Question 2b
Apply the analysis of “Act-Utilitarianism”, “Rule-Utilitarianism” and “Virtue Ethics”, in the case
of the “Aberdeen Three” [Fleddermann 4th Ed pages 51-52; Harris et al 4th Ed pages
234-235], to the “action” of
Action/Recommendation
Ethics category --- Act-Utilitarianism
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz --- managing and
operating the facility, but
having “hazards… left in
open containers; chemicals
that can become lethal
when mixed together stored
in the same rooms; barrels
of toxic chemicals that were
leaking; … an external tank
used to store sulfuric acid
that had leaked 200 gallons
of acid into a local river.”
[Fleddermann 4th Ed page
51]
Workers at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground facility ---
working at the facility, but
having to face the situation
of being “exposed to
hazardous and toxic
chemicals.” [Fleddermann
4th Ed page 51]
Party_#1: Managers Gepp,
Dee and Lentz
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz can argue that
Act-Utilitarianism is not
satisfied because this act
contaminated chemicals that
were essential in the key
operation of the company.
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz can argue that
Act-Utilitarianism is satisfied
if and only if the workers
were well aware of the exact
conditions of their
responsibility in handling
“hazardous and toxic
chemicals” prior to
committing to the
assignments.
Party_#2: Workers at
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Workers at Aberdeen
Proving Ground can argue
that Act-Utilitarianism is not
satisfied because this act
could deteriorate their health
or cause permanent injuries,
leading to decreased in job
performance.
Workers at Aberdeen
Proving Ground can argue
that Act-Utilitarianism is not
satisfied because this act
could kill them if they were
to contact or inhale the
chemicals and their toxic
by-products directly.
Action/Recommendation
Ethics category --- Rule-Utilitarianism
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz --- managing and
operating the facility, but
having “hazards… left in
open containers; chemicals
that can become lethal
when mixed together stored
in the same rooms; barrels
of toxic chemicals that were
leaking; … an external tank
used to store sulfuric acid
that had leaked 200 gallons
of acid into a local river.”
[Fleddermann 4th Ed page
51]
Workers at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground facility ---
working at the facility, but
having to face the situation
of being “exposed to
hazardous and toxic
chemicals.” [Fleddermann
4th Ed page 51]
Party_#1: Managers Gepp,
Dee and Lentz
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz clearly violated
RCRA, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act, which was already
passed in 1976, 7 years
prior to the start of the
operation. Thus,
Rule-Utilitarianism isn’t
satisfied
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz could have violated
Rule-Utilitarianism if the
workers were obligated to
observe safety rules for their
employees if they were part
of the employment
contracts, which lacks any
supportive evidence.
Party_#2: Workers at
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Workers at Aberdeen
Proving Ground would have
violated Rule-Utilitarianism if
they were obligated to
observe safety rules made
by their practice licenses or
the company, but they failed
to report such dangerous
practices to the right
authorities. However, we
lack any supportive
evidence to draw any
conclusion.
Workers at Aberdeen
Proving Ground would have
violated Rule-Utilitarianism if
they were obligated to
observe safety rules made
by their practice licenses or
the company, which lacks
any supportive evidence
Action/Recommendation
Ethics category --- Virtue-Ethics
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz --- managing and
operating the facility, but
having “hazards… left in
open containers; chemicals
that can become lethal
when mixed together stored
in the same rooms; barrels
of toxic chemicals that were
leaking; … an external tank
used to store sulfuric acid
that had leaked 200 gallons
of acid into a local river.”
[Fleddermann 4th Ed page
51]
Workers at the Aberdeen
Proving Ground facility ---
working at the facility, but
having to face the situation
of being “exposed to
hazardous and toxic
chemicals.” [Fleddermann
4th Ed page 51]
Party_#1: Managers Gepp,
Dee and Lentz
Managers Gepp, Dee and
Lentz violated the virtue
ethics of responsibility
against the environment.
They could argue that they
satisfied the virtue ethics of
honesty & loyalty if and only
if they reported their
problematic practices to
their client, the Army. (this is
quite likely & needs to be
watched against)
They could argue that they
satisfied the virtue ethics of
honesty & responsibility if
and only if they explicitly
included the hazards in the
employment contracts with
all Pilot Plant workers. (this
is quite likely & needs to be
watched against)
Party_#2: Workers at
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Workers at Aberdeen
Proving Ground could have
violated the virtue ethics of
responsibility & honesty for
not reporting the hazards
that harm the environment &
health of residents living
downstream of the river.
They could argue that they
satisfied the virtue ethics of
loyalty if their contract
required their confidentiality
regarding this practice.
(this is quite likely & needs
to be watched against)
They could argue that they
satisfied the virtue ethics of
responsibility, honesty and
loyalty if their contract
specified the hazards
involved in their job &
demanded confidentiality.
(this is quite likely & needs
to be watched against)