten, 2010). Therefore, from the perspective of Kantian theory it is inadmissible to ignore the problem and to “adjust” the data.
Debora’s work responsibilities include checking the compliance of industry reports and anti-pollution requirements. From the position of virtue theory, it is possible to state that she ensures that every company would maintain the balance and demonstrate the virtue of temperance (Guha, 2008). In other words, Debora ensures that companies do not use the environment over the limits provided to them. From Debora’s point of view, the plant manager’s idea to view the excess pollution as a “mere technicality” is unethical; moreover, such occasions should be prohibited and fined to eliminate further occurrences of such behavior.
The position of parents of local children swimming in the lake can be viewed from the point of view of Kantian theory. It is unfair to expose the lives of children to risk in order to save some money for the plant. In this case, plant manager was willing to treat people as means and not ends in themselves. Such approach is deemed as unethical in Kantian ethics (Boylan, 2013).
Ethical analysis of the situation can also be performed using the Categorical Imperative. If a decision or choice is universalizable, non-controversial in the universal perspective and desirable as a universal rule, then it is ethical (Bredeson, 2011). In the considered case, if there were several plants which exceeded the limit on pollution and “adjusted” their pollution reports, the emissions will quickly exceed the acceptable level and harm the health of all people. Such tendency might even harm the well-being of the whole mankind. Therefore, the considered decision is not universalizable and is not desirable as a universal rule. Hence, the idea to “adjust” the results of the report is unethical and should be rejected.
The analysis of the situation at Wolfog was performed from several perspectives: utilitarian (in section 1), deontological (section 2, 4 and 5) and virtue theory perspective (section 3). Each of these ethical theories applied to the situation shows that the idea suggested by the plant manager is unethical and potentially harmful, so Marvin should refuse to “adjust” the results of the report.
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...