Final Essays

Qais Hroub

PHIL 334-451

CASE 5: Cartex

In a company where several technological advancements and research take place, it is

easy to be faced with ethical issues, like in the company called Cartex, where an idea flashed in

Bens mind for a military submarine. Ben however is a pacifist and is faced with a dilemma on

whether to mention the idea to his superiors or not. Is it acceptable if Ben decides to pretend

the idea never came to him? Is Ben concealing an invention that he is obligated to report since

the company owns all inventions developed by Ben?

In this course we learned that misusing the truth is ethically wrong and withholding

information is a way of misusing the truth. On the other hand Ben, being a pacifist, has some

personal moral values and he is against any kind of violence, especially army activities and

weapons. The question is, is Ben really concealing anything? Is he withholding information?

Even though Ben has an obligation to report any inventions developed, his idea is not

really developed. It’s just an idea that could be developed and could be very profitable if
developed, but it’s not actually developed. It’s just an idea that would probably still need a lot

of work before it actually becomes an invention. Therefore, Ben is not really concealing

anything. Off course, if Cartex asks Ben in the future if he has any ideas about a military

submarine, Ben would be obligated to tell them his idea, but that is not likely to happen, since

Bens superiors already know of his antimilitary sentiments, and a question like that could cause

Ben a conflict of interest. Ben is great resource to the company and the public since he has

critical loyalty to the company. Just for the purpose of line drawing we could look at Da Vinci’s

precedent case, where he discovered a way to make a sort of submarine, but he refused to

reveal the idea, because he feared that it would be used for violence or other immoral

purposes. Da Vinci’s moral values did not permit him to create this vessel, even though the

submarine has been invented a while after Da Vinci. But why didn’t Da Vinci create the

submarine anyways, since he must have known that someone else would have invented it

sooner or later?

Da Vinci had strong moral values, even though he probably knew that the submarine

could have been invented sooner or later, he still decided to not make it and delay its debut for

the good of humanity. Similarly, Ben must know that this ultrasound idea would someday be

invented by someone else and installed on military submarines, but if his morality is strong

enough, the right thing to do would be not to invent or mention this idea to anyone. It is wrong

to do something only because it may probably be done sooner or later by someone else. We

should stick to our moral values no matter what, unless if a compromise is necessary.
 CASE 14: Halting a Dangerous Project

In an era of cold war it is very critical to make a correct decision on whether or not to

halt production of weapons for a country that could be involved in the cold war. Sam had to

make a critical decision and his was to halt production. Was this decision acceptable? Was the

risk acceptable? Even though it cost the company a $15,000 penalty for breaking the contract

and $2 million in profits, did Sam protect anyone from any risks? Did he have any rights or

obligations to take such action?

One of our main obligations as engineers, according to the NSPE Codes of Ethics, is that

we must hold the wellbeing of the public as paramount. Since Sam was faced with the dilemma

during the cold war period in the 1980s and the Eastern European country was known for

stealing patents and doing business with terrorist organizations, there was a high risk of both

tight coupling and complex interactions. The Eastern European, country according to its

reputation, could very well “negate the safety aspects of the trigger and make the landmines

more dangerous than any others on the market”. They might even start manufacturing similar

mines with negated triggers and start selling them to terrorist organizations, which could lead a

transformation from a cold war to a world war, causing all sorts of disasters and fatalities

contrary to public wellbeing, not to mention his colleague’s rage being war veterans.

Sam’s decision exemplifies critical loyalty, in that he is loyal to Alpha Electronics, but at

the same time he protects the public from risk of harm. But what makes it so different of selling

these devices to the NATO rather than the Eastern European country? One could argue that
there is a conflict of interest since Sam is a citizen of a country part of the NATO alliance. Even

though that is true, the conflict of interest is not the main reason of Sam’s decision. He was

mostly worried about the end user of the trigger devices as they could be terrorists. On the

other hand the NATO at least were worried about children and wanted the device to be trigger

able only for a certain period of time, to avoid children accidents in the future when playing in

old minefields. When the company used to sell these devices to the NATO, it was an established

fact that the NATO would use them for making minefields safer for children after the political

conflicts.

What is surprising, however, is that he took the matter into his own hands without even

notifying his employer. The employer has the right to know about everything that is going on,

especially when it has to do with such large penalties and profit losses. From the looks of it the

employer does not look corrupt and they praised and thanked him when he halted the

production. Sam could have halted the production right after the NATO contract ended and

before the Eastern European Country contract started to avoid unnecessary production. The

reason that didn’t happen might be the reluctance of employers to provide information to

employees. If the employer informed Sam that they were planning to sign a contract with that

Eastern European country before hand, Sam would have informed the employers about the

countries reputation and his refusal of production for such a client beforehand and possibly

halting production even earlier and avoiding the $15,000 penalty for broken contract.

It is obvious that Sam, given the situation, made the right decision by halting production

and contacting the U.S. State Department’s Office of Munitions Controls. If I was in his place I
would have also contacted the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Export Administration, as

well as the Defense Department. In addition, I would also have a relationship with my employer

ensuring that I provide them all information available to me relating to any business or

production in return for the same from my employers to avoid any such contracts signed

because of lack of information or other such situations. It is wrong to misuse the truth by

withholding vital information between employers and employees that could cause dilemmas

and losses. People need to be autonomous and they cannot be so unless they have the

necessary information.
 CASE 25: Oil Spill?

It is a beautiful thing when a successful engineer has a very good strong, trusting and

friendly relationship with his manager, but this could sometimes lead to a real dilemma when

the manager opens up in confidence and reveals some 60 year old secret about a chemical spill

that could either be hazardous to the environment and the citizens or could have dissipated by

now. The state requires him to report all spills, but what about spills 60 years ago? An engineer

should also maintain client confidentiality when the safety of the public is not at risk, but is the

safety of the public at risk?

It would be good to know for sure beforehand whether there is some certain deadline

to report such a spill. If not, it might be impossible to find out without revealing the information

and alarming the public. Since Peter doesn’t know, he first needs to find out if there is a risk to

the public. Jesse mentioned “that the concentration of the chemical in the groundwater within

400 feet of the well was essentially zero”. If I was in that situation, I would immediately explain

to Jesse that I am also obliged by my “own engineering code of ethics” to hold the safety of the

public as paramount, and that the public obligation outweighs the client confidentiality. Then I

would explain to him how ethics are very important in engineering practice and that he

wouldn’t want me to be an unethical engineer, or employ one, after all the work I’ve done to

make the company follow regulations to the letter. Since he is a friend of mine and he trusted

me, I would explain that I would take it upon myself to find out if there actually is a risk and

keep all test procedures confidential for now. I would make an agreement with him that if I
ever find a risk to the public, I would have to report it right away, and he could do to my career

whatever he pleases. If no risk found, I would be more than happy to keep my client

confidentiality.

In order to figure out whether there is risk in order to make my final decision, I would

first find out whether the chemical spilled has a higher density or lower than water. If higher

density, I would check for much deeper water levels in the wells and possibly. I would also

check within 400 feet, to make sure Jesse didn’t lie to me. Who knows what else he lied to me

about or what other truth he misused? I would test aquifers possibly connected and other

surrounding ones for chemical concentration in water.

If I determine that there is no risk of contamination right now, I shall not report

anything, but will continue monthly tests of the specific aquifer to make sure the chemical has

dissipated and there is no risk of harm to the public. I would make sure that somebody is always

testing the waters even after I change jobs or quit. I believe if the chemical never shows up in

the wells in a lifetime, then it would most probably never show. In my will, I would ask

somebody to report that back in the 1950, there was a chemical spill of so composition, and I

chose to not report it, because it was already too late, there was nothing that could have been

done, and I never found a risk of harm, and would ask the government to continue to monitor

those wells and keep the spill confidential for the meantime. In this case the client

confidentiality obligation prevails, because there is no actual risk to the public.

If I find out there is an actual risk due to a certain concentration of the chemicals in the

aquifer waters, then I shall hold the safety and wellbeing of the public paramount by reporting
the spill and doing what’s necessary to eliminate all possible risks. My obligation to the public

overrides my client confidentiality obligation when the safety of the public is at stake.

An engineer often has to make hard decisions that are a matter of life and death and

millions of dollars, especially when two of the codes of ethics conflict. Sometimes it is necessary

to reach some kind of compromise even if it means taking it upon yourself to keep doing tests

to ensure everything is alright It is often helpful to explain your codes of ethics to others to

make them understand your position. Before making any decision, we need to figure out which

obligation is more important and which is more relative to the situation.